Trying to get a link to the enlargement:

http://www.coincoin.com/XG/XG1220.4.jpg

Two nights ago, I attended a meeting of the Los Angeles Bead Society. Jamey Allen was the speaker and the topic was Beads From Borneo. Many of the types of beads that are in your photo were discussed. I own numerous strands from Borneo, including some of the types in your photo. It is my opinion that most of the beads -most, but not all - are Venetian. You raise an interesting point, that the beads are smaller than the trade beads that we know from West Africa. Smaller Venetian beads are also found in Peru, Bolivia and Mexico.

they or some of them may originally have been made in China or elsewhere -

i have some in an image from my new book, p. 8:

the short loop to the right with a small bell has old heirloom beads but the long traditional strand consists of fairly recently made beads in the locally favoured patterns -most distinct are the newly made black oblates decorated with twisted-cane circles or eyes on a string of their own, "Lukut Sekala" beads. Glass skillfully lamp-worked in villages in Java- which have been visited by some BCN members ...

however my computer doesn't want to let me reduce the image size so now i'm not able to show the picture...

With the exception of less than a handful of beads - actually just two - I do not see a single bead that comes even close to Venentian beads. Not in size, not in color (most often) and certainly not in design.

Of course quite a few of them resemble Venetian types more or less closely (the red specimen with yellow "eyes" in cylindrical shape left of the coin for example, and especially bead Nr. 12, right side on the photo, counted from the end of the strand, a design well known not only from Venice, but also Mauritania)but though I do not consider myself having the ultimate expertise on Venetian beads (and neither on those from Borneo, actually), I am confident to say so!

Am I really the only one to see that the whole appearance of this beads smells Asian - not European?

To avoid being slaughtered, I say this: It is always possible that a few, very few beads in this case, if any - 1,2,3,4 or 5 the most not counting the monochrome blue ones - could be Venetian piece for one reason or another.

I am also not saying that Venice has not exported beads to Asia and Indonesia - I bet they have (though exporters), but if more than five beads on this strand were made in Venice, I would be amazed.

I believe that most likely not a single piece on this strand has been made in Italy!

Thomas, the "guarantee" says that these beads were collected in 1967. So, if that's true, they are not recent Indonesian beads. I believe that at least half of these beads, maybe more, are Venetian.

1.) If the beads - or some of them - were Venetian (what they are not), the original poster, possibly the one with the best information on the strand, might have said so in the title of his/her original post.

2.) The "guarantee" is an artefact we have to consider (wishing most beads or strands had a tag, informing us about the date of purchase). Still - guarantees can be wrong, and often are. While it seems unlikely this "guarantee" is wrong about time, it is wrong on provenance (as far as Venice is concerned). What did "Scientific establishments" know about beads in 1967?

3.) The original post and the "guarantee" together let me assume both, buyer and "Sci-fi establishment" might be one and the same party. At least related.

4.) This beads are so CLEARLY un-Venetian that I am stunned they could be seen otherwise. Still - on a discussion forum anyboy can (and should!) speak her/his mind, no matter right or wrong, though!

5.) It is open for Thomas to explain, what he means, when saying the beads are "recent". I assume he means "not antique".

6.) Bead Nr. 12 (right side, counted from the end of the strand) is of interest to me, because it's undoubtedly an original Venetian design. Getting that confirmed (through dated sample-cards, hopefully) we know "Bead Nr. 12" should be of younger age.

7.) The (lovely!) patina of the beads let me assume further not only all beads are from the same maker (Indonesia - neither Venice, leave alone China), but from the same period. A few decades before 1967 is my assumption, mainly because not much of the visible patina could have been added between 1967 and today.

8.) Everybody is entitled to her/his own ideas, of course. But it is always helpful to deliver arguments and fact to bolster them, arguments that led to believes or ideas in the first place. "Believes" alone are not a helpful tool, trying to solve an assumed riddle.

9.) In my previous post I argued that not more than 5 beads on that strand might be of Venetian origin. I reduce that number down to the only two I am not certain about (the red cylinder right of the coin and the one I called "Bead Nr. 12"). All other beads are not Venetian, but INDONESIAN!

10.) For those who might argue that it was me myself who admitted that my knowledge on both, the Venetian and especially the old/er Indonesian bead industries is not rock solid, so how could he be so sure, I say:

This is not a riddle in my opinion. None that needs ultimate knowledge of either industry.

