Chinoiserie was big in the Deco era.

It is the area right above the pendant - a mangled finding currently wrapped in cotton thread, that I wonder about.
I would like to restring and wear this one and wonder how best to do it.
Thank you for your responses!
LD

The beads at first made me think Czech. The pendant however is more typical of apossible Asian origin but also looks like it could be French, by Rousselet.
A closer look at the hole might be able to give a clue. The French made these beads on copper wire, which was then dissolved in acid, while the Czechs used a mandrel with a powder coating.

It is also an option that two pieces were combined into one. This jade color and pattern was very popular and very similar between different makers.

Not that I know better one way or the other if it could be French or Czech, but someone may.

Here is an image of the perforation.
I had always thought that this type of bead was Chinese too. The little metal findings don't look like Chinese filigree things though.

A ring bezel set with a cabochon of ebony wood, pierced and with a metal wire passing through it. Is this enough to make it a bead? The eternal (really) unanswered question.

Actually, this question has been answered a number of times in various venues. Just because a small object has a hole in it does not make it a bead. Buttons, washers, nuts (for bolts), and the like all have holes but are not beads. If, however, they are incorporated into a necklace, sewn onto a garment, or otherwise strung or sewn, they are being used as beads, thought their function remains a button, washer, or nut. Regarding the ring worn as a pendant, it remains a ring but used as a pendant.

I am afraid my question was misundestandable.
The ring is not used as a pendant. I was wondering wether the cabochon may be considered a bead because it is pierced and secured to the ring by a metal pin.

If found by itself, the pierced cabochon could be called a bead. However, when attached to a ring, it becomes a ring inset/inlay.

OK, there are beads that are beads by themselves, the "real" beads, no matter where we see or find them.
Then there are other things (naturally pierced stones, bolts, and so on) that become beads IF/WHEN used as such.
So, it is the intention of a human what turns an object into a bead, be it the manufacturer (i.e. peerless Art) or the user (i.e. a girl finds a naturally holed shell on the sand, strungs it on a thread and secures the necklace around her neck).
I hope I have it right now.

http://beadcollector.net/cgi-bin/anyboard.cgi?fvp=/openforum/&cmd=get&cG=6333438353&zu=3633343536&v=2&gV=0&p=

A Bactrian maze head used as a bead on a necklace, suspended from a silver chain from the Atlas area (Morocco).

As well as "le mystère de n'être le sommeil de personne sous tant de paupières"

These type findings are familiar to me from vintage necklaces I bought at thrift stores. I believe the beads were Czech. They were pink opalescent swirled glass.

The pendant shape is also similar to the one on that necklace. I sold it and photos are on an old computer.

I think speckled frit beads were made by almost every bead making country that ever existed. The differences are subtle.