I apologize if all this has been discussed at length already and decided by those more qualified than I. Please enlighten me?

Joy B.

Our recommendation to eBay was:
Antiques @ 100+ years old

We used the U.S. government guideline for this, "Antiques (100 years old)". Ebay assigned the date 1899 (and I can only speculate on their reasons) as pre twentieth century. The twentieth century is also known as The Modern Age.

We can accept this because now we have a definitive time frame for these subjective terms on eBay. This a big step!

As for sellers pushing the dates back on trade beads, they're doing to that anyway.

David

Sincerely yours,

Gabriel

Concise Oxford Dictionary:
1)modern: of present and recent times; in current fashion not antiquated
2)contemporary: belonging to the same time as oneself

other words for modern: advanced, fashionable, trendy, recent, contemporary

In the light of all this what are Kiffas????? By this/your classification they are modern beads - this just can only be a JOKE.

As you know, back in the days when eBay was fresh and new, it was possible to communicate with the founders, give them direct feedback, and cary on a conversation. I think they were happy to receive a message that was encouraging, because I was told they got a LOT of static from people who were not happy with the way things were run. Of course, there are always vocal complainers.

In one of my chats with Pam, I recall recommending that they change the definition of "antique" as "100 years old or older," to replace their incorrect usage of "50 years old or older." In particular, I mentioned that since the history of beads goes back to at least 30,000 BCE, fifty years ago is much too recent a time. I also said that the 100 years mark was very common in the antiques trade; and that the only artifacts I could think of that were routinely called "antique" that were as recent as from fifty years ago are automobiles—and this because the history of the automobile is itself recent. Strictly speaking, there are NO "antique cars"—but you'll never convince a car buff of this (I say as someone who used to hang out with a crowd of classic car devotees here in the Bay Area).

Pam thanked me for my opinion, but said they were going to keep their definition..., and I have just accepted this over the past eight years.

Recently, the prospect of having new categories for presenting collectible beads in a more accurate and equitable manner has seemed like a progressive step to me. You know I have given my opinion when asked, and you know that I know there is no easy solution to the problems people have faced and will face using ANY system. And we all know, any system can be abused and/or circumvented.

I have to say, I am surprised to read of the strong reactions people are having to the new eBay system. I hope it is mostly a matter of having to cope and adjust to something that is merely different. It certainly seems like a venting exercise.

I never cease to be amazed that if you say one thing, people will interpret it as something else. "A" isn't "A"—it's "B." Thus, when a bead is categorized as "Modern" it isn't merely modern, it must be "New." This is illogical thinking. And it seems to be based on fear and emotion. If I cross the street, it's possible I may be run down by a crazed driver. But that doesn't mean I am going to desist from crossing streets. It means I have to careful and take responsibility for myself. Or else I am stuck in my home for the duration....

Are muracad ("Kiffa") beads modern? They absolutely are! As far as anyone knows, they didn't exist before about eighty years ago—and they are all made from glass that didn't exist before about eighty years ago (the time that the NEW MODEN glass chemistry that developed between 1880 and 1920 changed the color palate of glass-beadmaking. Again, if you think about the history of beads as encompassing 32,000 years ago to this week, the previous eighty years are a speck on that timeline.

The words "Modern" and "Contemporary" are not interchangeable. Contemporary is more recent than Modern. Modern is more recent than Antique. Antique is more recent than Ancient. Imposing actual dates onto these categories to divide one from the other may be arbitrary—and certainly seems to be controversial—but essentially these categories provide realistic frameworks, even if there are instances where (in relation to a specific object) the span of production crosses over one of these arbitrary lines.

When I think about how poor and unserviceable the categories at eBay were formerly—and when I think about the willful abuse of these categories (especially "Native American"!), I have to think that almost anything would be an improvement. But, in fact (although I may not be in 100 % agreement), I regard the new categories as a very equitable and doable system.

I hope anyone who is tangibly involved, whether as a seller or buyer, will give this system a chance.

All I can say is, Good Job!

Jamey

I am not directly interested in transactions on ebay but I continue to think that the representation as "ancient" is the rignt one for beads produced until the end of the Islamic period (minimum 500 years old). A folded bead from the 12th century (8/900 years old)is obviously and ancient bead and has nothing to do with a Venetian Millefiori or fancy from the the late 19th century.

I propose to respect the new timeline as far as transactions on ebay are concerned but to continue to accept a representation as "ancient" for beads produced until the end of the Islamic period and "antique" for beads from the beginning of the Venetian production.

