.

These appear to be a modern attempt at faking ancient bead types, everything looks wrong, color, patina, glass type... etc

Gummy Bears, in other words!

I am disappointed, Mister Stricker! It hurts, to hear this
from Stuggard! I had expected a "complacency report", as is normal among countrymen.

Please start from scratch, take second look and put those fancy glasses on!

It is very true that those ~10 white ones (with raised eyes in a light-blue color) are rare - but that does not mean they are Chinese!

The whole lot cannot be fake - no way! Look at the round(ish) semi-translucent green ones. Some with strat-eyes, others with cane. One had to be a massive moron to fake such types. Even if authentic - what I insist these are - they won't cost hardly more than the equivalent of three Triple-Mäcs with brown "Hash-Mash" and Maple syrup.

The yellow ones? Those with the blue/white eyes? Fakes too? No way! Fakes if offered as Phoenician, as Cheryakhovian they are authentic and at least 1600 years old.

I "passover" this farbergenian Rus-eggs over to you as better photos, once I receive them on Easter-Monday. I will buy the strand. Should they not meet your authenticity standards, they might be a nice addition into Stefany's "Copycat-Collection".

Do not forget:
Though made under Roman occupation (in Crimea) between the II and IV centuries, they are no classic "Roman beads" from the heartland. That explains their provincial, diasporian country-side Plebs-appeal.

Have you noticed the few green/yellow specimen with design-traces of a "Fustat Fused Rod Bead"? Left and right twisted "stringers", applied directly onto a mandrel - not into a base or a core? I doubt a chinesean beadmaker from China would even know, think, or care about this technique.

Two beads are in doubt, though - even for me:
The first is the bigger roundish white piece (with canna-green zig-zag), the other the weird feather-type right next to white one (with only a dark-blue eye-bead keeping both apart from each other). The rest - the white "Gummy Bears" with lightblue frogs-eyes included - are ancient, hence authentic, hence 1600 to 1800 years of age!

If only Jamey were in a position to play "Beadman" again. I would make his evaluation my own, should he decide to agree with me, that is!

Your "report-short" wont go to the top of my file-pile!

True is also that you had no quality-pics to base your evaluation on. Meaning you are excused, Thomasinho - kinda...!

Another bead from the strand - one that wasn't really seen on the previous photos. Again in low resolution - not my pics - but good enough to see what might turn your ship around.

Or do you think this one is a modern fake as well?

Take a look!

PS
Realize only now - 30 minutes after posting the original post - that this bead was already visible. And even better than here. Oh my...!

Then this one - to the left - since it cannot be authentic, is possibly a cunning trick of the fakers to confuse the X-pert!

Common...!

If I were a true sleuth, I would take into consideration that they are making great copies of facebeads and other complex cane varieties with ease, I'm sure many buyers have been duped by excellent reproductions coming out of Iran and Crimea to name just two locations known for great fakes, your arguments make sense if there were NOT an already thriving industry making these types. I will grant you that there is no norm or standard type and the beadmakers from similar eras made "close but no cigar" bead types in varying locations, this does not change my opinion and I still say the bead appear to be modern repros

Thomas - I know you have a nice copy-collection (aside from your collection of authentic beads and pieces). Therefore your expertise has some weight to me.

Please note the beads in question are not mine (yet, leave alone that I am generally not the type to talk his own beads "up", while talking beads of others "down". Always found this to be foolish and poor!

In other words:
My believe that this beads are (mostly) authentic has nothing to do with my effort to see them better as they are!

I do not think there is a real killer among the lot. Many are small, rather simple, while the bigger ones are not really rare enough to buy the strand for those 4,5,6 pieces alone.

I have the same photos at hand you looked at, but are rather sure I checked each individual bead out longer than you did (and could). I saw many different signs are age and wear. Real signs - not the artificial signs to fool the naive customer.

I saw the little "holes" filled with old dust/dirt that is usually not seen on repros. Not this way! I saw the beadholes of different (!) diameters and many classic signs of wear and age that cannot be faked. Of course it is tried and naturally some of the fakers come closer to an authentic look as others, but I have handled enough ancient beads to be able to make a difference between Mister McCoy and Misses Wannabe!

Again - you have handled more of both, repros and authentic. Enough reason to take your words into consideration. Still - I cannot agree with you, in this case not even a bit.

The (many) white ones with the raised blue eyes were among those I doubted myself - first! Simply because of their rare color-combination (while the type of bead is known >Frankonia, is one! example). Looking at each individual bead in a blown-up version (as far as that was possible, without losing further resolution) brought to light all the many little nicks, chips and holes - many of whom - but not all - filled with the obligatory dust and earth of centuries. You might agree, but argue that this is a lame trick out of the fakers toolbox. Of course it is, Thomas. But our experience allows us to make a difference.

