This past year, on a trip abroad, I was shown two "ancient Chinese head pendants." I immediately said they were fakes, and that I was familiar with them—and had published several in my Istanbul paper from 2007.

I remarked that these were loosely based on Phoenician Period head beads and pendants, and were made differently—so their authenticity was easily challenged.

He said, "But these are Chinese antiquities, so they need not look like the Mediterranean pieces."

And then he showed me a short published report, by a Chinese archaeologist, purporting to affirm that the two pendants shown (that were nearly identical to the two pieces I was looking at) were indeed ancient and authentic. I took a photo of the report. And also photos of the pendants we were discussing.

Once I returned to the US, I contacted Robert Liu, and told him about this exchange. And said I had seen the person's two head pendants, and the short report. (I knew Robert would be interested, and his connection to the situation was that he supplied me with photos for my Istanbul paper of 2007.)

Robert said, "I know this report." (!) "The Chinese archaeologist is in big trouble in China, for having been duped into writing a report about fake beads, being passed off as authentic antiquities."

(I am paraphrasing all of the above dialogues from my memory. But they present the gist of actual conversations.)

So, from all this, we know: 1) Fake Chinese head pendants that slightly resemble Phoenician Period specimens, are being manufactured and passed-off as Chinese antiquities. 2), A Chinese archaeologist was duped into contributing to the scam—and will suffer professionally for the error. 3) A report exists and is being circulated, that purports to affirm the authenticity of these products—but it is a scam.

Jamey

It's definitely an interesting seal, and the wear looks as though it may be authentic. But, as with everything, there are many good (as well as bad) fakes out there. Do you have an impression of it? Even although it appears to be heavily worn, it's amazing how the pattern can reveal itself in a rolled-out impression. And that might help with dating.

And are you sure it's actually hematite? I'm asking because I have a hematite seal myself; I couldn't find it this morning, but then I thought I saw it at the back of a box. It turned out actually to be black steatite, which was obvious as soon it was in the palm of my hand. I'm still looking for the hematite one. The most beautiful I've seen was one that I remember Joyce showing here some time ago.

I love hematite; if it wasn't for jade, I think hematite would be my favourite material for beads and small carvings. It's the density, seemingly half-stone, half metal, and the glow, the sheen that it assumes with polishing.

I'll attach a couple of examples. The first is a pendant that, according to Yankee, is probably later Nautifian from West Asia, a stunning 10,000 or so years old. And the second is one that I treasure, a hematite frog amulet, that I've assumed until recently was Babylonian (mid-second millennium BCE). But then I saw a very similarly carved bead in a museum that was said to be Sumerian, so it may possibly be quite a bit earlier than I thought. More work required!

Cheers,

Will

PS There was an interesting discussion about hematite on here about six or seven years ago, in which Yankee showed a number of very helpful examples.

I am an educator and consumer advocate. Since 1998 I have been writing to people at eBay, giving them correct information, and advice on pricing structures. Sometimes I have contacted over ten people a day. In the early days of eBay, one could contact potential buyers, and warn them that they were bidding on a pig-in-a-poke. (Sometimes they didn't care!) I have received a lot of static and hostility in-reply. Also some sincere thanks for the assist. This still happens—though I contact people with much less frequency. And I know my efforts are essentially a waste of time, except sometimes interpersonally.

There are some discussions here about pricing and value. They sometimes result in drama and disagreements—so I try to stay out of pricing arguments. But I think it is a truism that everything is more expensive now than it used to be. And a lot of this escalation is based on misinformation and graft. And many people exploit this, and play-into it.

Beads have become "big business" compared to when I started out in the '60s.

As a coin dealer I advise buyers to not worry too much about fake Chinese coins in the under-$10 range, BUT nonetheless take into account a seller's full offerings. It's amazing how cheap a coin can be and still be worth faking, either for contemporary circulation, or for promotional "antique" sets. Where labor costs are low, the fake threshold is also.

Outing fakes on ebay, and trying to get ebay to police fakes are jobs many in the coin hobby have taken on with varying success over the years. For a while ebay was suspending accounts of people who contacted potential buyers to warn of fakes. An ebay discussion group on coin fakes was shut down and had to go to Yahoo Groups. More recently I heard they had granted someone(s) a sort of status as fake spotter and would actively check the things they reported. I've reported fakes to sites (like Trocadero) and platforms (like Liveauctioneers.com) that are havens for sellers who don't know or don't care, just to see what action they take: none. And yes, it's amazing how many dealers - and collectors - don't want to hear about fakes.

Always helps to have good lighting, and excellent magnification- like a lighted Jeweler's loupe.

If it is a Bead that is Popular and Expensive you know it is most likely Faked a LOT and so be very cautious and skeptical.

People Misrepresent Beads a Lot and Not always on purpose.

I have some of those Beads also- the Resin ones- and they are an affordable alternative for Jewelry Makers that like the Look and the Style.

As you probably know, the Agate/Calcedony dZi beads are being artificially aged and put through some type of roller that produces circular and crescent surface marks. These marks occur naturally when glass and stone beads, or marbles, are hit by another bead or similar and receive surface fractures over time.

Good luck in your Bead Collecting. Luckily there are many Generous and Knowledgable Bead Lovers, Collectors and Researchers in this Forum. I am always learning here, and grateful.

Holiday Best Wishes, and Happy New Year!

Anne

happy new year from Berlin and thank you for your response.
I just figured out for myself, that all the fakes on the market are a good way to understand how the beads were made. It is like a reverse engineering process, which leads from time to time in the right direction.
At the same time I think to myself that there must be documents explaining in detail how a "good" fake is made. Wouldn't it be great to have a video documentary of some specialists trying to show how the beads were made?

Cheers, Josh

The necklace is certainly not recent, because it was in the same collection for many years before it came on the market. And the friends I asked for an opinion about it before I decided to buy it, include one of the most respected curators of Asian art at the Met in NewYork and a couple of people from Sotheby's. None of that is ever foolproof, of course. Fakes can still slip by, but I'd certainly stack it up against someone who has only seen a medium quality pic online before making a sweeping generalization.

Cheers,

Will

However, I was surprised to see the author has harvested a photo from the Michaan's Auctions catalogue—Naomi Lindstrom Collection, that was perhaps the most impressive opportunity to acquire collector beads since the previous decade or longer.

Here's a shot of the catalogue page, followed by the necklace I made for Ms Lindstrom using these same beads. Due to manipulations committed by someone who claimed to be able to sell these beads, if the necklace could be dismantled, it no longer exists as such. (And that person did not sell a single bead from the group—which was how they came to be offered one by one, or in small groups). JDA.

My friend has a Bhutanese friend, whose family have Dzi heirloom beads. I'm hoping for some photos and information from her and will share it when and if it comes to be.

My friend went on a religious Trek to Tibet and I told him the little I knew about Dzi beads, and warned him of the fakes they artificially age and machine (?) to produce those surface crescent marks - often found on Old glass and some Old stone. He sent photos of the prominent bead stalls in the market place, and bead hawkers in the street selling, with crowds of onlookers. He did buy a new 9 eyed Dzi bead, and was told that even the new beads are Dzi beads so long as they are chalcedony and made in the Old way. He carried his bead on his Kalish Kora, which is supposed to "charge" it.

It is funny to see a Travel Brochure so focused on a bead, and the content is pretty amusing, for sure! No doubt every tourist will have a bead after visiting Bhutan, which is a good thing, so long as they didn't overpay.

EDIT: The Bhutan Dzi bead Travel brochure is Cut and Pasted straight off the internet from multiple sources, with a few changes Z yo Dzi, etc. Not surprised.

They also did not use a short segment in which I showed Jamie Colby how to tie knots between beads, and briefly discussed authenticity versus faking.

JDA.

This is a recent Chinese product that has evolved out of the fake-turquoise industry.

As mentioned a few years ago by me, Chinese manufacturers can now take different materials and treat them to become very hard. So hard they seem very stone-like. They even do this to soft non-precious coral (as I demonstrated).

The turquoise fakes are composed from magnesite and reconstructed magnesite, that has been color-enhanced (often just dyed), and hardened. These undergo additional treatments to make them more turquoise-like—including creating "veins" or "matrix," and crackling the material to (supposedly) make the beads seem "old."

In the case of "sea sediment jasper" (as near as I can tell), I believe they are taking reconstructed stone, crushing it to large and small fragments, ** and then reconstructing these pieces by placing them into a melange of reconstructive medium. Then (or somewhere in the process) the resulting material is colored (if it isn't yet, or if additional colors are desired) and it's hardened. Whereupon it has to be exploited like any mineral—being roughed-out, shaped, polished, and drilled. This is something the Chinese excel at performing in mass quantities.