PS
Where are the opinions of those cracks who know more on such beads and the industry that created them?

Out fishing...?

I have some very similar beads in my collection. They are from the African trade and presumed Venetian. But as usual in the bead history biz, we'd need to find some evidence for Venetian beads being traded to Borneo before confirming this one way or the other.

Bear in mind that some Venetian beads were tumbled to change the surface to a semi-gloss or satin finish, while other beads, particularly for the European jewelry trade, were left with a high gloss. I have some of the high gloss beads and they are identical to beads sent to Africa, and seem almost "too good to be real Venetians". But that's because 99% of the beads I've examined in person are not the high gloss versions.

Either Venetian or incredible good copies, is your evaluation of the strand in discussion? That they are older Indonesian beads is not even an option?

On tumbling:
Venetian beads were tumbled, you say. What kind of beads, at what time, for which market and for what reason? With an annual output of 300 to 700 tons of beads (= 30 to 60 million pc on the basis of 10 gr./bead) in Venice between ca. 1750 and 1920 tumbling - especially on a significant scale - must have been technically demanding, if even just "some" of them were surface-altered.

Yes, Venetian beads were left in their original fire-polished shine. Not only for the jewellery-markets of Europe and others parts of the world, but also for the trade with Africa (West and beyond). Their natural, fire-polished shine came for free, so to speak, and was one integral part of their appeal. Tumbling for reasons of enhanced or alternating beauty, was not known to me.

(Bead) Trade:
Evidence for worldwide (bead) trade is plentyful. Dutch East India Company, English East India Company, the Slave Trading Houses of Liverpool and elsewhere are good references - not to mention the hundreds of books on worldwide trade.

What we call globalisation today has already begun 300-400 years ago, as far as organized world-wide trade is concerned. Trading on a world-wide stage took already place during Roman times and earlier.

Back to the strand in question: To say that none of the beads on our strand had been tumbled, is a save statement. Their patina breathes non-tumbled authenticity and was caused by age and wear as heirlooms in Indonesia.

To devide your assumption between Venice and modern copies from Indonesia for the beads on the strand in discussion is a risky one, because it does not seem to be in sync with observation - photo or otherwise.

Regarding Venetian beads meant for the European jewellery-trade in Venice's main external European market, England - in comparison to those of "same" or simelar designs traded to Africa, I like to add that those for European consumption are visibly of higher quality (pers. observation of many strands I've inspected and those that are part of my collection of non-Africantrade beads from Venice).

The ones traded to Africa between ca. 1750 and 1920 (often via Liverpool and through traders in London) - though of same shape, color and design - lack the same care-for-detail and a general sophistication of those meant for an inner-European customership.

I would like to revise my previously expressed opinion, after a longer discussion with a person I consider to be an expert on the matter!

The main subject of "discussion" (in the forum) has been the question "Venice vs. Indonesia",if I recall correctly. My source agreed, quote: "The beads are all Indonesian, with the exception of maybe-maybe one or two pieces".

While I was first of the opinion - possibly influenced by the "guarantee" and a patina, I thought was visible - the strand could be from the 19-Sixtees, if not one-two decades older, I am now following my informant, who insists, quote: "NEW - NEW - BRANDNEW Indonesian work!" And this reporter knows what he's talking about!

Seems only Thomas got it right on both parameters - provenance AND age!

Compliment, Tasart!

End of story!

The information presented by others in this thread indicate that the beads are likely Venetian in origin.

As far as surface treatments on Venetian glass beads - I was in error about tumbling to remove surface gloss from ALL trade beads. In "Ercole Moretti", the book by Gianni Moretti, the nephew of Ercole, two methods are described for finishing beads. Rosetta beads were subjected to a finishing process by tumbling in a barrel with a proprietary sand mixture, resulting in a distinctive satin finish. While not specifically mentioned, the text implies that wound & trail decorated lamp beads were treated in the same way.

However millefiori beads (cylinders, elbows, short barrels) were finished by grinding. The ends of many cylinders were ground to an angle as well. Many sample cards with millefiori beads show matte surfaces, not glossy surfaces. According to the Moretti book, the grinding of millefiori beads brought out the designs. The beads were rubbed with oil after grinding to brighten them.

Of course there are also plenty of glossy Venetian beads on sample cards. Many of the wedding cake and other similar beads appear to have been left glossy, along with various milles.

