| Original Message: Some help plse to understand the comments |
|---|
|
Hi everyone, I have never held an ancient pema raka in my hands and I am desperate to understand some of your comments. 1. the hole: should the opening be completely eroded into a saddle like form like Judy's to have the name 'ancient' attributed? I see pema rakas on Jake's necklace where it is not the case and the hole of lindabd's bead does not seem to have sharp edges either . I even clearly see wear from a cord on her bead. So I am a bit confused what the fysical state should be of an ancient pema raka's opening 2. colour: I always read that a deep opaque colour is crucial to name a pema raka a pema raka - ancient or not. lindabd's bead is indeed somehow lighter in colour and texture than Judy's bead and Jake's beads. Yet the last bead before the round end bead of Jake's necklace (see thread 'sweet Judy... two more') does not have that very opaque colour. Or is the defining characteristic here maybe the wear of the hole, the patina,...? 3.patina: I know of the comments and remarks made on BCN regarding faking ancient beads and I am not after these, but are there any particular pema raka patina peculiarities one should look for? 4. ancient, antique, vintage: I know it is difficult to explain such things without having beads in your hands to show, but is it possible for someone to point out the most important elements to look at to determine which of the 3 categories a pema raka belongs to? Any attempt to bring some clarity here will be greatly appreciated. Thank you! All rights reserved by Bead Collector Network and its users |
|
|