Essentially, this is a strategy someone might come up with in oder to make an imitation of brecciated jasper. So, one could say that "sea sediment jasper" is FAKE BRECCIATED JASPER, that is artificially brecciated, from highly manipulated reconstructed mineral compositions.

The beads seen in replies also look like the "SSJ" beads from China, that are routinely available online. Just a few years ago, we had some dialogues about the fact that Chinese beads are now making their way into West African constructions. This is just another example.

Jamey

In 2010 I met Walt Seifried at the Bead Conference in Borneo. The first evening, he showed me the beads he had brought with him from Thailand/SE Asia—and these included some amazing and small sculptural beads. They were the same colors as Indo-Pacific beads, and Walt's source was adamant that they were "ancient." I was not so sure. Whenever something entirely different suddenly appears for the first time, it is important to be skeptical (as I have remarked many times)—even when the artifacts are impressive.

Sometime later, Walt told me he came to know that these delicate and well-rendered beads were recent fakes. Disappointing, but not uncommon.

I will try to locate my photos, though I suspect they are on a back-up drive by now.

Jamey

Considering I found it with other new "old" beads I'm not surprised, but usually I can tell what kind of "old" bead the new bead is supposed to be, and this one just seems like an oddball.

But, instead of having a drill-bit, it has a head that is much wider than its length, and is therefore disk-like. It is a small "wheel." A typical shape for a cutting-wheel is a convex disk, convex on both sides so the the edge comes to a point and is sharp. This cutting wheel can be used in two different ways.

The larger surface, perpendicular to the rotary handle can be used to carve-out round depressions. (In this aspect it is like "drilling"—except the cut is wide and shallow.)

The edge can be used to carve-out lines—that are consequently "V"-shaped. Where a v-shaped line is abraded, the cut typically begins and ends with a tapering of the cut surface (because of the interface between a convex surface impacting a flat or convex surface). So, these cuts are "boat-shaped." They are lines with tapered or ragged ends.

Let's say that the edge of the disk does not come to a point, but is flat around the circumference. Then, the lines that are abraded would be square-sided (not v-shaped). but the ends of these lines would tend to taper or be ragged.

THIS is what we see when we examine a wheel-cut artifact.

In antiquity, when many intaglio seals were made (in the fashion of Indians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans), the typical design was rendered by cutting round depressions of various sizes, to compose the image. And then sliding cuts were made to connect these circles. The rotary action of this work is very apparent, when we view authentic ancient seals (or artifacts made in this way).

Seals were made to provide beautiful detailed images or scenes. An impression from such a seal is artistically impressive. That is because the makers tested and retested their progress as they went along—refining and detailing whatever the subjects may be.

In contradistinction, recent fakers generally do not use the round rotary abrasion, but instead use the edge of their appliances. They make a stab at creating an images by a series of line cuts. But the results of this work are VERY inauthentic-looking. And, in fact, when we take an impression of the image (using clay or any similar soft material), we will find that the image is CRUDE, and easily seen to be inauthentic.

Allow me to repeat: I am not an expert on seals. My area is beads. But since many seals ARE beads, and because I have some knowledge of lapidary practices, I can make the above generalizations. This does not mean that all ancient seals were never wheel-cut using the edge. It does not mean that all ancient seals are beautifully-rendered. It does not mean that there are no "good fakes"—that were appropriately made. (In fact, in the 19th C. excellent reproductions of seals were manufactured—which is a story unto itself.)

What I am providing are GUIDELINES that are sound generalizations. We should expect exceptions. We should expect ancient seals that were poorly or differently-made. We should expect new fake seals that have been well-made, by someone who understands the technology, and is willing to expend the time to reproduce it. And in the arena of beadmaking, we should expect all of these variables may or will be present in beads. Particularly in the area of ancient-bead-faking.

I hope this is helpful. Jamey

1) The authentic beads have been fairly common and available over the fifty years I have collected and studied beads. No doubt with periods of fewer or more beads appearing at one time or another.

2) The Guerrero industry that makes "reproductions" of pre-Columbian beads has largely made beads that are "too nice" and refined to appear authentic. The material is more-colorful than are many old beads, the shapes are more even, and the drilling is straight and not biconical. Plus the material is more likely to be serpentine than granitic.

One exception I can think of was when I bought two strands of "pre-Columbian crystal" beads that looked quite authentic. When I got them home, I looked at them more carefully—and was surprised to find they were actually made from glass. (Lapidary-worked and drilled.) But, these were not green-stone beads. After I returned them, I was sorry—because I'd like to have them in my Fakes Collection.

I would also make a judgement based upon what I can see. Whether there are expected signs of great age; and what the material and details look like. One cannot be 100% right all the time. AND, it can be difficult to be too confident from a photo. Which is why I said your beads "look OK," rather than that I am sure they are authentic. JDA.

Abe

In terms of appearance, it is the lampworked Boshan glass beads that often feature flattened ends, forming a slightly squat oblate. Furnace wound beads can be oblate too, but they lack the tool-marks seen on lampwork beads. Furnace beads, as often as not, can be somewhat pear-shaped, having a rounded lower end and a pointy upper end.

JDA.

Robert Liu's article: http://static1.squarespace.com/static/54a8ea9ae4b0d1cd06f46bba/t/54e524efe4b0bc89fe275d35/1424303343507/Orn36_4_ChineseGlassBeads.pdf

And: http://gotheborg.com/glossary/glass.shtml

Finally, the fact that the whole of the history of beads is filled with copies, repros, fakes, etc, makes me think that these new beads are also part of that history and tradition. So many ancient glass beads are made to look like natural materials, many Venetian beads are inspired by ancient glass beads, etc.
The ones being made now are just another chapter.

it gets a bit ridiculous though when you find necklaces of plastic shells that aren't even rare...!
-says something about our civilisation...

The Cons are that MANY people are delightfully uninformed about reproductions—and have been conned into thinking the beads they have bought are much older, more valuable, and rarer than is the truth (as I have remarked numerous times).

So, the pros are based on impressive esthetics; while the cons are based on misrepresentation and rip-off mentality.

Thankfully, BCN Forum exists to counter misinformation and deception, by informing the reading public that these scams are being perpetrated. And all the while we get to view photographs of great stuff along the way. JDA.

http://beadcollector.net/cgi-bin/anyboard.cgi?fvp=%2Fopenforum%2F&tK=java+Beadman&wT=1&yVz=yTz&aO=1&hIz=5000&hJz=4000&cmd=find&by=&xcfgfs=tK-wT-yVz-aO-hKz

http://beadcollector.net/cgi-bin/anyboard.cgi?fvp=%2Fopenforum%2F&tK=java+Beadman&wT=1&yVz=yTz&aO=1&hIz=4000&hJz=3000&cmd=find&by=&xcfgfs=tK-wT-yVz-aO-hKz

http://beadcollector.net/cgi-bin/anyboard.cgi?fvp=%2Fopenforum%2F&tK=java+Beadman&wT=1&yVz=yTz&aO=1&hIz=3000&hJz=2000&cmd=find&by=&xcfgfs=tK-wT-yVz-aO-hKz

I want to offer, for what it's worth, moral support for those of you who take the risk of contacting ebay (and other) sellers to point out misdescription and fakes. A hobby without folks like you is like a body without an immune system.

These beads are just too rare to judge what is real or not by photography even though the pictures are excellent. I wouldn't touch these with a ten foot glass rod without some serious provenance.

However, I'd love to have the chance to touch them (without your ten foot glass rod!). Here (attached) is one I did get to hold last year in the Royal Ontario Museum, but with the little cotton gloves that everyone has to wear nowadays, you seldom get to actually "touch" anything unfortunately. This one is definitely authentic; it was collected for the museum in the 1930s. Interestingly, the devitrification bears a resemblance to the artificial patina that is sometimes said to be a distinguishing mark on a lot of the fakes made in the last 15 or so years in China.

Best,

Will

IMPOSSIBLE they could be fakes or repros!!!

From all unanswered questions on ancient beads, this would be my first one:

"How did you do this, guys? How "the holy ***k" did you do this?"

I am disappointed, Mister Stricker! It hurts, to hear this
from Stuggard! I had expected a "complacency report", as is normal among countrymen.

Please start from scratch, take second look and put those fancy glasses on!