I've seen a wide range of workmanship on beads from the African trade, but it sounds plausible that the "better" beads were reserved for the European jewelry market. Although my overall impression, based on the collections of people like John Picard, is that starting about 40 years ago, the African trade beads coming into the US were also of very high quality. I surmise that "most" of the best beads have already left Africa and are in the hands of collectors. Maybe that's why it now looks like trade beads are of lower quality than the ones found in Europe.

Some of the sweet "Perle a lume" - more sophisticated and beautiful than the avarage kind (Photo-1).

Made by Venice for the European Costume Jewellery trade. Such designs have also been lampworked during the same period/s with same/+simelar patterns, but meant exclusively for the African trade (and possibly other less demanding markets, ex Europe).

Previously posted Venetian beads for the SA markets confirm that Venice produced not only different, but also higher grade beads on demand.

The attached photo serves as confirmation!

This Venetian marketing strategy - lower grade beads to the lesser potent markets, high-grade pieces for those willing to pay the price - does not exclude that also finely worked beads made it to Africa.

Certain beads (photo-2), those for the East-African market, for example, confirm that!

PS
Of course many, if not most Venetian beads traded to West-Africa are cute and beautiful as well - no question (that is one reason we love them, I guess)!

I am also not shy to add, that my statement: "better beads for higher paying clients", is more of a hypothesis, than based on factual kowledge I could cite (though I recall I read something to that effect). Still, the logic of the argument is so convincing and plausible, that I would be more than surprised, had things not been exactly that way.

Imagine the ruthless Liverpool slave-trades (who did much of the export to West-Africa, at least pre-1850): Can anybody believe they were kind (or dumb) enough to send their top-grade stuff to an African mass-market that was not only less potent financially, but most likely also less demanding, regarding quality!

http://beadcollector.net/cgi-bin/anyboard.cgi?fvp=/openforum/&cmd=iYz&aK=59332&iZz=59332&gV=0&kQz=&aO=1&iWz=0

Late Borneo beads from Venice--as opposed to the earlier Borneo beads from Venice. JDA.

thank you for the sample card.

G, which was thought as a Chinese Chevron is clearly from Venice.

Recommended reading--but only for those with open minds. JDA.

Let's dispense with the idea that the Chinese made any artistic trail-decorated beads until recent times--unless some EVIDENCE indicates this. JDA.

The image provided by CoinCoin is very very limited. There is no way there can be a bead-by-bead analysis just from this picture. The look of the beads overall is that they are of Venetian origin. The first Indonesian copies I saw of some of these types of Venetians was in approx. 2002. While they were obvious repros, they were a great effort.

This past Tucson show in 2016, I saw super looking Indonesian copies of Venetians with 2 different sellers at the Gem Mall. Scarey good, displayed with Venetians from the African trade. Both vendors were interested in my reaction to them. I told them that my strong feeling was that they are Indonesian. In person, it's not really hard to tell. The lead content of the glass in Venetian glass gives them a characteristic weight that is just not there in the Indonesian repros. That is one main difference not available in photos. Another is the powdery mandrel-release present in most new Indonesian glass strands. And the slightly ground-flat ends at the perfs.

In the photo above, I can't inspect the beads for any of the characteristics I just mentioned, and so I feel any further pontificating about them is useless. I would have to see and handle them in order to give my opinion.

The auction house, or museum in San Bruno no longer exists, at least from my inquiry on line. It appears to be an auto detailing shop now. But any piece of paper can be put with any strand of beads.

I don't want to see any belittling of members for their opinions. There is no need for this at all. Respect that we can globally view and discuss beads with other people who care.

I had to look up the word "crummy":
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/crummy

On my screen the shot is crip, nice and crystal clear. Much better than can deliver, I fear!

I do not believe - should that have been misunderstood - the beads on this strand are Indonesian copies (of Venetian beads). I say they are Indonesian designs - with the exception of the two pieces I mentioned.

Of course it is always better to observe beads with our own eyes - no question! But we have nothing but a photo here to comment on.

Bead release does not play much, if any role here (unless in laboratory conditions or a high-mag lense), because the beads are supposedly at least 50 year old and possibly older!

I reviewed my text - making some changes - assuming I was meant to be the "belittler". It is not AT ALL my intention to do so. I guess I write too close to how I think. Next time I make sure to adjust my style to the social requirements of this forum even further.

Should have anybody felt belittled, I am sorry. The slight changes I made in my text hopefully document my sincere excuse.