Sincerely yours,

Gabriel

I have said here, many times, that the dividing line between ancient and modern glassmaking and glassworking is at CE 1400. This date represents the time that the Near Eastern glassworks were destroyed by Tamerlane, and when Venice was poised to exploit that market with her new products.

Having said this, I was immediately criticized for implying that there was a difference in the time frame between "ancient glass" and "modern glass," while also saying that in a non-glass context the date I agree with for them to be "ancient" is 1,000 years ago. I don't think this is a big leap—that, depending on the material, and given the L O N G history of beadmaking and of the use of glass, these issues are not hard to sort out.

The divisions we are discussing are for BEADS, not just GLASS BEADS. Although the case is made (and I agree) that glass is the "most important bead material," it is not the only bead material.

Added to that, the problem of dating beads is FOUNDED on the fact that practically no beads can really be finely dated. LOTS of styles, types, of certain materials, and various origins, were made over a long period. I happen to believe in CUSPS. The idea that there is a comfortable range on either side of a given date, into which a bead might belong.

For instance, if I say a beads is "about 1,000 years old," I am comfortable with saying or accepting that it might range from 1200 years ago to 800 years ago. Or whatever the appropriate cusp may be.

I agree that Islamic Period glass beads are "ancient" beads—and I have never said otherwise. In fact, I am the PRIME motivator in the recognition of the contribution of beadmaking from this period. Prior to my personal work in this arena, the typical presentation of these beads suggested they were "Roman"—making them about 1,000 year's too early. I have worked for twenty-three years to change this perception and misrepresentation, beginning with what I still regard as the correct timeframe for beads from West Africa that I maintain are Islamic, but that are still routinely misrepresented as "Roman" (that began in the mid-1980s). There can be no doubt that the tradition of Islamic beadmaking extends back into Roman times, and no doubt that this is an ancient tradition. However, it is much less than accurate to call it a "Roman tradition"—because this region is the HOME of glassworking, and it's the Romans who merely exploited it rather than devised it.

I hope this clarifies my position. I have said all of this MANY times.

Be well. Jamey

Thank you very much for your interesting comment.

Sincerely yours,

Gabriel

Thank you for getting collectible beads in a category of it's own.

Jan Skipper
mosquitobay

We are dealing in artifacts from many diverse cultures that span vast periods of history.

The ancient period ended with the fall of the Roman Empire, around for 476 AD. It would be a safe assumption to refer to any artifact from that time period as ancient. The Islamic period ended around 1500 AD (a thousand years later). Would it be safer to refer to the artifacts from the Islamic period as Islamic or ancient? I use the word safer for a reason, a legal definitive reason and not a subjective euphemism for something really old.

The 18th - 20th century is listed as the modern period. With the history of beads dating back over 75,000 years, modern trade beads are from the modern period of bead history.

It's time to educate yourselves, learn to refer to age by its proper historical period. Then educate your customers to do the same. This is what the most reputable sellers do.

Gabriel

Gabriel

The purpose of eBay categories is to help customers find what they are looking for.

I am a platinum powerseller on eBay, selling more than $25,000 a month on eBay, so have a Top Seller Senior Account Manager. I will be happy to forward cxomments and suggestions from any of you on this subject---I can't control what decision eBay makes, but can ensure that they will be read by a real person!

Best,
Elizabeth Bennett

It is difficult to follow your train of thought.

Since a "good old bead" is an old bead (though often not nearly as old as many sellers and collectors would like to assume), it is NOT a Contemporary bead. Contemporary beads are made in the present, often by studio beadmakers, or by current industries. Where's the conflict?

The suggestion that "modern" and "contemporary" are 'academic words,' just makes me laugh. These are "Fashion words," as much as anything else. Academia is or can be much more esoteric—and to discuss the commonplace as though it were esoteric is sort of silly.

It is very true that "The purpose of eBay categories is to help customers find what they are looking for."

Now, FOR THE FIRST TIME, there is a Subcategory under "Collectibles" that is called "Beads." This can only help people find beads.

JDA.

0 to 25 years modern
25 to 50 years vintage
50 to 100 years antique

Than break down the beads 100 years and beyond into other time frames.

Ray

Sorry about the other postings, 1St time to post.

Thanks for your input.

