Gallery

Comments

• 

  Joost Daalder July 10, 2011 at 2:31pm

  This  is very appealing. I cannot judge the age myself, but take you on trust. And the MATERIAL is wonderful! Do you wear these? They seem very wearable, with colours that would go well with many materials. Do you specialise in beads?? One gets that impression!! Agate is a great material.
• 

  Stefany Tomalin July 10, 2011 at 5:18pm

  the stratas of the layered agates are wonderful-

  can you give dimensions?

  how can we verify the date?

  are the holes straight or conical, drilled in halfway from either end?

  are some of the smaller between beads of a rounded triangular cross-section?
• 

  Luda Hunter July 12, 2011 at 10:28am

  Hi Stefany...the 4 larger beads are 33 x 23mm. The holes are definitely hand drilled, quite large and vary greatly at both ends of any given bead with many not having a perfect round hole. I did buy this several years ago from a reputable dealer and have seen a similar one on Ebay bought from the Old Beads website and that too suggested it was around that date.... I often pull these out and simply handle them as they feel absolutely glorious!
• 

  Jamey D. Allen July 12, 2011 at 2:43pm

  I have handled and documented quite a few of these 3rd millennium BCE agate beads.  The beads in this ensemble are so much alike, I have to suspect they may be reproductions.  Plus, the ART (esthetic) of individual beads is not quite right.  I cannot be confident from only viewing a photograph.  But I am doubtful of their authenticity.  I have already documented quite a few varieties of recent reproductions.  Jamey
• 

  Joost Daalder July 12, 2011 at 2:53pm

  The question of historicity is becoming a very major issue in these discussions, and while it is important, and we should probably all prefer to know exactly what we have or what is shown, I also think that many of the people posting here do so because they like what they have, irrespective of age, and like to share their pleasure with others. Personally I am happy to look at these beads on aesthetic grounds alone, and to an extent that is the most central matter for me!
• 

  Jamey D. Allen July 12, 2011 at 3:13pm

  Dear Joost, In this instance we have an ensemble labeled "Ancient Bactrian"--that may be anything but ancient, and may have been made expressly to copy "Bactrian" beads.  (That name is also subject to discussion, interpretation, and reinterpretation.)  I saw a post at BC.N, where Sarah has said, "I would really be appreciative of some expert opinions."  I came here via her links answering that call.  I have already said I like everything beads.  I don't feel compelled to say I think these are beautiful--though I do.  Who cares whether or not I like them (?).  Jamey
• 

  Luda Hunter July 13, 2011 at 12:13am

  Thanks for all your comments regarding these and other beads I have posted. I find all feedback extremely valuable. I am first and foremost a jewelry designer and have always collected and purchased beads and elements not for any serious collector/investment reasons, rather for their vibration, soul connection and aesthetics appeal. As my incurable addiction to hunting and gathering beads has grown to the point of madness, I now find myself seeking the stories and knowledge behind them and is precisely the reason why I have joined this wonderful jewel site.  Prince or pauper, my jewels will still be much loved,  so... bring it on!!! Once again, many thanks one and all!
• 

  Joost Daalder July 13, 2011 at 12:56am

  @Luda: To quote you, "I am first and foremost a jewelry designer and have always collected and purchased beads and elements not for any serious collector/investment reasons, rather for their vibration, soul connection and aesthetics appeal." This is exactly what I had in mind when I pointed out that the discussion of your (and some other people's) pieces was in some danger of not taking this sufficiently into account. But, @Jamey: obviously I respect your passion for accuracy as well, and my remark was not meant to be in any sense personal. Things should, of course, be as accurately identified as we can. I just felt - and with some real concern - that of late several comments have gone right "past" the factors that Luda mentions as her primary concern in concentrating very heavily on matters of age and authenticity. One gets at times a sense that in such considerations the primary reason why much jewellery is bought and enjoyed, i.e. that it is found emotionally affective, gets overlooked, and that we might as well discuss any object purely in a technical, scientific way.
  
