It sounded like stone when I tapped it on the cast iron stove to photograph it. It felt a little lighter than the current batch of dZi looking beads I bought recently in China but not as light as plastic. It was heavier feeling than the "resin" dZi beads I was shown by the bead dealers in Delhi.

The chips out of it do look different than chips out of stone. The wear from the cord would happen faster in plastic. Almost makes me wish I'd bought it so I could examine it more.

...picked it up. I mean, almost weightless, right? Do they put stuff in plastic to make it heavier. It's a pretty cool-looking bead though. Steve

There were fake dzi produced already twenty years ago or more with resin molded over a metal core thus giving the bead a heavier weight.

Jamey can elaborate on this I'm sure but it is not a new idea and certainly has been done for some time in Asia.

These were common in the past but from Russ's discription this is apperantly something different. I'm sure the difference is apparent.

Hi Russ and all,

I'm not really guessing. I RECOGNIZE this bead as being a typical example of plastic repro zi, as has been made at Tibet for quite a long time.

These were first brought to my attention in 1974 in the premiere issue of The Bead Journal, where Robert Liu did an article about them. (At that time I knew squat about zi beads, except that they existed and cost "$100 apiece.") So these have been made for well over thirty years (as I have remarked here before). Because of my interest in Tibetan culture, and all things beads, I began to pay attention to the issues of beadmaking and counterfeiting, to the technology of their manufacture, and to the industries that produced imitation beads (such as Czechoslovakia and Germany). I was in-part interested in plastic reproductions because of the significant research I was pursuing at that time, related to fake amber.

By 1985, during the International Bead Conference aboard the Queen Mary in Long Beach, the paper I gave for that conference was specifically about plastic imitations of zi beads--including a presentation of all the patterns I had documented, the fact that there were two primary types (that I called the "neat" ones and the "sloppy" ones), that some had metal cores inside to make them heavy--and I described how they were made and their likely time and place of manufacture.

I was mistaken about the latter, because I suggested these were European beads, made from acetate plastic. (At that time I could not imagine that anyone in Tibet or India was capable of making sophisticated 2-part inlaid plastic products. And in particular I wanted to dispel the MYTH that these beads were made "from old recycled 78 RPM plastic records"--the prevailing story that was circulated at that time.

A short time later, I was assured by several people (not all at once, of course), that there were two brothers in Tibet who made these beads. So I had to alter my perspective somewhat--as one always does when new information is gleaned that is seen to be reliable. Eventually, I was shown a series of plastic components that demonstrate the manufacturing process in a series of steps (just as I had suggested in 1985), that came from these two brothers in Tibet. Furthermore, over the years I noticed that every few years a NEW STYLE of these beads, in terms of size, shape, or design would appear on the market--indicating that this was an alive and ongoing industry. At one point, they even made zi bangles--as I show in my Arts of Asia article.

Of course, this doesn't mean that new plastic fakes are ONLY made by the brothers in Tibet. It's possible the Chinese now make them too. (Or something similar--and this, as everywhere in bead study NOW, has to be considered and looked for.) But I recall that in 1998, when I went to China, in Beijing there were bushel-baskets-full of plastic zi beads, that were misrepresented as being "ancient zi beads from Tibet." I, of course, bought a representative group of specimens.

So, when I say "I recognize this bead," I hope you will try to believe me.

Jamey

Hi Jamey,

I absolutely do believe their were two brothers in Tibet! (I believe they were called Amos & Andy?)

I just don't buy that the plastic imitation dZi with metal cores were made in Tibet in the early 70's if that what you really are saying? Tibet was an archaic place in those days. That they were made somewhere is for sure as I myself saw them in Kathmandu many years ago but the technology was way beyond anything happening in Tibet at that time. Perhaps they were made in India, China or even Nepal but the two brothers story sounds like a MYTH to me. I will give you this much - maybe two brothers from Tibet brought some fakes to Nepal or elsewhere and said they were from Tibet? Who really knows???

You as a bead researcher have chastised people (yes, even me) many times for disseminating FUD without hard facts. I think you call it scientific? I don't mean to be harsh, you have vast knowledge in some areas but my experience on the ground in those places leads me to be skeptical of this story. I have praised you for your knowledge - I am not trying to elevate myself by questioning you. Please try to understand. It is like the story you mentioned about the Pemma Rocca beads being called "Han"???? How bout' that one???