How well someone does in finding beads at eBay may have a lot to do with his/her experience level. Once you've done it and you have a personal system, it may be difficult to appreciate how other people may struggle. I know what I do. I may not necessarily know what you or anyone else does. In the days that I was at eBay almost daily, I seldom did a search to find things. I probably moved into searches because Categories were so ineffective or exclusive. (I don't think that having a Beads Category is a stretch, in the field of Collectibles.) I was more likely to surf around, go through categories—and occasionally to bookmark a search if I found something that was particularly useful. But my experience (then) was that keywords that I thought would be commonplace often didn't give results. OR, the beads that came up were NOT those beads. So, yes, people DO find beads at eBay..., but do they find the beads they are looking for? I still hear from people, who are surprised to know ANY ancient beads (or significant ethnographic pieces) are offered at eBay. Last week, a group of ojime were offered. A friend of mine who LOOKS for ojime hadn't see them and didn't know about the auction until I told her.

I have to disagree with you about "vintage." Vintage is not a time between "modern" and "antique." Vintage means that the object can be dated, and related to some historical trend, event, or style. Some vintage items will be modern, and some will be antique.

Now that you're here, I hope you will contribute to the Forum.

Jamey

Contemporary 0 to 24 years
Vintage 25 to 99 years
Antique 100 to 500 years
Ancient - Over 500 years

I think vintage is a good word to use and widely understood (in the context of collectibles and antiques) to mean that the item has not been newly created. It is also not old enough to be classed as an antique.

Just my two cents worth

I don't regard being educated about a particular chosen area of collectibles as necessarily being "academic". But I have always felt a certain responsibility toward educating my public about what I am selling. After eight years of buying, selling, and/or observing the eBay marketplace, it's evident to me that this is not the case with many sellers. Yet, many buyers look to eBay as a source of valid information in the marketplace, with a somehow unspoken acceptance that if it appears in print on their screen from an eBay seller, it is credible and reliable. We have a moral obligation to try and educate customers with correct information.

Due to our consumer advocacy, we are no longer selling on eBay as of Dec. 2006. We have been authorized by eBay Trust and Safety to contact sellers with correct information re. their bead auctions. We provide the corrections to their text and point out instances of keyword spamming, miscategorization, etc...If revisions are not made in 24 hours, we submit the auction to our contacts in Trust and Safety for termination of the auction. We always initiate contact with the seller with the approach that they are simply mistaken or uninformed about their item. But all too often there is no response at all, or a combative one. Which tells me that the tendency is for the seller to represent their item with a specific agenda, not necessarily one that includes accurate representation.

We are trying to help raise the standard. After it's first 12 years on the net, eBay is definitely popular and heavily used. The past two years is the first we can recall of an effort on the part of eBay to improve the quality of representation on their site. This is surely brought about by lawsuits from huge companies like Tiffany, Swarovski, etc....as well as Senate committee hearings with eBay re. internet fraud. The estimate was recently that over half of internet fraud is committed on eBay.

We are sure that this is what prompted eBay to hire a former U.S. prosecutor as vice president of Trust and Safety. He is our original contact in eBay. Our concerns have been heard by this person and his staff. They are very real people indeed.

I can't think of a time when I did not regard "antique" as 100 years or more. When someone tries to tell me that something barely older than I am is an antique, I think they're scamming me. eBay is an international marketplace, based in the U.S. and therefore it's required to comply with standards set forth by U.S. law.

This is an excerpt from U.S. Customs definition of "antique":

Works of Art, Collector’s Pieces, Antiques, and Other Cultural Property May 2006

ANTIQUES

Antiques are classified under heading 9706. In order to qualify as an antique for CBP purposes, the article must be over 100 years of age at the time of importation. Whenever an article is entered for sale under heading 9706, and later determined to be not over 100 years of age, a duty of 6.6 percent ad valorem for articles subject to column 1-general treatment, free of duty for goods originating in the territory of Canada or a duty of 25 percent ad valorem for articles subject to column 2 treatment will be assessed in addition to any other duty or penalty imposed on that article under the tariff schedule.

Ray

JDA.

So now I say the same thing in this context.

Not every bead is a "collectible bead." If every bead is called a "collectible bead," the term (and the eBay category) becomes meaningless. The term should be reserved for beads that are significant enough to have a following, that have established collectibility, and are desired by collectors.

Are there plastic collectible beads? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean ALL plastic beads "are collectible." Come on people! Try some critical thinking. All ducks are birds, but not all birds are ducks. THINK.... The collectible plastic beads that come to my mind first are the early 20th C. (Modern) phenolic plastic beads that are sold as "amber" (from an African context)—but are actually European trade beads. Next, the phenolic plastic beads of the 1930s that are generally called "Bakelite" (although they are not), that were the costume jewelry of the swing generation, and of poor folks. (See Whoopi Goldberg in "The Color Purple"). However, this is NOT to say that cheap mass-produced plastic beads should be elevated to the status of being "collectible." Maybe in twenty years, if some of them catch-on (for some reason), SOME of them will become collectible. But most of them will remain cheap junk. And they are certainly not "collectible" now.