It is very true that those ~10 white ones (with raised eyes in a light-blue color) are rare - but that does not mean they are Chinese!

The whole lot cannot be fake - no way! Look at the round(ish) semi-translucent green ones. Some with strat-eyes, others with cane. One had to be a massive moron to fake such types. Even if authentic - what I insist these are - they won't cost hardly more than the equivalent of three Triple-Mäcs with brown "Hash-Mash" and Maple syrup.

The yellow ones? Those with the blue/white eyes? Fakes too? No way! Fakes if offered as Phoenician, as Cheryakhovian they are authentic and at least 1600 years old.

I "passover" this farbergenian Rus-eggs over to you as better photos, once I receive them on Easter-Monday. I will buy the strand. Should they not meet your authenticity standards, they might be a nice addition into Stefany's "Copycat-Collection".

Do not forget:
Though made under Roman occupation (in Crimea) between the II and IV centuries, they are no classic "Roman beads" from the heartland. That explains their provincial, diasporian country-side Plebs-appeal.

Have you noticed the few green/yellow specimen with design-traces of a "Fustat Fused Rod Bead"? Left and right twisted "stringers", applied directly onto a mandrel - not into a base or a core? I doubt a chinesean beadmaker from China would even know, think, or care about this technique.

Two beads are in doubt, though - even for me:
The first is the bigger roundish white piece (with canna-green zig-zag), the other the weird feather-type right next to white one (with only a dark-blue eye-bead keeping both apart from each other). The rest - the white "Gummy Bears" with lightblue frogs-eyes included - are ancient, hence authentic, hence 1600 to 1800 years of age!

If only Jamey were in a position to play "Beadman" again. I would make his evaluation my own, should he decide to agree with me, that is!

Your "report-short" wont go to the top of my file-pile!

True is also that you had no quality-pics to base your evaluation on. Meaning you are excused, Thomasinho - kinda...!

Both is true, I guess - just as you say:
Fakes/copies are a bad thing for everybody (but the faker), but since every bad thing has also a positive aspect, they really force us to have a second (and third+!!) look.

How many beads or strands are provenancable? What you see at a site like Picard? That's .01% of what's out there. Rough times ahead for collectors. There's already one African Trader, Md. Dr., who "specializes" in Chinese knockoffs.

Faking can also be justified to some degree, I think.

Some time ago I bought a Louis Poulsen design-lamp in China (https://www.wunschlicht.de/louis-poulsen-ph-artichoke-zapfen-60cm.html?child=74879&utm_source=GoogleShopping&gcurrency=eur&gcountry=de&gclid=Cj0KEQjw76jGBRDm1K-X_LnrmuEBEiQA8RXYZx4-JP8tTYbOHaCfzlwx_MYa1ekTDlbQvjyFgpPcyA0aAtsX8P8HAQ) for ~300$.
The VERY SAME (!!!!!) lamp cost the "criminal amount" of ca. 9.500 Dollars, when bought "as original" in Europe.
I have paid roundabout 30 times less.

The very same is valid for a whole army of design item. Since I paid only 3% of the original price for my lamp I was actually happy - I freely admit - that fakers existed to help me getting this crown-jewel of a design-lamp!

Let's fake it - "face it", sorry - faking is not only taking place in China or in the beadworld, but is an often cancerous aspect in many parts of the arts.

The term "industrial espionage" is an old, but at the same time a very modern phenomenon - done by every single corporation in every single country!

Even the trustworthy German company of "VOLKSWAGEN" begun to fake the parameters of the exhaust waste gases of their Diesel cars. Cost them billions now!

And America...?
They are leading in faking ("re-engineering" called) vehicles from other star-systems! Yes - it's true!

Most of this does not apply to modern fakers of faking ancient beads. That's why things are especially difficult for the buyer of ancient glass!

Was nice to see you after nearly 2 decades - you haven't changed a bit.

Authentic pieces like this ones - the two on the left side are exceptionally wonderful collectibles - never really got the full appreciation they deserve, I fear (not in the West, that is).

Another pity the fact that all this "perfect copies" seem to have destroyed the market. Jatim beads are not my speciality, but it is not only for that reason I would not feel confident to decide between old and new specimen. Speaks for the contemporary makers, not my knowledge, I guess!

Still wonderful beads - even the new ones!

- Scott, I've been looking for an example of what I was talking about with regard to the area around the perforation on the bead on the left hand side of your photo. I think what we see there is a relatively new way of trying to imitate the marks that were sometimes left when a bead was separated from a longer cane. I hadn't seen it before, but I just found these fake pelangis (first attachment) on eBay from a Thai seller; they're described there as "Majapahit", and it's the same kind of effect as on the one you showed. For an authentic bead that this is trying to copy, see page 106 in Magical Ancient Beads.

- Juergen: These Jatims were not buried with bodies so we don't know how they were worn (unlike a lot of mainland Southeast Asian ancient beads). The size of the larger ones seems to suggest that they were worn occasionally and as status symbols, like many bronze pendants from the region. (The huge Hellenistic-era beads that were made in southern Russia and Ukraine are found in association with horse harnesses in burial mounds in the Caucasus - another kind of status in nomadic cultures).

Regarding the question of whether the availability of good reproductions has frightened the market away from Jatims and reduced their value, I'm really not sure. It hasn't happened with dzi, has it? I don't pay much attention to bead prices, but I do think there's been a drift away from glass to stone, and this has affected the market for ancient glass beads generally.

The second attachment is of some Indo-Pacific and Jatim beads (and possibly some ancient Byzantine-era imports also) that were dug up further west of the usual Javanese sites where Jatims are found - quite unusual beads also.

Best,

Will

I would also like to explain what I meant with one, two (or max. five non-Indonesian beads among your strand). When saying so, I left all monochrome blue specimen aside. Though I cannot say if they are Indonesian too (possibly not), I can say with certainty that they are not Venetian. In other words: All such (monochrome blue) beads were left unconsidered in my evaluation what is Asian and what is (not) European. This blue beads might be Chinese indeed and they could even be FM-beads from Bavaria (though it's not likely) or any other furnace-winding industry, ex Görece - an industry I have visited, and industry this beads are definitely not from. No idea what kind of wound beads Cairo and Herat made - certainly monochrome blue ones - but I an not pointing in that direction anyway. I think China might be a likely candidate - though for not much more than the geographical proximity.

Though I do not have the photo in front of me, I would like to state that not all monochrome blue beads on the strand are from the same maker. Two of them, those in a somewhat darker middle-blue laying next to each other, are most likely from another industry than those pieces a few centimeters higher on the photo, in the same area of the strand towards the right side on the scan.

I spoke with longtime collector today - one without ties to the forum. Like me, he pointed immedeately towards Indonesia, though I had not (not!) given him the option to choose between Europe and Asia. Only when I added the hypothetical question: "...not Venice?" he said without the slightest doubt in his voice, quote: "NO WAY!" (Niemals...).

Regarding age he wasn't sure, due to the make good fakes coming out of Asia these days. Pressing him for a guess, he said exactly the same I wrote and still think: "Between 1900 and 1950".

The person I am refering to is not a hobbyist, but a longtime collector of beads and related artefacts - one of the first hour!

Whatever..., just sayin'!

The bead - copied from our sales-site (with many other beads of interest), assuming your silent agreement to do so - is the only Venetian bead I see on your strand from Borneo!

PS
I would very much welcome, if you could maybe say a few more words about the guarantee (should you have any additional information). Did you get the strand directly from that person or his family or was it boought recently from a dealer?

From the overall look and style, I think that most of these beads were made in Venice, but with a very specific culture in mind as customers. The style, colors, shape, application of details, use of twisted cane and such can all be found on Venetian made beads for both the European and African market. Am I 100% sure? No.

There are some that have quite different colors or shapes that look like they were not made in Venice, but may be made in China or elsewhere in Asia. There are a handful that look like they could be modern copies, but my general idea is that the group as such is older than the more recent Indonesian made beads.

It might be good to consider the way glass beads like this are made. Although there were larger companies (especially in Venice) behind the export of beads and the production of glass, the production of beads is often small scale. It could quite easily be that a small workshop specialized in a certain type of beads, that never made it anywhere but in this case Borneo. Especially lampwork beads: they are all made individually. No molds, no machines, it is all just a person at a torch making them. This also means there is not one level of finesse, or one type of quality that you can attribute to Venice. It comes down to the individual maker and perhaps the quality control of the company.