• 

  Jamey D. Allen July 13, 2011 at 1:41am

  Dear Luda and Joost--Your comments made me smile.  I began making jewelry at the age of sixteen, in an environment where boys did not wear jewelry, and (at best) men wore a tie-tack and cufflinks--or Army "dogtags."   My interest in jewelry-making (also clothes design, and anything I was motivated to try to do) was usually looked upon as freaky and weird, but I chose my own path.  I did beadwork daily for five years, and frequently for another five, and began to become interested in all sorts of beads when I moved to San Francisco in 1970 and lived near two great early bead stores.  The delight I have found in acquiring and using beads is very deep in my soul.  After a short time, I began to understand that beads encapsulate history--and I began to study them earnestly.  Having worked at The Bead Store (Castro Street in SF) in 1972, I learned to communicate about beads, and to discern what stories told about them seemed realistic and what was mistaken or garbled.  With the introduction of tons of beads from Africa, I began to understand that MANY beads have false stories connected with them. In particular, I studied amber for two years to gain a perspective that crossed esthetics, international uses, paleobotany, alterations and preparations, substitutes, and imitations--and the fact that considerable plastic was passed-off as authentic.  This was the beginning of my career as a bead historian.  But I have never lost my passion for beads themselves, nor for the enjoyment of expressions of their use by people around the world.  I am fundamentally a working artist--and my hands-on work is making jewelry.  I admire not only my own work, but that which remains from antiquity, from tribal societies around the world, fashion jewelry, and "real" jewelry.  But as I wrote earlier, I don't think it's important that anyone know what I think about any particular piece.  I LIKE IT ALL.  Some things I like or prefer more than others.  But it is very funny to me if anyone were to assume my passion is all about "technical stuff."  I am a kindred soul as well.  Jamey
• 

  Joost Daalder July 13, 2011 at 4:11am

  Thank you for that interesting and valuable statement, Jamey. Like yourself, I am also one of these "oddball" males that has liked jewellery from a very early age: I suppose it is simply in our blood, ultimately. I cannot understand those who do not respond. So I am reassured that behind - or by the side of! - your passion for analysis there is also a passion for aesthetics. I don't quite understand, though, why you should feel that your aesthetic reaction would not be of interest to others: on the contrary, given your long-standing experience and interest in the subject (both aesthetic and scientific), I would think that it is greatly intriguing to others to know which pieces you like and why. While you may in theory "like it all", there must still be some pieces that you like more than others (I daresay, or am I wrong??), or it would surely still be true - at the very least - that even if you like two pieces equally, there may be quite different reasons involved, which would certainly be of potential interest to others. I think these are things we CAN talk about, and regularly do, as jewellery lovers. While Luda courageously states that she does want to be told the truth about what she has - and I am sure that this is genuine, wise, and admirable - it is also interestingly the case that her enjoyment of a piece like this will remain the same no matter what it actually turns out to be, and I find that a very interesting matter. In the present instance, I can also totally understand that reaction. While it matters for price, and as a matter of interest, whether this is Bactrian or not, I find myself ultimately not caring much, as I doubt that the aesthetic nature of our reception is greatly affected either way. I felt myself uncertain about the age, which is why I said I took her "on trust" (i.e. assumed that the age was known); and one reason why I felt largely indifferent, and still do, is that I think the quality of what we see would probably not be greatly enhanced or diminished by the age of what we see. In other instances, the age would, I think, greatly matter, for example if the appeal of a piece is significantly viewed as lying in its patina, and that patina turns out to be false. Even then, I note with interest that that does not necessarily matter to others. I find these matters of relationship between age/manufacture and beauty, to put it simplistically, in principle very interesting, and this is where I tend to get somewhat nervous if aesthetics are discussed without any reference to age (particularly if the age question does potentially impinge on our appreciation), but I feel even more restless if the discussion centres purely on questions of a technical nature without any reference to aesthetics - and particularly if I am inclined to think that our knowing the age of a piece does not actually greatly affect our aesthetic appreciation of it. That's why I then think that, although we ought to know - I agree - just what we are looking at in terms of age or manufacture, somehow such considerations become (if taken in isolation) rather "dry" and overlook what seems to me the central reason why people collect jewellery, which ultimately surely is always somehow an aesthetic one, unless they are preoccupied only with money. I hope I have clarified a bit better, this way, why I felt some concern! What fascinated me in (at least) two recent reactions from people who were told that in all probability their pieces were new or almost new, they still continued to like them. In essence, I think that that shows that they had bought their pieces for what seem to me the right reasons: not for money, or age, or "importance" as defined by markets, museum curators, etc, but because they LIKED the pieces.