Gallery

Comments

• 

  Joost Daalder August 14, 2011 at 9:55pm

  Some interesting resemblances to Uzbeki pieces here. A pleasing pair, Kim, in good condition.
• 

  kim price August 14, 2011 at 11:42pm

  Alot of what I buy is called 'Kuchi'.  I am open to suggestions as these are fairly identical to Marie-Ange's and she calls hers 'Uzbek'. Karim also has a pair and calls his 'Ghazni'. I think they all look pretty much the same.  I have a matching necklace and earrings which I'll put up later.
  Marie-Ange's looks to have turquoise and mine have glass, which is how many of my pieces come. These could be a replacement for lost original stones. Karim's looks as tho is may have a mix of glass and turq, I am interested to find out.  These are a sweet pair, very light and easy to wear, but not in the spectacular category and I do not think they are extremely old.
• 

  Joost Daalder August 15, 2011 at 2:34am

  For the turquoise coloured pieces, both turquoise and glass seem to have been used, and the difference is not always easy to tell. Usually the turquoise shows a "softer" look, more irregular shapes, and in particular variation in colour (often quite a bit of variation). I am not immediately convinced that yours here are necessarily glass pieces, but they could be, particularly - I feel - because of the colouring. It is no great concern, I feel: turquoise is nicer as it is more lively and a more valuable material, but it's not as though it's really particularly precious either. More important, I think, is that you get that soft look and the colour variations. As for the general look: an Uzbeki aesthetic has at the least had an influence on these. However, as there is not much geographical distance and also considerable cultural overlap it is not always easy to make a distinction. My overall feeling is that these look as though they are in an Uzbeki MANNER, but not made there: rather too "rigid", in all senses, for that, is what my instinct tells me.
• 

  kim price August 15, 2011 at 2:42am

  these are actually glass beads that are used on their sides, on some you can see this better than others....I would prefer turquoise, I like that irregular colour and variation.
• 

  Joost Daalder August 15, 2011 at 2:50am

  Good to have one's curiosity satisfied and to know that these are glass - that does not come as a shock. It's all well done, anyway: but I agree with you, turquoise is the more interesting and satisfying material.
• 

  Amir February 29, 2012 at 8:18pm

  this pair has striking resemblance to the baloch bracelets.i doubt they are kuchi bracelets..maybe i am wrong but the extant i know,they are baloch bracelets..in fact let me share some pictures here.
• 

  Joost Daalder February 29, 2012 at 10:55pm

  Hi Amir, - Personally I'd have no difficulty accepting these as coming from Balochistan, or Baluchistan as many people from the West know it. The cultures we have been discussing are all close together, with much influence upon each other, resemblances, etc, so it is not always easy to keep them confidentially apart, and as you are close to the scene I am happy to be guided!
• 

  kim price March 1, 2012 at 2:38am

  Hello Amir, Thank you for your information, my identification is from my dealer but I am aware of the cross influence of many cultures. If you are confident in your identification I will happily accept that. Your bracelets are very similar I agree. https://ethnicjewels.ning.com/photo/baloch-silver-bracelet?context=user
• 

  Joost Daalder March 1, 2012 at 6:13am

  As you say, Kim, there is cross influence all over the place. However, I do think your pieces are markedly more attractive, and I do find myself wondering whether this is just a matter of a better smith with better taste or whether after all the two types were made in more than one culture but with some subtle though not unimportant differences. And there is another factor, too: people often call one and the same object by a different name if it occurs in more than one culture. I have seen people argue vehemently as to whether an object was Naga or Mizoram: and the conclusion one could only come to, as an observer, was that each party had seen the same piece, and ON THAT BASIS ascribed it to the place where they had seen it. Another difficulty is that an object is often named, not after the place where it was made, but after the place through which it was exported. And so on ... It's a difficult issue!