Blue encircled = Not Venice

Blue/green encircled = No color match (pro Venice)

Green strokes = Too sloppy for Venice

Rest = Open for discussion (but also
Indonesian or "not-Venice" in my
book.

I'm rather confident of my source, that the beads did come from Borneo and in 1967, as there were many money objects in what I bought from him, all believably described on the home-made guarantee cards, and I have dealt in such currencies from not much later than1967 to present. I am a relative newby on beads, but I do have some outside opinions on the strand, and am confident that the great majority are Venetian. What impresses me is that an assembly of Venetian beads from outside of the Africa trade would be different enough to raise controversy. I know that not being able to see the ends is a severe handicap, and in-hand vs on-screen a great advantage, when forming opinions. I've been very impressed with (and fooled by) the few old and new Indonesian beads I've seen, usually misrepresented to me as Venetian by two unscrupulous Africa Traders. I'd like to learn more about this bead tradition.

My interest in beads (other than commercial) is focused on where and why particular types were traded, and is informed by a study of (primarily) Asian, and "traditional" (non-coin) monies. Despite the decrees, beheadings, behandings and other strenuous efforts of both native rulers and conquerors, people have been remarkably particular and obstinate in what money they will take, and their preferences are not always dictated by reason or commercial concerns - superstition, rumor, and tradition played huge roles. The Authority factor in bead dispersal would be quite different than for money, and aesthetics a big additional element. What I was looking for in posting this strand was some speculation on, or references to, the practices, preferences, beliefs, etc. that would have influenced the family(?) that assembled this group, or reflected on their standing.

Also I think it's important to retain and share images, at least, of relatively well provenanced groups to help researchers shed light on these questions. Since getting the strand a few years ago, and having some knowledgeable Traders weigh in on it, I've looked particularly at Trader offerings and found some overlap including, I think, what Beadman calls Lukut Sekala type. But the non-overlap types, and the lack of recognition by some posters, underscores for me that quite a lot is going on here in terms of the different demands between the two markets. Just as between European beads produced for African vs European sale.

Interesting post - thanks for the additional information. I would be interested to learn what exactly you mean by "a few years", the strand being in your possession. 1 year? 5 years? Longer?

What surprises me, is the fact that you trust your source, the seller of the strand, regarding age, but obviously not provenance, even though the "guarantee" reads, quote-on-quote: "A mix of Venetian AND Indonesian beads"

I understand you believe all of the beads on your strand are Venetian. Is is that so, indeed? All of them? None other, is what you say and were told?

That were most definitely not correct! My evaluation is not based on assuption, but knowledge for a wide majority of the piece. Those I might not be so certain about, can be discarded by exclusion (if this is a good way to make myself understood). In the context of: I might not be 100% sure this or that bead is definitely Indonesian - but I am certain it is not Venetian".

I hope that does not sound like back-paddling from my previous pro-Indonesia statements. Not at all - I still say this is a genuine Indonesian-made strand, even though there are some 10-15 beads (all monochrome blue ones, for example, of which at least one or two look to be made from cheap (powder-?), non-Venetian glass. The green beads - somewhere in the middle/left of the strand - are certainly not Venetian, because of the shade of green they used (leave alone the sloppy-sloppy design, Venice would not dare to deliver at any cost and during any period).

We will find out the true origian, will know at least what they are not. A matter of days, I guess!

I got the strand about 3-4 years ago, and I trust the collector to know where he was when, but attribution is a different matter. This was his only bead strand, so as to bead origins, I would guess he just asked someone and was given a safe, general answer. His ethnographic money descriptions were generally consistent with what was believed of these objects at the time.

For some reason I am getting blanks when I click on your messages with the annotated photo, but I will try again later and review your comments. It is the plain ones such as the four bright blue and two dull green near them that I suspected as Asian, but was curious whether any of the really fancy ones were also. The best image is the one I posted in the first follow-up post, but it may be difficult to work with and re-post. Other than yourself, no one I have shown it to has gone into detail as to which or how many were Asian, but what I took from general comments by those whom I trust was that the great majority are Venetian.

I am beginning to appreciate why, looking at sample cards, I recognize only a tiny fraction of what I see from my limited experience (and powers of recall!) with the Africa trade beads. Different markets, different demands. And perhaps there were trial balloons that made it to sample cards, and died there for lack of interest, hence rare "in nature" today.

