Gallery

Comments

• 

  Alaa eddine SAGID July 3, 2011 at 12:23am

  Thank you becky

   

  I remember when i was 20, i was just beginning collecting ethnic jewelry, and one day i was at shop in Marrakech and there comes an old man selling old stuff (jewellery and daggers) to the shopkeeper. we sat and chatted for a long time and he eventually ended giving me one method to recognise old jewellery from newlymade ones.

   

  Whenever you see marks of a lime (the tool), it has been made recently.

   

  When we compare the face of the buckle (extremely patinated) with the backside we end up wondering how come the lime marks are still visible, they should have faded away trought the close contact with the blet and the outfit  at least at the same level of the front patina..

   

  Furthermore the use of a lime was virtually unheard of amonf the old silversmithing techniques.

  see my comment on the khamsa closeup
  
• 

  SARAH CORBETT July 3, 2011 at 12:46am

  Again the wear to the back, and the closure are not in keeping with the wear to the front.

  Sx
• 

  Joost Daalder July 3, 2011 at 2:42am

  I still have not the slightest problem. The thing that most immediately stands out is that the top remains fully what one would expect an old piece to be. The underside of the top piece of silver, in other words, looks just as much right as the very worn and polished top. The top has clearly been polished much more than the bottom of the piece as a whole, which is exactly what one would expect. But the bottom of the piece seems to look natural enough. The wear is not as intense: not surprising, as it is the top which would get handled and polished more frequently. The underside of belt buckles, from various cultures, is normally far less heavily rubbed and polished than the side that is shown to onlookers.