I will say it again: People resist change--in part because the new and different is frightening. Give this system a chance to work. If it doesn't work—if it makes more problems than it fixes—IT can be changed, down the road. There is another truism at work here too. "The evil you know is more acceptable than the evil you don't know." In other words, although the present eBay system has many faults, people who make decisions and judgments based on fear will prefer the old system over any new unproven system—because that is human nature.

JDA.

Of course I agree with you, not all plastic beads are collectible, not all beads are trade beads, and the term "Trade Bead" is over used. But I still believe that not all beads, before 1900 should be classified as modern. Beads should follow a similar listing as with jewelry.

Jewelry basically uses:

Victorian-1830's into the 1900's
Art Nouveau-1895-1915
Edwardian-1890-1920's
Art Deco- 1920-1935
Retro-1935-1955

If one of the objects, (Change) is also to teach people, why not a system, that will teach. Rather than just term, prior to 1900 beads as "Modern".

If their is to be a change to the better, lets make it a good change.
I just don't fell, that just, having a Collectible Bead Category, with very basic time frames, is sufficient.

Ray

Ray

I detect your frustration! Can you feel mine? Do you think anyone is stopping you from lobbying eBay to make them aware of your opinions? I don't think so—and certainly not me, and not anyone at this forum.

Take care. JDA.

When the BCN group ask E-Bay to set up a collectible category for beads, that made BCN the spokesman and the check and balance for all types of collectible beads. Especially since BCN will offer, sellers and E-Bay opinions on fake and other mislabeled or fraudulent listings. This I applaud.

A forum is the "medium of open discussions". There was no discussion, that I am aware of, in an open forum, about collectible beads, for the 1900 to present time frame, maybe also for the other bead dates? BCN suggested these dates to E-Bay, with no suggestions/opinions from the BCN forum public.

You mentioned that I have the right as anyone to go to E-Bay for changes. E-Bay is the marketplace, BCN is now the conduit. E-Bay does not know beads. If as stated, BCN has "we have a moral obligation to try and educate customers with correct information" lets do it with better information, than just "modern" and "contemporary".

I am not trying to frustrate you at all or anyone else. This is a forum.

Regards

Ray

Here is a link to a previous discussion about eBay categories. This discussion was continued off-line for quite some time.

Thanks for the previous posts, I missed them. As Joyce mentions "Time periods are vital, but must be kept simple or E-Bay won't consider". This is true for all bead time frames. Probably 95% of beads from the earliest beads to present was tied directly to jewelry. Today a lot of jewelry and beads are tied to the jewelry time lines, per my earlier post. I just don't feel good about putting all beads from 1900 to present into, contemporary or modern, when some beads are not modern. For instance early Venetian, Czech. or Chinese or Japanese etc.

Regards
Ray

Amazing.

JDA.

Hi Jamie,

Yes, I admitted I missed the postings. The postings lasted about a week, with about 10 people involved. It seems most of the postings concerned the terms and use of "trade beads" with some about vintage and ancient.I think it was a good start.

But, has there been any discussion in the 4 months since? Did anyone from BCN come out with, "oh by the way, forum group" we have decided we will use these categories for the "bead collectible groupings". What does the forum group think of about these.

Take a look, this thread has been going on for 7 days, look at how long the thread is.

A change like this concerns hundreds of sellers and thousands of buyers.

Maybe it would have ended with what was decided, but the forum public would have had, at least, a chance, for a final opinion.

Regards
Ray

I guess I don't get your point. I have the Collectible Beads book also, with a very nice library. That book covers most all bead time frames. It just seems to me, this new proposed listing method, is going to basically, pigeonhole every thing, except the very old beads to ancient into "modern". This does not seem fair to the sellers of beads today. Nobody basically likes changes, but if a change is necessary, it should be beneficial, to all. It must be remembered that this effects hundreds of sellers and thousands of buyers worldwide.

1. So what really is trying to be accomplished, with these CHANGES?

2. Will this CHANGE accomplish this goal.

Regards
Ray

Be very careful.

Sincerely yours,

Gabriel

I cited "Collectible Beads" by Robert K. Liu as ONE REASONABLE SOURCE for understanding what beads are considered collectible. It is not the only source. But it is a significant source. Other sources I have named NUMEROUS times are: The History of Beads (Dubin, 1987), and Beads of the World (Francis, 1999, 2nd edition). Of course, I would include my books too.