I'm distressed at the way beads are handled in the Africa trade, and how difficult it is to find strands or necklaces as-worn. My understanding is that behind the Traders themselves are strand-assemblers in major cities, where loose beads and intact necklaces are cleaned and restrung into all-alike strands of intended equal value, or commercial mixes. Even if it were only the aesthetics of the original assembly - and I believe far more than that is reflected in most broken up necklaces, beadwork, and hair-braiding - this seems to me a horrible loss of information, of culture. But I'm constantly told that people will not buy dirty beads, so that's that. Only after years of begging was I able to get a few strands of grody ostrich eggshell beads, for example. When, rarely, I am able to buy originally strung bead necklaces, buyers seem to show no particular preference for these. With coins, everyone in the supply chain knows that it's cleaned coins that will be hard to sell, no matter how bad they look out of circulation or the ground. I'd like to believe that buyer suspicion of Asian knockoffs, and the value of patina in distinguishing them, will feed back to the stringers in Africa but I'm not holding my breath.

Lovely post. Another one! Since I am not under suspicion to "k*ss anybody's *ss", I feel free to say so!

And I do say so, because your concern is one I wholeheartedly share from day one of being a collector - in 1991.

Take "Muraqad" - the strands one can buy have nothing in common with authentic strands (that are worn too, aside from indivual hair-ornament pieces).

I have no clue how things have been during the very early days of the trade (late 60's - early 70's...?!), but nowadays - talking Venetian beads - I assume, roaming African dealers find nothing but single specimen. That excuses their cleaning, sorting and stringing practises, though you cannot forget that 90+% of them are in it for the money, not the socio-cultural aspects.

Same is valid for authentic jewellery from the Maghreb, Morocco for the most part. It is extremely difficult to find a true piece. Chinese customers - I was told just recently - buy such necklaces for no other reason but to "harvest" the amber and coral that comes with it. Sadness is the wrong word to describe such behaviour.

Money rules - everything and everywhere, with no light at the end of the tunnel!

I agree. It is a shame that very few ethnographic pieces or necklaces are found which demonstrate the "tribal" or local uses of the beads. Here is a photo of a necklace collected in Africa.

Here's the photo

A true artefact of value - if as authentic as it looks like, what can easily be believed!

Compliment for this catch (on more than one level)!

Would be of interest to know where the necklace came from?

Ghana, Togo are my first guesses, though Nigeria and Cameroon (Chevrons) are likely places of origin too. Actually all other West-African countries are possible candidates.

Yes! I always look for those big cloth-wrapped strands, but the Traders so rarely have any. I call these, and others on rotten string with some real pattern to the arrangements, "natural necklaces" at my site. There are lots of fishline-strung necklaces in intriguing patterns marketed as wedding, ready-to-be-married, childrens', or other special purpose arrangements, usually Fulani, and I pass on the designation the Traders give them, hoping these are accurate reproductions.

I personally think these are original antique beads..Venetian or whatever, and not Indonesian reproduction.

but your picture is misleading. the color saturation is not great at all with the scanning.

I bet the beads look very different in the natural light.

I know! Scanning works pretty well for coins, and I don't have to have any chops as a photographer, but with beads the degree of translucency is mostly lost with a scan, and brightness has to be bumped. If I bump the saturation, sometimes the beads look too rich, and I'm worried buyers will come to distrust the images. I gnash my teeth trying to get white beads to show well. Some of my worthy competitors know how to do the photography so much better, so the same strands from the same sources look so nice on their sites and so rotten on mine.

This is the bead I was talking about, during our quest to detect the truth from "Indochine".

I would also like to explain what I meant with one, two (or max. five non-Indonesian beads among your strand). When saying so, I left all monochrome blue specimen aside. Though I cannot say if they are Indonesian too (possibly not), I can say with certainty that they are not Venetian. In other words: All such (monochrome blue) beads were left unconsidered in my evaluation what is Asian and what is (not) European. This blue beads might be Chinese indeed and they could even be FM-beads from Bavaria (though it's not likely) or any other furnace-winding industry, ex Görece - an industry I have visited, and industry this beads are definitely not from. No idea what kind of wound beads Cairo and Herat made - certainly monochrome blue ones - but I an not pointing in that direction anyway. I think China might be a likely candidate - though for not much more than the geographical proximity.

Though I do not have the photo in front of me, I would like to state that not all monochrome blue beads on the strand are from the same maker. Two of them, those in a somewhat darker middle-blue laying next to each other, are most likely from another industry than those pieces a few centimeters higher on the photo, in the same area of the strand towards the right side on the scan.