Here's another argument - one I mentioned already last night. A heavyweight and one hard to ignore: "How Chinese repros should reach 'Donbas'?" Though this is not impossible, it is not really likely. You might then say this beads were made elsewhere - probably in Ucraine itself (though we should not forget that Crimea is RUSSIAN territory now). No way - ignoring all other parameters of authenticity - that contemporary local beadmakers know about "right-twist" and "left-twist" (>Morfia) of 2-3mm composite stringes, especially those DIRECTLY applied on the (iron) mandrel, instead of a core or base. No way!!! they would and could know that. Even "if" - they would not care!

Finally money - some words on price:
How much cost a single modern repro - those we find on Ebay and beadmarkets? 4,5,6,7 Dollars? The strand consists of 70 beads. 70 x 5 = 350. Add money for postage, Ebay, Paypal we reach 500 Dollar. Add another fair amount of 200 Dollars for profit and the number is higher than the price-tag of the strand.

Most of all:
Would modern fakers really fake such beads? Are they worth the effort? Or would they target the market with more colorful, bigger and well-known specimen? Most of the beads we see here and true collector-beads. Even ones for the more advanced collector, I may say. These are no beads to wear and neither would anybody aquire them with the intention of re-sale and profit in mind.

There is one arguments that speaks for your opinion. I believe I detected two repros. The single bigger, roundish white one with green zig-zag and the one next to the next - with feather-design (though our friend does not share my opinion and believes they are possibly authentic).

India - with it's many charming "Cheap beds - No breakfast" guesthouses has told me an important lesson many years ago: "Should you find a single bed-bug under your mattresse (not mistress) - be certain there are 6000 others (this Indian rule is also valid for Bombay's rats)!"

In other words:
Should you find two fake glassbeads on a strand, look for more.

An analogy that makes good sense and raises the question if you, ultimately, may not have a point - though it's one you did not even raise!

From visual photo-analysis alone - as low-quality as the photos are - I am confident the beads on this strand, with two exceptions, are authentic specimen. Found 2017 on Crimea, dating to the II to IV centuries.

Anything made in the past can be made again. The difference is in the patina.

Patinas can be faked—though they are usually not entirely successful—and few people are really capable of judging patina. Not everything from antiquity (particularly concerning glass technology) has been successfully reproduced. We know how folded beads were made—but no one is cranking-out new folded beads. (Not yet.) But, no matter. Even well-made reproductions often have details that are inauthentic. The makers add details that were not seen in originals (perhaps in an effort to make something "rare" for the "fake antiquities market"). Perhaps because they have not seen enough originals to be aware of details that would be unlikely, or impossible. And then there is the "art sense" or originals, that can be challenging for fakers to reproduce. They can get close..., but not the same. JDA.

Patina is essential to the connoisseur.

To me, they look like reproductions as well. There may be a few genuinely old ones, but most do not look like it.
I like to add the disclaimer that there are many people out there that know more about ancient glass beads, but I have seen my share of them.

The colors are the main suspicious aspect for me. The yellow beads for example look too bright. The blue on the white ones with the light blue eyes, is not like the blue that is usually seen in ancient beads.

Your reply to Thomas, that the Chinese would never know how to make these, seems odd to me. First of all, there could be many places where these are made, including places with the skill and knowledge that is required to make these. Second: bead makers around the world generally have all the same access to both real antiques to study, books and the internet to learn about ancient techniques.

It will be very interesting next week when you get them in and show better pictures. Pictures can be deceiving, as we all know.

http://www.solarflarecreations.com.au/Timeline.htm

An introduction site for those not so familiar with repros! I am, of course, not saying that all repros look as clear-cut as the ones shown here. Far from it!

We might never know the truth about the beads. They were sold - but not to me, since somebody offered more money - finally!

All I know is that the beads were illegally dug-up on Crimea, another factor that has probably influenced me assumption.

As we know wild digging does not prevent diggers from mixing repros under the lots they offer and sell. Digging is therefore no proof of the beads authenticity.

Thanks for your comments - always interesting to hear people speak their minds!

How do you know they were dug up in Crimea? That sounds suspiciously like a sales gimmick.

A while back I saw an eBay auction for some ordinary powder glass beads from Ghana that were advertised as antique Native American beads from Alaska. The asking price was 20 X what the beads were worth. I asked the seller what made him think they were from Alaskan natives. He said he purchased them from an Eskimo in a remote village above the Arctic circle, who claimed they were local and over 100 years old. So he was distressed that he was cheated, and wondered how the beads got to that location if they were not made there. I told him that UPS and the USPS deliver to all kinds of remote places and also gave him some eBay listings for powder glass beads for comparison.

We have also heard about Chinese chevron beads sold to a dealer in Venice by an African trader. The Venetian dealer then sold them to an American who assumed they were made in Venice. I think I got the story right...