I have been to the Czech Republic quite a few times, and I think I have a pretty good grasp on which beads were made there. However, so many beads that end up in the trade, never show up in the Czech Republic itself. Not in the museum, not in antique shops, not in old stock. Still, they are typical Czech beads which I can tell from the type of glass used and the production method. It strengthens my idea that certain beads were made very specifically for export, and never circulated anywhere else.

But none I can agree with. These are my reasons:

1.) Beadmaking - not only, but especially in Venice - was a very traditional craft. To assume local beadmakers could leave these traditions behind and invent or copy new designs for a certain market, is not likely!

2.) So in this case according to you - certain Venetian beadmakers made beads for the market in Borneo. That argument leads to the following:
Local beadmakers also created different designs for Angola, Paraguay, China, Russia and Mongolia. Is that likely? Of course not!

3.) Even though the "guarantee" (leave alone some knowledgable posters on this forum) mentions Indonesian beads being (at least) part of the strand, you say that only...

- Venice
- China and
- elsewhere in Asia

are likely candidates as makers, with Indonesia not even qualifying as an option?

4.) You seriously assume it is more likely certain Venetian beadmakers made "Indonesian style" beads, than Indonesia itself? That is a weird hypothesis, one tht is quite far from reality.

5.) Such an idea alone (my point 4) is proof that you yourself do not see classic Venetian designs on that strand. To conclude from your own observations that it is more likely "Venetian copyists" made the beads and not Indonesians themselves, is far fetched and completely beyond me.

6.) Of course Venetian beads are individually made without tools, molds and machines and that, you say, leads to different levels of finesse, if I understood correct. I say: 95+% of all Venetian beads have fairly simple designs and beadmaker can master after only a short time of practise. Would Venetian beadmaking be a more difficult artform, it had not been possibly for thousands of local woman do make them.

That said I would like to repeat what I have said a few times during the course of this discussion: I am not as knowledgable about the history of Venetian beads as others on this forum (those who speak up and those who don't) and the same goes for Indonesian beads. My speciality - so to speak - are Muraqad, with some decent knowledge on some of the other industries. Still - this rather mediocre knowledge and experience help me enough to exclude Venice as a maker.

What is left than as the only other option with merit? What is more likely now? A secret "undercover Borneo-bead operation" in Venice or
Indonesia itself? What makes more sense? What is more logical?

Regarding the question new vs. old it is ultimately true that a final assessment is easier to make with the beads in hand, especially for me, who has never seen and touched a single Indonesian bead of recent production.

Still - and despite Tasarts post ("fairly recent production" is what he said, if I recall correctly) and the longer talk I had last night with another knowledgable collector, I do not agree with the notion of a recent production (aka "fakes"). I hang on to my earlier statement: a production between 1920-1950.

That the beads - minus one and minus the blue specimen - are of Indonesian manufacture I have stated often enough!

So am I 100% certain...?

About Indonesia clearly yes - 100%
About age not - only 75%

Hopefully easier for you to read and translate, Ali!

4-19-2006 - Allen [to Evelyn]:
“I just received my new Ornament and was paging through it earlier today on the bus to home. Your article on Kiffa (muracad) beads looks very nice. I look forward to reading it.”

6-27-06 - Busch [to the audience]:
“Instead they are just a certain type of simpler Nourakad, though not mahmoud-made, of course.”

“Not all beads on this photo show Nourakad.”

6-28-06 - Busch [to Steve]:
“The bead itself is not only simple and plain, also rather,....yes, ugly even, surely when compared to other, leave alone elaborate Nourakad.”

“Nourakad with ‘Hambilya-design’ are possibly the most common design among round shaped powderglass beads from Mauritania.”

6-28-06 - Allen [to Stricker]:
“Kirk Stanfield swears that his informant in Mauritania specifically said that what we popularly call "Kiffa" beads are called "murakad" by Mauritanians. Further, he says the name "nourakad" ONLY refers to a shape of certain beads, and is not a general name for the whole group. "Nourakad" was published by Jürgen Busch as a general name. Kirk says he [Busch] was misinformed or that he possibly misunderstood.”

6-30-06 - Busch [to adjichristine]:
“Sorry, I am not so familiar with your names, but I think it was Steve who had shown some of his Nourakad recently, but asked a question about a specific one.”

6-30-06 - Busch [to Evelyn]:
“The patina, workmanship and general appearance tells the rest. A rare and obscure Nourakad.”

9-14-06 - Allen [to adichristine]:
“Murakad beads must be later than the beads they copy. As demonstrated in my article in Ornament, murakad beads routinely copy beads that are as old as the Islamic Period, and from as late as the late Trade Bead Period—the 20th century.”

1-24-07 - Allen [to PK]:
“Kiffa beads, also called ‘muracad,’ are modern beads.”

8-16-07 - Allen [to BCN Admin]:
“Are muracad (‘Kiffa’) beads modern? They absolutely are!”

9-2-08 - Allen [to Morris]
“Although some Kiffa (murakad) beads copy Venetian millefiori beads, I don't know of a Venetian millefiori bead with a pattern similar to this one.”

11-15-08 - Busch [to Allen]:
“NOT "Muracad"! MOUARGHAD is the bead's real name, instead!”

11-19-08 - Allen [to the audience]:
“‘Muracad’ is the name Kirk Stanfield received from an informant in Mauritania. It has been published, and he has communicated to me that he believes the name Mr. Busch prefers is wrong. If Mr. Busch thinks he is not mistaken, he can prove it. My mind is open. The informant didn't speak to me....”

11-19-08 - Busch [to Allen]:
“You, of all people, suddenly rely on an [sic] follow Kirk, not me, when it comes to information on ‘Kiffas’?”

“Right, Kirk insisted - that was a few years ago, when he returned from a trip to Mauritania - the correct Hassaniya name for ‘Kiffa Beads’ is ‘MURACAD’. True is [sic] is further, that I disagreed an [sic] said ‘NURACAD’ was the correct spelling an pronounciation [sic]. With an ‘N’ and not an ‘M’ in the front, I said! Kirk said the opposite! The difference was the difference between an ‘M’ and an ‘N’.
KIRK WAS CORRECT! But wait...!”

“... I insist, actually I know!!, that Kirk´s knowledge on ‘Kiffas’ is less than mine.”

“...I am certain that Kirk´s ‘Kiffa-knowledge’ on the other hand, exeeds [sic] the knowledge you have on this [sic] beads.”

“Had you read, had you known that I already came up with a third and very recent version of the spelling -one that is neither Kirk´s nor my version with an ‘N’ in the front - both had been wrong, actually - but since I had given the translation of that word in that post (2-3 days back), you should have sensed that I expanded my knowledge on the correct spelling, meanwhile!”

1-26-13 - Stanfield [to Stricker]:
“the ‘murakad’”

11-15-16 - Busch [to the audience]:
“I propose we change old habbits and call the beads Muraqat (‘The Colorful’)- their real name ..., in Mauritania, their place of origin."

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

THE TIME-RANGE FOR ROLLED-PAD BEADS

6-27-06 - Busch [to the audience]:
“Not all beads on this photo show Nourakad. One of them shown here is of Middle Eastern production, possibly, more surely than just possibly, made some time around 800-1000 AD.”

6-28-06 - Busch [to Evelyn]:
“Locally called ‘HAMBLIYA’, this ca. 1000 year old drawn bead from Fustat (Cairo) - being of the same period than ‘MORFIA’..."

8-17-07 - Allen [to Gabriel]:
“I agree that Islamic Period glass beads are ‘ancient’ beads—and I have never said otherwise. In fact, I am the PRIME motivator in the recognition of the contribution of beadmaking from this period. Prior to my personal work in this arena, the typical presentation of these beads suggested they were ‘Roman’—making them about 1,000 year's too early. I have worked for twenty-three years to change this perception and misrepresentation, beginning with what I still regard as the correct timeframe for beads from West Africa that I maintain are Islamic, but that are still routinely misrepresented as ‘Roman’ (that began in the mid-1980s). There can be no doubt that the tradition of Islamic beadmaking extends back into Roman times, and no doubt that this is an ancient tradition. However, it is much less than accurate to call it a ‘Roman tradition’—because this region is the HOME of glassworking, and it's the Romans who merely exploited it rather than devised it.
I hope this clarifies my position. I have said all of this MANY times.”

9-10-06 - Allen [to Steve]:
“Prior to the time that I introduced the concept of Islamic Period beads, all of these were routinely identified as ‘Roman’ beads. This was happening, even from knowledgeable bead researchers, as recently as about ten years ago. My ideas stem from my original research conducted in the early '80s, and stressed in lectures and publications ever since that time.”