I spoke with longtime collector today - one without ties to the forum. Like me, he pointed immedeately towards Indonesia, though I had not (not!) given him the option to choose between Europe and Asia. Only when I added the hypothetical question: "...not Venice?" he said without the slightest doubt in his voice, quote: "NO WAY!" (Niemals...).

Regarding age he wasn't sure, due to the make good fakes coming out of Asia these days. Pressing him for a guess, he said exactly the same I wrote and still think: "Between 1900 and 1950".

The person I am refering to is not a hobbyist, but a longtime collector of beads and related artefacts - one of the first hour!

Whatever..., just sayin'!

The bead - copied from our sales-site (with many other beads of interest), assuming your silent agreement to do so - is the only Venetian bead I see on your strand from Borneo!

PS
I would very much welcome, if you could maybe say a few more words about the guarantee (should you have any additional information). Did you get the strand directly from that person or his family or was it boought recently from a dealer?

My purchase was Feb, 2015, of several money-related or "traditional money" objects from a man named Mendenhall. Here is a quote from his email correspondence,

" I have a lot of artifacts I am disposing of. At one time I had a business where I dealt in all types of Natural Science collector items….so along the way I obtained many other objects in different sciences and for collectors. I closed that business and bought a startup engineering company 1n 1964 so most of the items I did not dispose of I am working on now as I just retired."

At some other point, he mentioned his private museum, so I would guess these home-made guarantee cards were the display tags. There were other things sourced from Dyaks, and I will try to post some pictures here. These were gold earrings, belt buckles, and other ornaments outside my area of knowledge, so I did not offer on them.

Let me put in my opinion on these as well.

From the overall look and style, I think that most of these beads were made in Venice, but with a very specific culture in mind as customers. The style, colors, shape, application of details, use of twisted cane and such can all be found on Venetian made beads for both the European and African market. Am I 100% sure? No.

There are some that have quite different colors or shapes that look like they were not made in Venice, but may be made in China or elsewhere in Asia. There are a handful that look like they could be modern copies, but my general idea is that the group as such is older than the more recent Indonesian made beads.

It might be good to consider the way glass beads like this are made. Although there were larger companies (especially in Venice) behind the export of beads and the production of glass, the production of beads is often small scale. It could quite easily be that a small workshop specialized in a certain type of beads, that never made it anywhere but in this case Borneo. Especially lampwork beads: they are all made individually. No molds, no machines, it is all just a person at a torch making them. This also means there is not one level of finesse, or one type of quality that you can attribute to Venice. It comes down to the individual maker and perhaps the quality control of the company.

I have been to the Czech Republic quite a few times, and I think I have a pretty good grasp on which beads were made there. However, so many beads that end up in the trade, never show up in the Czech Republic itself. Not in the museum, not in antique shops, not in old stock. Still, they are typical Czech beads which I can tell from the type of glass used and the production method. It strengthens my idea that certain beads were made very specifically for export, and never circulated anywhere else.

Interesting thoughts!

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%

Manik-Manik di Indonesia (Beads in Indonesia) by Ardhyatman and Arifin, , 2nd ed, 1996. This book is about beads found in Indonesia, regardless of origin. Pages 96-97 especially show the kinds of beads on my string, referred to as Venetian lamp beads, but mixed with Chinese. And through pp. 107 there are other Venetian types, including more familiar ones such as king and millefiori, found at various places in Indonesia. I know this does not prove anything, but just from knowing of the long colonial history of Indonesia, we should assume European beads went there. Does anyone know of a book or website (or factory advertising?) about Indonesian-made beads that would look like Venetian lamp-wound types? Aside from issues about this string, it is worthwhile to gather pictures and samples of beads made elsewhere that look too-much like old Venetian products. One of my favorite links on that issue is:

Jamey D. Allen, “The Heirloom Beads of Island Southeast Asia,” Journal of the Borneo International Beads Conference, Miri, Sarawak. 2010

Yes 4 what?

Yes, they are heirloom beads of Asia?
Yes, Journal of the Borneo Beads Conference?
Yes, Jamey D. Allen?

Maybe you care for being a bit more specific?

Why you do not simply say:
Yes - Asian beads!
No - definitely no beads from Venice?
Yes - I do not know!

Enlighten us with your knowledge - I know you know!

