As you know, for my Zi article, all of the people who loaned me beads for photography are GRATEFULLY acknowledged in the Acknowledgements paragraph at the close of the article—which is and has always been my standard practice.

On the other hand I did not report the names of owners of specific beads—because many people did not/do not want this information revealed. And I wholly accept and understand this.

I suppose anyone giving a casual look at my photos might draw the erroneous conclusion that these are "my beads"—but I am quick to dispel these ideas. These are merely my photographs.

In every instance when I have received inquiries about "my beads," I routinely reply that these specimens came from multiple private collections, including mine. And that, since the article was written in 2002, some of these beads have changed hands, and are probably not for sale anyway; or have been sold already.

I am sorry you do not feel you have been properly given "a deserved nod" (since you have brought this up a number of times here). No one else has expressed similar feelings.

Allow me to say I was extremely gratified that you and several others were kind enough to allow me access to your/their collections. The article would be practically meaningless without them. And I expressed this to you, in no uncertain terms, on the day you brought them to me. In fact, your beads provided specimens that are not only truly beautiful—they are virtually one-of-a-kind and were essential for making certain points.

I would like to compose a new article about the chemistry of decorated stone beads. You own one of the very few beads from a Himalayan context, that would illustrate a specific point I want to cover. And I would be expressly grateful if you would allow me to use it again.

Jamey