11-15-08 - Allen [to Gabriel]:
“This is a rolled-pad glass bead, made from a millefiori plaque. As such it cannot be Venetian, because they never made beads this way. Rolled-pad beads date from Roman through Islamic times, and are practically no longer made (even by most fakers--which is how you can tell a bead is a fake). Your bead is somewhat similar to a bunch Thomas Stricker showed a while back, though from simpler canes. These are Islamic Period beads that inspired certain beads from Mauritania in the Kiffa (muracad) family.”

11-15-08 - Busch [to Allen]:
“What do you mean saying this [sic] beads are from the ‘Islamic period’?”

“You stated these are ‘Islamic Period’ beads while, elsewhere, you call rolled-pad beads being from Roman through Islamic times. How are you going to argue yourself out of your very own contradiction?”

“Such beads are most likely from Egyptian workshops - possibly FUSTAT-made around 800-850 AD - the original ‘design-idea’ goes possibly further back into the past and into Roman times!”

11-24-08 - Allen [to the audience]:
“In my 1996 article on Kiffa beads, I indicated that certain patterns copy the decorations of a specific group of rolled-pad beads from the Islamic Period. I demonstrated this by showing both bead styles, and substantiated it with a reliable reference (using a work by Johann Callmer—the eminent Scandinavian scholar who has published often on Viking beads). Here's a work that was published the same year as my article, that further substantiates my observation. This is p. 157 from a work titled ‘Ancient Trades and Cultural Contacts in Southeast Asia.’ Note that these same rolled-pad beads are shown, and are said to be Eastern Mediterranean and from ca. the 9th to 10th centuries (though recovered in Thailand).”

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

“EXACTLY THE SAME” ?

11-15-08 - Allen [to Gabriel]:
“This is a rolled-pad glass bead, made from a millefiori plaque. As such it cannot be Venetian, because they never made beads this way. Rolled-pad beads date from Roman through Islamic times, and are practically no longer made (even by most fakers--which is how you can tell a bead is a fake). Your bead is somewhat similar to a bunch Thomas Stricker showed a while back, though from simpler canes. These are Islamic Period beads that inspired certain beads from Mauritania in the Kiffa (muracad) family. They are fairly rare beads--so enjoy.

11-15-08 - Busch [to Allen]:
“This bead is not - compared to Thomas´ beads - just ‘somewhat simelar’ [sic], as you say. I say the bead is EXACTLY of the VERY same family: same size; same shape; same colors; same color combinations AND same production technic as Thomas' beads!”

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

ANOTHER VIEW OF THE PROBLEM OF CRITICIZING OTHERS

11-20-08 - Will [to Busch]:
“You are wrong on several counts. You are wrong initially because you jump into a judgement about these beads without offering any adequate justification for your opinion. You say, at one point, that the right-hand bead is a fake made in Indonesia. In fact, it is nothing like the Indonesian fakes of Warring States beads. Then, elsewhere, you say that you have seen a lot of these beads in Peshawar. I know Peshawar quite well, too, and I very much doubt that assertion, or rather I would bet that you didn't look closely enough at the beads you saw there to notice how different they were from the beads that Steve posted here.
What I am saying is that you need to back up your assertions with something more concrete, something called evidence, and you haven't in fact done that with any of the beads whose authenticity you have recently called into question on this forum. So that makes you wrong, not just on this particular count, but habitually. It is quite simply irresponsible to start challenging things merely because you ‘feel there is something wrong with them.’ Why should I trust your feelings? I want to hear your reasons.
And you are wrong again when you accuse people of reacting in either a defensive or a cowardly way when they take offence to your unsubstantiated assertions or, alternatively, when they don't reply at all because they can't be bothered to argue with someone who hasn't had any arguments to present. Why do you assume that they owe you something more?”

It would be hard for me to be certain, because I have just not handled enough authentic examples myself (see Roman era perfume bottle lid below). That said, if I were to have to decide one way or the other I would say that yours is not authentic. But, I could easily be wrong, to me the patina is just not right and the colors appear off as well.

But, please seek another opinion, vessels are not really a specialty of mine.

Jan

Probably the best thing for me is to take it with me to Tucson, and let some people look at it up close.

Either way, I only paid a price for it that a good fake would cost. So if it is fake, not much is lost and knowledge is gained.

Had a look at some of the articles. It does not appear to be a very typical fake, with the thin white patina. You also see that on some pieces made in China. I'm guessing I either have a genuine piece or a pretty good fake. I enjoy puzzles like this that make you dive into a new subject.

My instinct from holding it and watching it closely makes me think it is ancient. However, I realize that that does not really mean very much.

This was not a piece that was treasured by the shop owner. It was just part of a pile of mixed stuff and the initial asking price was $50. Could be that he just got a batch of some fakes somewhere that got mixed in. How a genuine ancient piece could be overlooked......does seem odd.

I visited Syria 9 years ago. Got my first small collectible beads there, including some fakes. After nearly 10 years of collecting, maybe I have come 'full circle'. ;-)

You are doing the right thing when asking questions. Collectors have asked me how I learned to identify authentic dZi beads. I learned by intentionally buying the fakes. After a while, the quality of the fakes became more obvious. And it became easier for me to ask better questions. So I think you are doing the right thing when you buy fakes first. You will learn from your mistakes.

I have studied carved Asian beads for more than forty years. And the MCN, Mandarin Court Necklace, is one of my specialties. Like the similar sized ones found in the MCN, yours are inscribed with the long life "Shou" symbol.

I think your inauthentic, tourist/commercial quality beads are late 1970's dyed serpentine -sometimes referred to as "soocho or soochow jade." They are not jadeite. They are not even nephrite. And they are certainly not from a 19th century MCN.

But they were often seen in large quantities at American Gift Shows in the late 20th century. They sold for twenty five to fifty cents each. While many authentic antique Chinese beads have increased in value, yours have become even less desirable because the supply has greatly exceeded the demand.

Sweet Dreams,
Just Fred

P.S. Please try doing Google searches for "soocho jade," the MCN, and the Chinese Shou character.

“The more I read, the more I acquire, the more certain I am that I know nothing.” Voltaire

The thing is that it smells like natural resin, but you also said that chinese are adding pine oil to synthetic resin, and that is what I have suspected.

And I've been offered such a big amount that it is not possible that they are all real amber with this big sizes!

most people in your aria are still not familiar with the dzi markets of the world, and unlike the heirlooming Tibetan culture in which they preserved the knowledge and culture alive, your diz have been long forgotten(possibly to do with the arrival of Islam!?)
dont follow the trend thinking there is jackpot awaiting at the end, unless you know these very well.

50 Bhaisajyaguru beads for under $200, a bargain. Being able to say "I told you so"......priceless!

It's interesting and cute. Thanks for posting it.

I'm pretty sure that it's a fake, especially when I look at the area around the perforation, which doesn't look at all like an authentic Jatim to me. But it's so beaten up it's a little difficult to be certain. Many of the fakes made in the late 90s and early 00s would blow up spontaneously because they were so poorly annealed, and when I spent several weeks a couple of years ago driving round to villages near Jember, I was sometimes shown broken fakes by innocent-seeming folk who possibly did think they were fragments of authentic beads.

In addition to the perforation, the bird canes in yours don't look right to me either. They're better than most of the fakes I've seen but the reddish brown areas seem very arbitrary (those red lines on the white feathers, for instance), whereas in the very rare originals red is used specifically to represent the beaks and legs only.

For comparison, I'll attach an image I've shown before; it's of Korean National Treasure 634, a Jatim that was excavated from a royal tomb dated to around the year 500. What do you think?

All the best,

Will

There's an old article in "MAN" titled "Stone Beads from Ilorin", I think (ask Beadman). Also, a hint that the same work went on at Bida, although Etsu Nupe was not aware of it.

What does the literature say about pecking? Can you do it without metal tools? I would think the conical perfs are bow drilled. Visit the experts on these techniques. Meanwhile, some of the "neolithic" stuff would appear to be Cambay or some such. "Neolithic" is another standard marketing term to add flavor to value when selling.

The clay stuff? Always suspicious. JP used to say, at least, they're not new. They're pretty clean, intact, and uniform to have been dug up in these quantities. There's the other theory that they're made from powdered shards of old pottery, hence the "ancient" dating of these beads. It's been done with new pottery fakes.

Can you peck hard stone with deer antlers or some such?