I think it's safe to assume that beads are being shipped everywhere imaginable from a large numbers of points of origin. We know that beads traveled far in ancient times, so how much easier it is today to imagine beads reaching someplace like Crimea for example, from China, Indonesia, etc. and very rapidly, too.

What your talk of Eskimos, UPS, Ghana and Chinese Chevrons has to do with what I posted?

The strand of ancient glassbeads I posted, was finally sold for ca.
50$ ‐ who needs "sales gimmicks" to promote peanuts?

You are not only wrong with "A" - your comical intro ‐ leave alone
the "Eskimo‐part" in the middle, you are also wrong, completely wrong, with "Z", the imaginairy conclusion in the last paragaph of your post.

Was it not you, who issued a BIG WARNING about the dangers of illegal bead-export from Egypt? Only a few days later, you feel, quote,
"safe to assume that beads are being shipped everywhere imaginable."
You believe that only Egypt restricts illegal digging and the subsequent export of the unearthed antiquities, ancient beads included? What about Russia? Is "Vova" too stupid or too ignorant to adopt simelar restrictive laws? While one might be able to pay his way out of border-trouble in Egypt, there is no such option in Russia

Not only that, you drift a step deeper in rose-colored wonderland with your imaginairy tale. To assume Russian folks make a living on the import of repros from Indonesia/China, they then forward - by UPS, of course - "everywhere imaginable", is another campfire tale worth a good laugh. One that confirms a profound lack of knowledge and completely ignores Crimean, thus RUSSIAN reality.

Unlike you, I visited the area twice! I established ties to a few locals in business on the Russian peninsula. It is out of question that anyone of them dares to take the risc of exporting their findings. Not through UPS and not personally. Not even HERMES himself would dare to take a chance! Punishment is harsh! Border-controls thorough! Everybody is fully aware of it. That certain beads make it through, is the flipside of smuggle. The avarage "digger-dealer" would not even evaluate his chances. None of those I know would - neither anybody they know!

There is no need for any illegal bead export from Crimea or other places in Russia or Ucraine abroad! Russians collectors are plenty and knowledgable*. I know, because I compete against them at times (sometimes on the losing side, as was the case with this necklace).

I am as certain as I can be, that the strand was authentic, having nothing but photos evidence. A handful of them might be questionable. Big deal at a price of 50 bucks! The square shaped white ones with raised blue eyes may fall into this group. Not for their style, shape or patina - for an unusual color combination alone.

Even unconsidering the photos and the story they tell - the context of the strand speaks a clear language of authenticity, something a handful of possible repros could not change.

The Greeks, the Goths, Byzanthinium and the Romans (ca. 50 BC till 350 AD) all invaded and controlled TAURICA partly or completely during different times of early history, partly lasting into later Middle Ages ("East-Rome"). They all left their mark! Many their beads. Many of whom - under the Romans, especially - were of local production.

How do you squeeze the suspicious sound of a sales gimmick into this, Rosanna?

Ask Simon and Garfunkel!

PS
* on "knowledgable Russians":

Maybe not surprising "the Russian beadcollector" has a deeper interest and understanding in the historical side of bead collecting. The country has produced more academic books on beads in their historical environment, than any other country. Unfortunately in an alien language to most of us!

It is difficult to tell on the lot because of pictures, etc, and some or possibly all could be new, but I wouldn't want to be fooled by color or style. Remember the Black Sea trade was quite a bit different in color choices and bead styles.

Look back at a fairly recent post on Black Sea trade with comments by myself and Will.

I will be making another posting soon of more ancient beads from the Black Sea trade or that were influenced thereby.

Jan

Below, similar beads from a very reputable source:

This rather big "all-weather(ed) wheel" (26mm) is from the same source than the previous beads.

Still, I did not post the bead to proof anything regarding authenticity. I show it, because I would like to know if the "design" around the beadhole on one side (with white background) is random, or if there might be a reason.

I guess we can agree that this piece is ancient!

About 25 mm in diameter:

Could be the same workshop, Jan!

Size, shape, monochrome glass are simelar.

The difference is the "hole" and that mine has two different sides (assuming your beads has two same sides). Not only the weird "design" around the aperture on one side puzzles me - as if this had a specific function - the second side (right photo) is completely different from the opposite side. It also seems as if a mold had been used in the case of the piece I show.

Mine is not only rather perfectly round, also the concave shape of the posterior side seems to be unusual and differs from yours (I assume) and most other such beads. There must be a certain function behind both issues:

- concave shape of one side and the
- circulating, often triangular shaped indentations around the "hole".

What do you say...?

On three bead event occasions, I have worn this CORNUCOPIA of mostly Islamic Era beads.
And, I felt like "the life and soul of the party." Or, as Right Said Fred: "Too sexy for my shirt."