"Yes" - why so cryptic? No...?

Scott knows? I know too!

When this post is written and read, the rest of the world knows it too!

I know - for example - that Beadman believes (or knows) the beads in question are neither Venetian nor new.

Possibly the ultimate (Tibetian) gau. The Almighty has to agree with the Unworthy, who said it all along (about the Dyak strand):

One: Not Venice (except for a fewblue, plus one)!
Two: Not new!

Admit it, Herr Beadmann!

Hi everyone,

I’m later even than usual getting into this. I’ve been in Thailand, celebrating new year with friends and family and only got back to the frozen north yesterday. Climate shock indeed.

Reading this thread, I’m surprised at how little regard there has been for the opinions of Jamey Allen, who has paid more attention to these Dayak heirloom beads than anyone else, or to the conclusions of Billy Steinberg who surely must know more about Venetian beads and their cultural imapct than most of the rest of us combined. I’m not saying we have to agree with them, far from it, but it’s foolish to dismiss what they say without a reasonable and well-researched discussion.

And I’m astonished that nobody has referred to Robert Liu’s articles or Peter Francis’s Asia’s Maritime Bead Trade (I’ll say it again, “the best bead book, ever, period”), or Heidi Munan’s work on Borneo beads (she has helpful pictures too), or, until yesterday, Manik Mank di Indonesia, because these would be the obvious sources to begin with in trying to figure out where these beads really come from.

I should say, as a disclaimer, that I know next to nothing about Venetian beads, and very little about post-Ming dynasty Chinese beads. I stay away, as much as possible, from heirloom beads because I think they should remain with the people who value them most and who only sell them because of the economic inequalities between ourselves and them. But I do spend a bit of time each year in Java, looking at, and for, ancient pottery, beads and bronze. When I’m there I live with friends quite near to Jember where a lot of the modern glass beads are made. I don’t pay a whole lot of attention to them, except for the copies of ancient beads, but I must say, these don’t look like modern Indonesian reproductions to me. I have a lot of respect for Thomas(TASART)’s knowledge, and I’d love to see his evidence, or Juergen’s anonymous source’s also, for saying that they are. I’d be happy to be proved wrong.

But I am initially convinced by Coin-Coin’s scrupulous narrative about these beads’ provenance, and if it is correct, there’s even less likelihood of them having been products of the modern Indonesian glass industry which had very little presence or reach, if any, before the date when these were purchased, 1967.

So back to the beginning, where do these beads come from? Clearly, there’s no simple answer. I believe Mr. Steinberg when he says, on the basis of his own collections, that many of them are Venetian. As for the others, Peter Francis thinks they come from South China, possibly Quanzhou. That’s a tempting hypothesis. We tend to forget that the ports on the north coast of Borneo were major intermediate stops in the trade between China, India and Europe from Tang dynasty times on. Since Peter made that suggestion, there’s been very little new evidence to back it up. But China is a huge and inventive counttry that has always been in the technological forefront, and I wouldn’t write it off, though personally, I think the chances of Quanzhou having been a bead-making centre are slight; Guangzhou is much more likely. Jamey has suggested Japan, and that seems a real possibility to me. India shouldn’t be written off either.

Personally, I’m intrigued by the beads that Juergen likes least; the combed polychrome tubular beads on a green base. They seem to be later versions, perhaps early twentieth century (?), of the combed beads that are so valued by the Paiwan people in Taiwan. Quite similar beads have also been found in small quantities in Yunnan and are dated to the Yuan dynasty (I’ll attach a pic of two of them that were given to me by a very kind friend). I think the most likely source for the modern versions of these beads would have to be South China, or possibly Japan.

I’ll attach another, totally unbeady, image of the kind of thing I go to Java for, the head on top of a Dong Son period bronze limepot that dates from 500 BCE to 300CE. Actually it does have a suspension loop on top, so I guess it could be worn as a pendant!

Best,

Will

I did find Jamey's postings quite useful, showing many of the same or similar beads. Had not even thought of checking Francis (!), as it is so wide-ranging and short on photos, but it shows a Borneo strand also. Have just ordered the Munan work.

Those green beads you mention (11 together). There are several other beads with the same or very similar base glass, and the same yellow and red trailings, though in various shapes and sizes, including the two largest. Also some with similar translucence but bluer glass. All of them have a lot of bubbles in the glass. These also seem to be the ones Jürgen most suspects of not being Venetian. Altogether it looks as though perhaps 25% of the strand is this "something else" category.

this is a small but useful Peter Francis website whichis of some help.