Since the stringing is loose, if the holes are fairly large you can try the "reamer" test to check the composition of the amber colored beads, without unstringing the necklace. Take a thin diamond grit reamer and ream inside the hole on one of the beads, being careful not to cut the string. After you ream enough to generate some sawdust, pull the reamer out and sniff the dust. My guess is that you'll get a strong plastic-y smell. Real amber will smell like pine sap. Bakelite (phenolic resin) will smell like formaldehyde (strong musty odor). If you need to figure out what most plastics will smell like, just do some reaming of various plastic bottles and containers you are tossing out or recycling.

the name copal is often mistakenly applied to anything that doesn't pass the other Amber tests, but much of that could also be acrylic, plastic or synthetic resin or various other materials.

i don't think of such items as fakes but rather as "Tributes".

Just to add to what Shinji and Hans have said, the structure of the beads makes it clear. If they were fakes they would almost certainly have been wound (or occasionally lapidary worked from bottle glass). Like almost all of the monochrome blue and green beads that were manufactured (like these) between the 5th and 8th centuries in East Java, these are made from rolled pads that were worked while still hot into the required shape. Sometimes they may look as though they're wound because the flow lines of the glass can frequently be lateral as well as lengthwise (see the hexagonal blue bicones that I'll attach). Also, unlike Islamic beads where the junction between the two ends of the pad is frequently apparent, in these Jatim beads the joint is generally hidden by the subsequent shaping.

I like these devitrified beads a lot, too, Linda. Frequently they are polished after they've been dug up, and that's fine also. The majority of excavated Jatim beads show substantial signs of devitrification, probably because of the volcanic soils in which they were buried, and also perhaps because of flaws in the production process (too rapid cooling?). This condition is imitated, as Fred says, by acid treatments, though it's still generally possible to distinguish the difference.

Incidentally, Fred, I don't think there's any likelihood that this would have been Egyptian glass. After all, blue glass, in a wide variety of shades, was manufactured in huge quantities from the 3rd or 4th centuries BCE at numerous Indo-Pacific glass- and bead-making sites in South and Southeast Asia. And as for Egyptian glass being used as ballast in trading ships, I know of no evidence for that at all. There were much cheaper options obviously, and in any case most of the vessels that plied the Southeast Asian trade routes were able to sail with full cargoes from one port to the next, as we know from the many shipwrecks that have been discovered.

Lastly, let's make it clear again that there was no substantial glass-bead making industry in Java in Majapahit times. Majapahit jewellery, as we see from the sculpture of the period, was primarily metal-based (gold, silver, bronze), sometimes with the addition of semi-precious stones (carnelian, other forms of agate, and rock crystal).

Best wishes,

Will

And having a bead in your hands does help. Some people have recommended buying examples of known fakes for comparison purposes; this is a good idea. But I don't like having fake beads around me. Besides, a collection of fake examples could easily cost at least one thousand dollars. Ten to thirty dollars at a time can add up quickly.

I just buy what I like. And if it turns out to be honestly represented I feel lucky. Sometimes you never really know. Sometimes you can only offer your professional opinion.

1. the form - this high/square-shouldered shape is unusual (but there are lots of variants so this is not decisive);

2. the surface - generally, there are very few beads where the surface is as uniformly smooth as this (the big exception is with some of the beads that were dug up in the early 90s and sanded or polished to “improve” their looks, but in that case you can almost always see signs of the polishing process with a loupe or microscope);

3. the colours - if the photo is accurate, the red seems slightly more red and the yellow more orangey than I would think is normal. This may be within the range of variations that is to be expected with glass that sometimes came from different sources, but in general all of the fake canes with these red and yellow colours that I have seen are similar (NB illustrations in books tend to be misleading, I find, because they exaggerate the red - perhaps the fakes are copying them!);

4. the arrangement of the canes - it seems to me that the bead-maker has tried deliberately to make the bead look imperfect, for instance, in the lower part of the bead in your third photo where there are more broken sections of cane than I’ve seen in any authentic bead of this type;

5. the green/yellow/red cane slice that has been inserted in the side of the bead shown in that third image - this is an unusual practice and the cane itself, particularly the green, is uncommon too (perhaps the maker put it there as a kind of signature, or a deliberate mistake to mock the collector who buys it - I’ve seen this quite often with the people who make fake ceramics and bronzes);

6. the white glass that appears in the gaps between the cane slices in the third picture - this effect is sometimes seen in Jatims where the core of the bead is incompletely covered, but white cores are extremely rare.

So there we have it. I have quite a few authentic Jatims with this basic cane pattern. I’ll attach a photo of one that is biconical.

All the best,

Will

Where did you get this bead? It would be helpful to trace it back a bit. The reason I'm asking is that I bought a very similar bead (attached) three years ago from a farmer in a village south of Jember in East Java. I was trying to find out more about the conditions in which Jatim beads were dug up locally; we know so little about the culture that produced them in the sixth century, and there has been virtually no archaeology done on the sites where they are found.

I bought this bead knowing that it wasn't a genuine Jatim, with perhaps a slight hope that it might be one of the West Asian beads that are occasionally found in Indonesia, but not really expecting very much. Later I wrote to Jamey as follows:

"Lots of delightful people, great food, some fragments of information about burial sites and their contents, a few good beads and plenty of fakes, even in quite remote villages. Among them a couple of examples you might be interested in seeing. I'm really puzzled by the red, white and black bead, because I haven't seen anything like it of any age in that part of the world. It seems to have been fabricated in a Jatim-like way [this was incorrect], but then there is none of the typical elongation of the pattern towards the perforation, so... what is it?"

Jamey wrote back (I hope he won't mind my quoting him) helping to clarify my thoughts -as he always does. He explained that the bead resembled the quite rare Middle Eastern beads that usually have a yellow applied ring at one or both ends:

"the ME beads are wound, trailed, and combed into zigzags.  But (and this is so weird and unexpected), the Javanese bead is structured as a Fustat fused-rod bead.  Spiraled canes (both S-twist and Z-twist) have been longitudinally applied to the base, and their fusion makes inconsistent zigzags--such as we see in so-called "morfia" beads from Mauritania (but made at Fustat).  I don't think I have seen this bead from Java--particularly not in these colors, copying a ME bead."

I think Jamey's description points out how technologically adept and experimental the people who make fake beads in east Java actually are.

Since then, when I've been back there I've kept my eyes open for a similar bead, because, after all, when people make fakes they usually make more than one. But in several trips I have never seen another one - until this bead that you are asking about, which is not the same shape but clearly by the same maker.

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news. I think your previous bead, the one you call "feathered", is also probably a fake. Is it from the same seller?

All the best,

Will

One of the problems is that most of us have very little experience with Warring States glass beads - as opposed to the ones with composite or clay cores which are much more common. Personally, I’ve only had the chance to handle them a few times, mainly in museums wearing cotton gloves. But I do know the acid-finished fakes of East Java intimately, and as I looked at Kika’s photos closely, her bead seemed substantially different. The wear at individual spots - the white of the heart-shaped leaves, the concentric lines at the ends with the indentation at the top of the bead on the left side of the first photo, the rims of the air bubbles and the crack lines - all of this looks absolutely typical to me.

It’s worth checking the beads that Pipane showed on this forum several years ago; the surfaces of several of them are quite similar. And when we compare it to the hundred odd pages of Warring States beads in Simon Kwan’s Early Chinese Glass, we can see that the kind of dull, even surface on Kika’s bead is absolutely typical of the wear on most very good Warring States glass.

Also I checked out a few Chinese online sites. Ali Baba and Ali Express, for instance, have a lot of fake Warring States beads listed, frequently at high prices, but none of the ones that I found had anything like the quality of Kika’s.

It all adds up. I could be wrong. I often am. I think I would be sure immediately if I had it between my fingers.

Incidentally, I think the heart motif is probably more probably a leaf. It could be both, of course, but I don’t know of heart symbolism in China anything like as early as this. There are two almost identical beads on page 179 of Kwan’s book (though they’re not in as good condtion). Kwan describes the leaves as a persimmon calyx, which they certainly resemble. For the last thousand years or so (and possibly before) the persimmon has been a symbol of happiness in Chinese art.

There it is. I’ll attach a photo of the most beautiful Warring States bead I’ve actually touched - or rather, it touched me when I got the chance to examine it in Japan. They really are amazing beads; I’ve always marveled at the Phoenician stratified eye beads which preceded these, but the Warring States beads at their best outdo them in their brilliant precision.

