| Original Message: Moon Beads and "Dutch" Pentagonal Cylinders - Anything New? |
|---|
|
Mining the Archives for prior posts on these beads, I found this info: Stefany's cellphone photo in the Allard Pierson Museum of the case with display from the Van der Sleen bead study collection - these beads seem to appear in the middle of the center picture. http://beadcollector.net/cgi-bin/anyboard.cgi?fvp=/openforum/&cmd=iYz&aK=96336&iZz=96336&gV=0&kQz=&aO=1&iWz=0 And from Jamey: f you look for past messages here, you'll find several posts that describe how 90% of the beads that are said to "Dutch" and "from the 17th C." (that's when the Dutch were most active), are actually 19th and 20th C., beads from Germany. Your beads are not very rare, and any suggestion that they warrant a high price is based on their misidentification as "Dutch." Typical Dutch beads are distinctive (apart from those that closely copy Venetian beads of that time—drawn rosetta beads, usually finished a-speo). Your beads do not resemble actual Dutch beads, apart from being furnace-wound. There is no real proof related to where they are from, nor what their timeline may be. However, they are recovered in Holland—so it's a reasonable guess they may have been made there. Because they are furnace-wound beads, there is no historical "factory waste" that could be recovered archaeologically. These, and pentagon ("twisted square") beads are placed in the early 18th C. as a matter of convenient speculation. I have no reason to suspect this is incorrect. Plus, the places where any of these beads have gone are sometimes noteworthy for having had known trade relations with Holland. Apart from the van der Sleen Collection, the Archaeological Centre in Amsterdam has specimens of these beads. They told me none were dated, but that this suggested the beads were late. (Meaning ca. the 18th C.) The glass that was used has a severe tendency to break-down—indicting the the constituents were combined in a disadvantageous proportion. The outcome is, the glass decays easily (via leeching of the lime), and the beads OFTEN look much older than they are. The beads are routinely clear/colorless, white, translucent cobalt blue (from pale to dark), translucent yellow (sometimes modulated to an almost reddish tone, but mostly resembling amber), and violet. When recovered in a Middle Eastern/Asian context, these beads are routinely mistaken to be and sold as "ancient." Culled from these threads: http://beadcollector.net/cgi-bin/anyboard.cgi?fvp=/openforum/&cmd=iYz&aK=65827&iZz=65827&gV=0&kQz=&aO=1&iWz=0 http://beadcollector.net/cgi-bin/anyboard.cgi?fvp=/openforum/&cmd=iYz&aK=57571&iZz=57571&gV=0&kQz=&aO=1&iWz=0 http://beadcollector.net/cgi-bin/anyboard.cgi?fvp=/openforum/&cmd=iYz&aK=66645&iZz=66645&gV=0&kQz=&aO=1&iWz=0 So, is this pretty much all we know about these beads? If I understand the prior posts correctly, this strand is a mix of possibly 17th or 18th century beads and German mid-19th century beads? With the little wound bluish milky beads dating.... -??? They all (apart from the cobalt bead and the alabaster white moon beads) show that dichroic orange glow from - I forget - bone meal? used in the composition of the glass batch? All rights reserved by Bead Collector Network and its users |
|
|