A digital archive showcasing the extensive collection of jewellery and adornment images shared on the former Ethnic Jewels Ning site over the years. These images have significantly enriched discussions on cultural adornment and its global dispersion.
You need to be a member of Adorned Histories to add comments!
Request your copy of our newsletter.
If you would like to receive our newsletter
Comments
This is a nice fib -- I think that the coral pieces look older since they seem to be naturally shaped and have not been replaced with composite or plastic. Is there enameling on the back? Or is the major part of the fib actually an MT thaler? I think in either case that would also signify an older piece. Of course this is all conjecture on my part, just some observations from experience. I have bought some of these in the past from Hillary, she is more experienced in these pieces. Hopefully, she will chime in.
I find myself reacting in the same way as Patti, Preethi. It is not actually very easy to see all the detail one would like to, but I don't find myself thinking that the piece must be new. The corals are fabulous, and the whole piece is extremely attractive. But I would in any case much like to see more (as I am sure would others), and I defer to those who know more than I do. Meanwhile, I love the piece whatever its age!
This looks vintage- doesn't have the wear that antique pieces do. Is is missing it's round fibula loop? Is the round area with the large, chunky coral opening like the round fibulas with a small central opening? Can we see the back side and some close-ups?
Hillary: I have no argument with what you say, but in enlarging the piece I find that the silver near the corals at the bottom do show some patina and accumulated dirt where you would expect it, and on of them, on the right, has two little dents which do not seem recent. I am not implying the piece is "antique", and "vintage" may well be the right word, but it does seem to me possible that it was - to an extent - worn. The silver work otherwise does look remarkably fresh, regular and unworn, so that does suggest something probably not very old. Do these comments make sense?
It would in any case be wonderful to get more photos, not least of the back! A very well made and appealing piece, I feel, well worth spending time on (and indeed owning, whatever the age).
Thanks for your input, everyone.
Patti, this is much larger than a Maria Theresa thaler; I should have thought of including a size reference earlier. But here are some photos indicating size and of the back of the piece.
There's little wear on the back of the piece, which makes me think this is not very old. But the huge chunks of coral threw me off. Fibula were worn on cloaks; so where would the wear be on piece like this?
Very good to see the photos. I agree that the piece is, upon closer inspection, not likely to be very old. Preethi, you are right about the absence of wear on the back. Another important point was put to me by Pierre Loos, a Belgian collector and renowned dealer with a lot of specialist knowledge on jewellery from North Africa. (I had put your piece on Facebook.) He points out that the early pieces never had the long tubes which we here see as holding the all-important corals. As Pierre puts it himself: "the tube supporting the coral [was] very short or inexistant" (I quote him literally). This structural point seems to me a crucial one, along with - on both sides, really - lack of the sort of wear that an older piece should have. Accordingly I think the piece is recent, or at any rate was not made long ago, and for the purpose of selling it as an object of beauty rather than with a view to it being worn. Very attractive for what it is, but not in any form an "antique".
Thanks very much for posting it on your FB page, Joost. Appreciate your help.
That's a very interesting point about the tube. Does anyone have an image of an older one to compare with?
Here is the back part of a tabzimpt with the opening and enamel.
But there are also fibulas made like this which do not have the opening. Here is one like yours from the internet which is dated lated nineteenth century (I don't know if that is the real date,thought)
This one has the fibula loop included, but does not have the hole and is,in general, smaller than the usual tabzimpt. It was called an adwir in the description. I have several ones smaller than yours like this -- the only difference is that they are enamelled on the back , either enamelled or MT thalers, and they have the loop, and I have always considered them early to mid 20th century which makes them almost antique.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next