Cheers,

Will

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZyhgsHNNuf8J:www.theworldofchinese.com/2014/08/the-antiques-hustle/+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

I liked the part where the peasants were out-foxing the scientific dating tests by grinding up ancient clay bricks to use in the fake clay figurines.

Yang Boda scandal

Along with four other experts, Yang Boda, former deputy curator of the Palace Museum in Beijing, determined that two items of jade clothing sewn with gold threads were authentic antiques and slapped a price tag of 2.4 billion yuan ($376 million) on them.
The two items were later found to be fakes.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2011-09/13/content_13670774.htm

A sub-theme in these articles is that the "experts" will never, ever admit that they were mistaken.

Another sub-theme is the prevalence of fakes in Chinese museums.

Phishing for Phools explores our weakness for a good story, and how the predatory exploit that.

I agree completely with Fred. It’s natural to disagree about ancient beads and these disagreements help us to figure out the reasoning that underlies our own spontaneous judgements. So when I saw Fred’s notes on Kika’s photograph, I thought, “I need to think about this some more.” I didn’t have time till this afternoon when I sat down again with Kwan’s book on Ancient Chinese Glass and went through the pictures of more than a hundred eye beads in some detail. Here, for now, are my conclusions. I’ll take each of Fred’s points and note my responses.

1 “Overall surface texture much too even.” In fact, among Kwan’s glass beads a matte even surface is the norm. Of all the glass eye beads 31 out of 42 have a surface that is flat and even rather than shiny. I didn’t count the few that were damaged. This surprised me because I think of these beads essentially as being bright, as they obviously once were, but actually one of the consistent signs of age is the kind of surface that Fred complains about. Most of the pottery-cored eye beads are similar, and so are almost all the non-bead eye artefacts (plaques, inlays, etc).

2. “Thin application of decoration.” Fred is partially right here as far as the white bands are concerned. The white has retained its form less than in most beads in Kwan’s collection, but the difference may possibly be explained by varying soil conditions. Still, it’s definitely worth noting. This is the only one of Fred’s points that I would go along with wholeheartedly.

3. “Dots should be uniform and filling drilled holes.” In fact, this is quite incorrect. First of all the holes are not “drilled”; they are of course created by the drops of glass as they are applied to the core cylinder. And they are seldom uniform in size, presumably because of the difficulty in controlling exactly the quantity of glass. In Kwan’s book only 6 out of 21 beads with this kind of decoration have dots that could be described as being more or less uniform; all the others vary widely in size. I’ll attach a photo of a bead that has lost its dots (as most do) that is in the collection of the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto. It’s a bead I’ve been able to examine closely; it was added to the collection in the early twentieth century. As you can see there’s no uniformity in these holes, andthey certainly weren’t drilled.

4. “Patina lacking in recessed areas.” This is a subjective judgement. To my eye, these areas where the glass decoration has worn away look exactly as they should. I have several of the pottery-cored glass eye beads and the areas of wear look exactly like this.

5. “These (central) lines should be perfectly centred.” No, they shouldn’t, and they’re not in most (70%) of the beads that have these central bands in Kwan’s book. These beads are very carefully made, but their geometry is not perfect - nor need it be.

6 “Peculiar white, red and black combination (of colours).” Here again, Fred may be partially right. This actual combination of colours is unusual, but each does occur frequently in Warring States beads. However, I haven’t yet come across an example of these tubular beads that has the small dot decoration in this reddish brown colour; they are generally white on the glass beads, though the dots of the eyes on the pottery-cored beads are various colours - blue, brown or yellow. How to weight this in the overall picture is a matter of personal judgement. For some it may be decisive; for me, because I think the bead is authentic, it can easily be explained by beadmakers playing with the available resources and trying out new arrangements of the patterns - which obviously happened constantly in this period of intense experimentation.

Incidentally, I ought to point out that it’s quite difficult to know what the original colours of these Warring States beads sometimes were. I think the core tube was almost certainly a strong blue, but the red dots might have actually been a shade of purple that was common in monochrome glass at the time. I’ll attach an ear ornament of mine (slightly later, Han dynasty) that was accidentally broken; the dull weathered surface opened up to reveal a beautiful bright purple.

So there we have it, more kindling for the disagreement. Whatever the conclusion, it’s great to have a chance to talk about these wonderful beads.

All the best,

Will

Pipane is the nom-de-plume of a French collector and businessman who lives in Beijing and who used to write on this forum. He speaks Chinese, Japanese and other Asian languages, and he's done more than most westerners to sort out the characteristics of authentic ancient jade and glass artefacts from all the fakes that fill the markets in China. It's a difficult task. He could help us now. Where are you, Stéphane, now that we need you?

W

Etching creams that contain sulfuric acid, sodium bifluoride, and ammonium bifluoride are sold and are "apparently safer". I would not go near this compound either, even with gloves that are rated for acids and a lot of other protective equipment. I'm sure glass etching can be done safely once the proper equipment is set up, but this has to be done with a lot of thoughtful preparation.

Fred, it must have been rather "thrilling" to see someone doing acid etching. Wondering why sand-blasting or tumbling wasn't used instead...

But hydrofluoric acid, as Rosanna mentions, needs to be in a controlled environment. And I have heard horror stories from those who buy and sell it.

Just Fred

Sorry to be so slow responding to your request. I wanted to write this last week but didn’t get the chance to do so. Perhaps some of the info will still be useful.

You say you’re interested in new and ancient beads, and Bangkok is full of new beads in street markets and luxury shopping malls. Some of them are very ingenious and you can choose your own price point.

But as far as ancient beads are concerned, I wouldn't suggest going there in the expectation of finding bargains any longer. I live quite near the city for four or five months each year, and twenty years ago I would have said that it was a great place for bead collectors, or indeed for anyone collecting Asian antiquities generally. But since then, for a variety of different reasons, there has been a substantial downturn in the market. There’s a variety of reasons for that: (1) the unauthorized excavation sites on the Burmese border have been worked out; (2) the same thing has happened with ancient sites on the Cambodian border and inside Cambodia; (3) the Pakistani dealers who brought a lot of Indus Valley beads to Thailand have for the most part moved their operations to Singapore and Malaysia, and in any case they have less that is interesting to sell; (4) the huge increase in the number of Chinese dealers and collectors looking for ancient and pseudo-ancient stone beads has cleaned out large sections of the market.

Of course, there are still valuable and exciting ancient beads to be found. In a country that was as densely settled as Thailand was in ancient times, new sites are constantly being discovered. But most of the beads that are dug up are no longer readily available to tourists. The number of Thai bead collectors has increased substantially in the last ten years, and the few dealers who have authentic beads have regular customers who are lining up for whatever they find. In particular, you say you're looking for "Pyu" beads and Suleimanis, but these are precisely the areas where worldwide prices at present are enormously inflated because of an almost hysterical Chinese demand. As a result most of what you will find in Bangkok, as in other countries and on eBay also, is likely to be recent production presented as ancient.

Having said all that, if you do go out to Chatuchak market and you’re looking for ancient agate beads, there’s one store there that I would recommend. It’s in one of the permanent structures in the market and its address is: Nai Huad Antiques, 85, Zone A, between Soi 7 & 8, Jatujak Plaza; ask for Khun Charnwith who’s the most helpful member of the family. They sell mainly ancient and antique Chinese and Southeast Asian ceramics and bronze, but they also have a small stock of authentic ancient stone beads. I’ll attach a photo of a nice Funan agate pendant that I bought from them this June - age about 1800 years, 31 mm wide. They know their antiques and they don’t knowingly sell fakes. Prices are quite high, but it always seems to me that you’re better off paying a good price for something genuine than a bargain price for a fake. Also right next door to Chatuchak is a multi-storey air-con shopping mall called JJ Mall. On the ground/basement floor there’s one bead and antiques stall that has some fine ancient West Asian beads. The pleasant woman who runs it knows her stuff. I’ve mislaid her card and can’t tell you the exact address but you’ll be able to find it in a few minutes just walking up and down the aisles.

