I have "zoomed in" on some of the boundaries of the concentrically applied layers on a small number of WS beads using EDX, FTIR spectroscopy, etc. I smile when I find compounds (e.g., strontium chromate, strontium aluminate, uranyl acetate salts, et al., chelated to uniformly structured silica lattices) and whose relative concentrations are statistically identical between specimens. Some of these compounds / pigments were initially used in Eastern Block countries (and I am sure elsewhere) before finding their way to the West, circa early 60s, for similar purposes. If what this means is that these beads (specifically only those examined by me and were presented to me as WS and Roman face tabulars) are doctored fakes or are entirely fake, I cannot and dare not say openly with certainty because I do not know what specific efforts, if any, are underway the past 20 or so years to modify these latter types of beads. (There would be too much rhubarb to shoot out at me from all directions from some fellow forumites; at this point in my life, all folks hit is scar tissue when taking stab at me, as I don't even bleed anymore -- perhaps a good thing. Ain't that a sight for sore eyes!) Anyway, I did receive a few WS beads from Dirk Ross (NERIMA-KU, TOKYO) a few years ago, and did a similar evaluation with the following (simple) findings: non-uniform (mildly stratified) ceramic interior with what I believe is "weathered faience" (quoting Jamey) on the outside. There were no asynchronous or out-of-the-ordinary compounds detected. Too, these beads look worn and plain ... and in their own way, absolutely beautiful. Again, no intent or effort to begin a debate, but did want to share what I have seen. Finally, Robert L. did publish an excellent article in one of his (early) Bead Journals on faience. If anyone is interested, I am happy to provide a citation for the latter.
ac