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%