Finally, in downtown Bangkok I’d still (just about) recommend River City shopping centre on the banks of the Chao Phraya river just off Charoen Krung Road. Twenty years ago it was one of the main centres for Asian antiques in the world, but the last time I was there the lower two floors were depressingly empty. However, most of the really good old dealers on the third and fourth floors were still open. A few of them have wonderful ancient jewellery and beads if you’re willing to pay their prices. The ones I’d recommend without reservation are Hong Antiques, Friday Antiques and Dech Gallery (at my last count Khun Dechar and his wife Khun Aum had four stores in upmarket locations around Bangkok). Some of their things are genuinely museum quality (their clients include many museums in the West), and they have massive stocks that are often hidden away, so you may have to ask for what you want. They are fascinating places to spend an hour or two, and generally the staff are friendly and welcoming provided you really know what you’re talking about. But you have to be careful in River City too because there are some thoroughly unscrupulous stores lurking in there as well. The only thing that’s worse than paying bargain prices for a fake is paying museum prices for a fake!

Good luck!

Will

But you forgot i was desperately posting multiple beads and asking for experts?
your experts showed their presence here by posting links and remembering past..did any expert came out of dismissiveness or bother to ask me why i'm doing so? i got hurt though

Now the truth is, my source man sent me a parcel of ancient beads and i told him they are good even as i was not expert in beads, but that stupid source man bought whole lot of beads worth millions of pkr from a tribal person without any of my consent and letting me know, in a very short term of paying money....

i needed to ask the authenticity and worth of those beads, if i could have done some better for helping to save the source man and his family from crises.
But this banner " This forum is not to be used for sales or political commentary" bind me to ask further,
i later tried to post them in classified but in vain, where were the experts then?

but here everybody was trying to prove them fake without asking any further evidences, as now i have learned a bit more about beads, only few were fakes.

Now the harm is done that guy has lost everything his small land and house in order to compensate, what would i do to those beads, should i burn them or crush them under my foot?

i do not like This forum anymore, i had a wish to decorate it with so many unique beads and artifacts meanwhile once,

yes i was embarrassed because i really had a respect for experts like Beadman and Tasart here, so i firstly asked for my removal but now i dont wan't to be here no more at all

Admin kindly remove me from this BCN, remove all my data and posts from here,

As a caveat, in the thread about this bead Will noted that a large percentage of pieces shown on the Friends of Jade site might well be fakes imitations.

Then again, he did not ask for any discussion of the beads, so no explanation is 'owed'. He simply wanted to sell them and did so in the wrong place.

It's definitely not a Jatim (wrong structure).

I think it's almost certainly an authentic and very nice late Byzantine or Islamic bead. However, I'm just a little doubtful because of the air bubbles in your close-ups. Not the presence of bubbles themselves - most ancient glass has a lot of bubbles, both internal and in the surface - but the consistency of the bubbles in the white glass reminds me of the artificial surface treatments in some of the recent fakes made in Java (see the first attached pic). But, of course, that sugar comb effect (it reminds me all too temptingly of the candy I was addicted to as a child in the UK!) is seen quite frequently in ancient beads, including Jatims (this little bead that was found in the Philippines, for instance), so I think you should overlook these lingering doubts. Yankee would know for sure.

Best,

Will

During WWII, a number of new plastics were invented and/or commercialized, such as polystyrene and polyisobutylene (rubber replacement). It's possible your uncle modified some commercial phenolic resins with some newer materials. And yes, it is possible that the Chinese are doing something similar to mimic amber.

Those large flat amber-colored monstrosities are likely hand-made, maybe in Morocco, from old plastic scrap and maybe some additives and colorants from China. I posted a link to a 5 year-old video of this being done in Morocco. The Chinese tend to make "perfect" amber fake beads - you can see them on AliExpress if you search "Tibetan amber beads". There are hundreds of listing so you have to search through a bunch but you'll even see fakes advertised as natural amber, with high price tags. But nothing like these huge flat beads.

Quote from a paper by L.H. Baekeland and H. L. Bender, in Ind. Eng. Chem., 1925, 17 (3), pp 225Đ237. Baekeland of course is the inventor of Bakelite phenolic resins. The original patent ran out in 1927. I am going to order a copy of this paper see what else I can learn about the "timeline" of industrial phenolic resin production. But from this publication we can see that the trade name Faturan was in existence in early 1925.

I strongly suspect that the current "fascination" with Faturan beads may be on account of the rarity of beads dating to this time period of the 1920's. Beads made from the German product, Faturan, may have been very beautiful and likely found their way to the Middle East in the form of prayer strands. And like so many other beads and bead materials, once the demand starts, any number of fakes and reproductions inevitably crop up.

maybe you know about christian, muslim, hindu or buddhist prayer beads, or beads with an eye design that ward off the evil eye?

if you collect and want to find out about any beads its hard to be really bored...
quite ordinary small beads are used to make wonderful beadwork patterns...

right now when there is time, i am trying to list a lot of the beads in my collection to label and catalogue them properly and have begun taking photographs of them. i've been collecting for many years so my cupboards and shelves are quite stacked up...

i'm not such a good photographer so a friend is also helping me.

Others that I thought were "meh", are now much more interesting to me.

And of course, there are some I absolutely loved, and now I wish I'd bought more!

Re: "Fakes", there are fakes and there are fakes. There's a whole history of glass beads that imitated precious stones,handmade beads in Africa meant to imitate European beads, and in my case, beads I make myself to look like ancient beads. In many cases, I think they are wonderful in their own right.

I've seen beautiful jewelry made with very simple, inexpensive beads, and jewelry made with expensive, collectible beads that were honkin' ugly (IMHO.)

And of course, simple black, white and clear beads are hard workers when they're used to set off the beauty of other, more elegant beads.

By all means, give away the ones that don't interest you. But it's also okay to simply like what you like, and to choose better beads as and when you can afford them.

I don't think it's very difficult to tell from the photo that these particular beads are fakes. Shinji is absolutely right, of course. If one looks at the beads, it's quite clear that they are technically different from authentic Jatims. For instance, the pelangis in the front row are not made from mosaic canes layered and combed over a monochrome core and then pinched off to create the individual bead.

For this reason, these fakes appear to belong to an older generation of copies from around fifteen years ago, before the beadmakers in Jember understood how the originals were made. They imitate the appearance, but not the structure. The colours of the glass and the formations of the eyes are wrong too. Somebody who has lived in Bali for thirty years and handles lots of beads could have figured this out; he ought to know too that no Jatims were being made as late as the 10th century.

The copies have gotten much better and more convincing in the past ten years, and so have the techniques for ageing them. But I don't think one needs to avoid Jatims because of that; one just has to look more carefully. I've certainly made mistakes, but we learn from our mistakes - or if we don't we should get out of the collecting game. And I don't think that Jatims are that much more dangerous than, say, Roman face beads or Phoenicians or for that matter ancient stone beads. It's the same problem with any antique really. And as for Zi - now there's a real minefield! The excitement lies in picking one's way through it.

All the best,

Will

To view more fakes by comparison please see:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-OLD-ISLAMIC-ANCIENT-MOSAIC-GLASS-BEAD-BIRD-CHICKEN-BEADS-049-/161605692502?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item25a0732c56

Perhaps there is a book lurking in there some time.

Having read all the interesting posts about turquoise, I cannot help but wonder about my turquoise items. I am posting some of my turquoise beads and hope lopacki will comment on whether they are genuine turquoise or howlite or dyed.

All the items came from China land of fakes (and also of many wonderful things)

The first pic shows a bird, a shell and some small animal and the reverse of these is shown in second picture. Would also be grateful if someone can tell the age and vintage of the pieces.

Many thanks in advance.

Sallie

I have talked to the Picards about these a few times. The exact shape of these beads, in white and in blue, shows up on Bapterosses sample cards, but without the chevron decoration.
The Bapterosses have made a range of attempts of making their own chevron style beads, some more successful than others. Some are made like a puzzle of different pieces together, some by painting.

The specific style of this fake chevron bead does not show up in the collection of the Briare museum, or on any of the sample cards. This makes it almost impossible to know if they have been decorated by the Bapterosses factory, as they did with some other fake chevrons, or if they were decorated elsewhere. The coating does not really stand up to wear. It's color and style does show similarity to the other Prosser fakes by the Bapterosses. Almost like the red was made with a simple marker....

Below is a picture of my versions of these beads, worn a lot more. Second picture shows all Bapterosses beads, found by a local woman in their dumpsite. There is a painted chevron, and a white plain bead with the 'cuts' along the side to color it as a chevron too. That would suggest that this decoration was done after firing, which may explain why the color tends to wear off. Also, you can see the white and blue tubular beads that seem to be linked to the fake chevrons you showed. Most, if not all, of the beads in this picture appear to be prototypes that have not made it to the market in large quantities.

Perhaps if others would show their fake chevrons of this type too, with details of the holes and their size, we could solve this puzzle with a bit more proof.