|Re: Ancient or fakes? -- faqrun||Post Reply||Edit||Forum||Where am I?|
I hesitate to disagree with Shinji because he knows this stuff so well, but on the first bead at least I think Thomas, Frederick and Floor are right. I can't be sure about the second without seeing the ends.
The first, anyway, appears to be hot-pinched, and that traditional Javanese technique, as far as I know, is only used there for manufacturing these fake "Roman" mosaic beads. The structure of the bead reveals its source.
The colours are typical of Javanese canes too, especially the brown glass which has too little red in it. Incidentally, the colours seem to me to be the same both in the US auction item (which went for $500 - ouch!), and in the replica bead that Shinji found in Java. All that appears different to me is the amount of acid exposure they've been subjected to. The colours in the bowl that Shinji shows seem more typically "Roman" to me.
Actually, I disagree with both Frederick and Shinji on one thing and that is that the canes of authentic West Asian mosaic examples of these beads are more regular in structure. Quite often it's just the opposite, surely. I don't have any examples here to show or refer to unfortunately, but I think we'll find that the black framing glass in the Javanese beads is of a more uniform thickness than in the genuine items, and the patterns generally more regular.
Thanks, Roger, for starting this.