When you are ready to listen I would like to revisit the "Chung dZi" issue again. Believe it or knot - other people can do "research" too. I dropped this issue almost two years ago rather than argue about it. Unless you are willing to listen to other ideas it is useless to pursue.

"Show me the Beef"

Most respectfully yours // bob

Dear Robert,

I never met the brothers, nor did I see their factory. It is possible they don't live in Tibet, but rather are Tibetans who live in Katmandu, or Dharamsala, or another city.

I did not hear this story just once, but rather SEVERAL times, and always similarly told—and from people who travel and trade in this region. People such as Torbjorn and Judith Carlsson. It was DIFFICULT for me to give up my ideas that plastic zi beads were made in Europe for export to Tibet. That was a more reasonable idea to me. But I would have been considered stubborn and set-in-my-way to ignore new information..., so I made an adjustment in my beliefs, based on information and evidence, and the assurance of the people who brought these beads and in-progress samples of their manufacture out of the region.

I have not written a paper on this topic. What I say is presented here for the purpose of discussion, and as a point of information. When I am ready to write a real research paper, you will be free to criticize it and doubt it all you like, just like anyone else. (That is the normal course for any research.) In the meantime, if you mistake conversation and the sharing of information on a public web site as "science"—well that is just a mistake. What I reported (as I OFTEN do) is my EXPERIENCE, and my beliefs based on that experience.

The post I replied to shows a bead, and it is misidentified. I have correctly (I believe) identified it. Nevertheless, the replies to my post were skeptical, dismissive, and presumptuous—prompting me to reply and provide more information..., that again inspires skepticism and doubts about my abilities and knowledge-base. All when I was just saying 'these are plastic beads I have documented for nearly thirty years, and this is what I have been told.'

If you have a perspective, based on your experience, or on knowledge that you have gleaned from your MANY trips to Tibet, and your many opportunities to garner information—I and everyone here will be GLAD to read it and to be enlightened about these beads. But, essentially, you just say you disbelieve what I relate, based solely on your beliefs about what is 'possible' or 'impossible.' (And I am already way past that.)

The balance of my reply to you will be private.

Jamey

"What I reported (as I OFTEN do) is my EXPERIENCE, and my beliefs based on that experience."

Isn't that what we all do?

Thanks for your opinion.........

......and your very personal reply. (I guess?)

That's all folks!

"If you have a perspective, based on your experience, or on knowledge that you have gleaned from your MANY trips to Tibet, and your many opportunities to garner information—I and everyone here will be GLAD to read it and to be enlightened about these beads.

JDA.

July 2019

In the quest for accuracy:

I recant my proposition that plastic zi beads "were made at Lhasa." This was an incorrect memory on my part (!). What I was told was that two Tibetan brothers operated a factory in Nepal (probably at or near Kathmandu), where they have made plastic imitations of zi beads for decades. I figured out where I went wrong quite a while ago, probably before Gabrielle Liese passed away in 2011. But I did not take any opportunity to correct my mistake until now.

So this is it. JDA.

September 2019

I need to correct my faulty memory and the mistake I made in this post.

The story goes that two brothers who are/were "Tibetan" operated a factory (and it may still exist, for all I know), where they made plastic imitations of zi beads.

However, they were not located in "Lhasa,Tibet." They were in (or near) Kathmandu, Nepal.

The manufacture of these beads, as to technique, is well documented. I have photographs of the sequence of operations in my Archive. However, I determined this before I ever saw the specimens, by taking apart some of these beads in 1984. They were the subject of my lecture for the International Bead Conference in Long Beach, aboard the Queen Mary ocean liner, in 1985.

So, for anyone who has serious doubts that "plastic zi were made in Tibet," you would be correct. I named the wrong city and country in the previous post to which this message is related, above (!).

I have a strong apiration to correct any mistakes or errors I commit. And I should have posted this reply a long time ago. Nevertheless, the bead shown by Russ, without a doubt, is a typical Nepalese plastic zi.

JDA.