Furness (1902) reported that Chinese merchants sent a Lukuk Sekala to Europe to be imitated. The Kayans weren't fooled.

http://www.thebeadsite.com/bbhl-01.html

his talking about the circle red-yellow decorated black bead, same on coin coin necklace..(which is not rare in Borneo).

Hi Will - great input of yours! I did not fully understand, though: If I am not mistaken (not having your post in front of me) you said we should believe BSteinbergs assumption that (most of) this beads are of Venetian origin, while you closed with a different statement, assuming the beads weree most likely of Asian production. Did I misread you?

You have certainly misunderstood my comments on the green beads with combed design, you are refering to. I very much like those - not the opposite, as you seem to say. I refered to those pieces as one pro-Indonesia argument. Such a green shade of color was not part of the Venetian glass palette.

One of my "secret" sources, as you put it, is actually a seldom, but still a regular poster on this forum. One with a huge collection, wide bead knowledge and extensive ("bead"-)travels on his belt. A source I very much trust!

I do not know, nor understand, why this person is not posting what he told me through an 1-hour+ conversation on Skype, the other week.
He did not even stop to insist:

- the beads are all Indonesian (except for the monochrome blue ones)
- the beads are all new, quote: Jürgen, are you blind, they date
from 2008, 2012 and might have been made this year).

I never believed this beads - ANY OF THEM - were new or made any time after 1967, as the "guarantee" stated, ergo: I completely disagreed with him on the age. I repeat what I always said: The beads on this strand (minus the blue and one proven Venetian specimen) were most likely made between 1900 and 1960 to draw a very wide circle. The truth may lay in the middle of this time frame - at ca. 1930. Proof is there "not-new" patina.

I cannot really say if they are Indonesian, Chinese or Japanese - due to a lack of knowledge. Actually due to the fact that I have never seen, owned or even touched any (!!) antique or old beads from China and Japan.

All I said is what I am still certain about:
This beads are NOT-NOT of Venetian production, except one. Should it finally turn out that two or three are Venetian, I do not feel to be proven wrong. 95+% of them are non-Venetian.

I will try to push this informant to post what he told me, what he INSISTED on over and over and over again: Indonesian and new!!

When even Tasart claimed a "recent" production (in Indonesia!), I begun to "wiggle" if the beads might really be 60-80+ years of age. A normal development for somebody like me, who has never - not once! - seen, touched or handled any Indonesian beads - old, antique, ancient or new.

I always insisted (and still do) on Indonesia, because I trusted the actual owner-poster and also - call me naive - the "guarantee", which I believe is authentic, not fake or not trustworthy. My main argument has always been the COMPLETE absence of any Venetian feel this strand produces.

I wonder, I really wonder-wonder, why the main "authority" on Venetian beads does not care to add her/his knowledge or assumption/s. Nobody, I think, can be "out fishing" for two weeks in a row.

Venice Asia Elsewhere old new

The guarantee X X X

bsteinberg X X

Stefany X X

Timbuk-2 X X

Tasart X X

Rosanna X X

Beadman ? ? Japon? (Will) ? ?

CoinCoin X X

Bonpo X X X

Florkasp X X

Will ? ? ? ?

BCN-poster (pers. talk) X X

1.) The results are my own interpretations from the posted texts on the matter, unless the source was clearly stated.

2.) I did not read Beadmans copies from 2009 (for obvious reasons).

3.) I understood Will believes Beadman believes Japon is a possible candidate, therefore I relied on hearsay in this case.

4.) For those who believe in Venice, I assumed they meant "old".

5.) Sorry, if any of my assumptions are wrong. Would be nothing but a wrong interpretation from the posts.

Results, based on this "survey":
The beads are predominantely venicemade: 6
The beads are predominately asianmade: 5
The beads are made elsewhere: 2 (incl. Beadman, based on Will's post)

The beads are most likely old: 8
The beads are possibly new: 1
The beads are definitely new: 1

Seems it is not possible to transfer from WORD to the forum.

Discard the first (now mixed-up) part!

Sorry!

Will - just to let you know: INDIA must be written off most definitely, as possible maker. I know the (four) Indian industries and can insure you, that Mother India has most definitely no stocks in this endeavour!

India must be written off (not only because it's Indonesia anyway)!