Meteorite Dagger?

[nechesh]

Originally Posted by BSMStar

I believe it is possible if the concentration of meteoritic material is high enough. The only issue would be if an exotic alloy was used with the fingerprint traces as ingredients… not likely in a 200 year old Keris.

But isn't this the rub. I mean, would the concentration of meteoritic really be all that high in a 200 year old keris. Not 50 percent certainly, at least not in the entirety of the blade. Yes, it would probably be concentrated in the pamor areas, but what keris collector that you know is going to alloww someone to polish off ANY amount of the pamor on their keris for testing. Not me, for sure. Frankly i think the obsession with meteorite blades (keris in partictular) is way out of hand anyway. It is not the main determining factor for a good keris. In fact someone has yet to prove to me that it was even used in keris before the Prambanan fall in the mid 18thC, so it is not therefore vital to the art. In many ways this reminds me of the effects of gold fever. I still don't see that the methods discribed are viable in determining tghis question, even if technically it is possible.

[BSMStar]

nechesh, as earlier stated, testing your collection may not be desirable. I would not take a valuable Pusaka and test it (any why would you want to). But I believe I have made the point that testing old blades which are not deemed “valuable,” to see what percentage of the population may contain meteoritic material, may have some worth. My gut feel is that it well be far fewer than people think. It may let us know if there is indeed a look (a pamor affect) and feel (tactile response) to the blades that contain meteorite. Therefore, there will be some benefit for the research effort that could be applied to blades in our collections (or we may find out you can only tell by testing).

I think the rub is talking someone to doing the research… and giving up the samples.

[nechesh]

Frankly Wayne, i'm not too sure i really like the thought of ANY keris being destroyed for this purpose. I can tell you (though i certainly can't prove it ) that your gut feeling on this matter is most probably entirely correct. I think you would find a relatively few keris actually contain this material. I would also image that when meteorite was used it was not for unimportant blades, so i'm not too sure that looking for meteorite in what some refer to as "junk" blades is going to prove very much since these blades are not likely to contain it. I do believe there is a look and feel that does indicate the likelihood of meteorite and i believe these clues have been discussed in the past, but i think that the only way to really convey this information would be studying these blades in person with someone who is familar with this ID process. It's a bit hard to get that kind of knowledge across on the internet. Ultimitely i think that determining this matters much more to market values and dealers than it does to the real study of keris, but i guess that's just my way of looking at it. It would be nice to know if i had a meteorite keris, but i am not up to destroying any keris to prove it.

[BSMStar]

nechesh, I understand your position. On the Japanese side, knowing they use damaged and broken swords… did not lighten the pain to a collector… that they are in turn cut up... and analyzed. But even if a number of old “not valuable” Keris were tested, they would then be a part of an invaluable/indispensable collection of reference pieces, although further damaged by the testing. But I fully understand not wanting to do this with any (historically valuable) piece (and to me, they all are historically valuable), there will be no replacing them. As I have said, it depends on how bad do you want to know.....

Hey Jeff...

The earlier pic that you posted, is this a "meteorite blade?" It would be interesting to find out as to what affects on layering that you've noticed and at what percent meteorite material.

[Jeff Pringle]

Yes, that blade had 2 patterned pieces of 50% meteorite material sandwitching a piece w/o meteorite. The light layers are pretty much all E.T., and the main thing I noticed while making the blade was how easily Campo Del Cielo forges together, compared to other irons.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'effects on layering,' though, can you be more specific?
If meteoric nickel was all they had to bring out high contrast in the old blades, I bet the ET metal is not very diluted - in the light layers of the pamor.

[BSMStar]

Originally Posted by Jeff Pringle

I'm not sure what you mean by 'effects on layering,' though, can you be more specific?

It is my understanding that the cause of pamor is due to the “layers” of nickel and iron (and steel). When stained, the solution of arsenic and lime juice turns the iron black and the nickel remains basically unstained. When creating a mixture of “iron” and meteorite, what happens to the nickel in the process… does it “mix” or does it tend to separate and create “bands” of nickel in the iron (making its own pamor)?

[nechesh]

Originally Posted by BSMStar

It is my understanding that the cause of pamor is due to the “layers” of nickel and iron (and steel). When stained, the solution of arsenic and lime juice turns the iron black and the nickel remains basically unstained. When creating a mixture of “iron” and meteorite, what happens to the nickel in the process… does it “mix” or does it tend to separate and create “bands” of nickel in the iron (making its own pamor)?

While nickel is certainly used as a pamor material and gives quite a better contrast i just wanted to remind everyone once again of the work of Professor Jerzy Piaskowski who determined that many old keris may have used no nickel whatsoever and achieved pamor contrast through the use of different types of iron that i believe may have had different phosphorous levels that create the contrast. I think that perhaps Alan Maisey can address your last question (certainly more accurately than i could ) and perhaps follow up a little on Piaskowski's work with keris materials.