| Original Message: Snow White with Frog-Eyes - A True Crime(a) Story |
|---|
|
Gummy Bears, in other words! 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...! All rights reserved by Bead Collector Network and its users |
|
|