This inference that Robert's opinion is not more pertinent and authoritative than the opinion of "Ms Cohn" or most other people is ridiculous. When "Ms Cohn" (or anyone else) has spent thirty years in this field, and has published hundreds of valuable, useful, and accurate articles on a broad variety of topics, published an internationally recognized magazine, and given countless lectures—THEN "Ms Cohn" (or anyone else) can consider himself/herself equal to Robert Liu in authority. The same thing can be said (by me) about me. Like a FEW other people in this field, I have a track record of pursuing this work with dedication, over a long period, and for having pursued accurate trustworthy and useful information, presented as good advice and honest opinions.

"Would you like to see my collection of vintage Mardi Gras plastic throwing beads?"

Would YOU like to see mine? This is a bogus argument. Plastic beads are recent additions to the throw-outs used at Mardi Gras. They come from China, ands are about ten years old or fewer. They are not "vintage" by any stretch of the imagination. Prior to that time, typical Mardi Gras beads were typically molded Czech glass. Only the really low-end throw-outs were (non-bead) plastics from the '60s (the non-collectible pieces from this time and this category). In my collection, I have specimens that go back forty years. I got my beads from friends who went to Mardi Gras (in the '60s), from eBay sales, and when I was in New Orleans myself....

"Beads do not have religious origins or political origins, they come from places."

More bogus claptrap. No one (that I can think of) ever said beads have to be categorized by their time, nor political origin, nor their religious origin. And I would guess that many people might agree that their "place of origin" (if known) is very significant. However, in MANY instances, place of origin is not known. Next, people want to know how old a bead is. I try to provide a realistic answer to that question. However, this does not mean I DEMAND that those beads be classified by their time period. So—a totally bogus statement and argument. And, by the way, some beads DO have religious origins (in whatever country produced them). I can also cite an instance of "political" beadwork. Blanket statements proposed by an ignorant non-thinker are useless.

"Most misrepresentation involves people representing new beads from country A as old beads from country B or lies about materials."

This is just about the only true thing "Ms Cohn" has written. Of course, these are issues I have discussed, ad infinitum, for a much longer time than has "Ms Cohn." Once again, no original thinking here.

JDA.

The categories were not tossed into the ring casually; they were carefully thought and advised by those who know. Someone will always disagree. This forum, while global in outreach, is based in the US, where we embrace freedom of speech. Let's just welcome everyone's opinion. You can heed it if you believe it to be worthy, or file it if you feel it to be folly. But, please don't turn it into a ping-pong match of snipping and squabbling. It kills the flavor of the forum, for me anyway. Steve, we need a Beadscape just about now...

Before we are sellers we should be collectors, and we should be trying to figure out how to be the best danged collectors we can be.

It seems to me that Joyce has taken on a crusade to empower the public with knowledge. If she saves one middle aged housewife from spending her hard saved pin money on a fraudulent bead - isn't that worth her effort? I think it is. I'll probably be that housewife.

By 'fraud beads' I mean beads fraudently misrepresented to the buyer, taking advantage of ignorance and naivite.

I have had an interest in old stone beads for some time, and was tremendously excited to find a seller in a sort of flea market in Manila who had wonderful stories to tell about his 'antiques', which included a cabinet of 'ancient' stone and glass beads.

He is Ahmed, a Muslim Filipino, and when I asked him about the beads he was full of enthralling tales of one 'brother' being based on an island in Indonesia where an old lady with an inheritance from sea-faring forebears died and her relatives sold a sack of beads cheaply, containing all sorts of treasures, and another 'brother' who worked in China and who also had stumbled upon some old beads on a town buried by the deserts on the ancient Silk Route.

Being of a romantic inclination I was enthralled by these tales which spread over several visits to that noisy and crowded undergound market, and I started to buy. At about the same time I stumbled upon this site. To cut a long story short I realised, thanks to some reading here and there and posting a couple of photos here for expert advice (thanks to all you experts, you know who you are) that I had paid rather too much for what were essentially Indonesian and Chinese knock-offs.

To give Ahmed credit, he did make me a refund when I tackled him on one strand, and with good grace too (with a big grin). In England we would say he realised it was 'a fair cop'. Since then I have continued to be a rather more cautious customer of his, but at far more realistic prices and with some good will on both sides after four years of trade.

This site is doing excellent work on insisting on high standards of ethics in bead-dealing, and collectors, even mid-aged housewives, stand to gain most of all from these efforts (thank you Joyce and David).

But I reckon the yarns are worth something, don't you?

"Of all the beads I sell, right now, sales from these are critical. A loan to Kenya was blocked due to corruption of government and as many as 11 million people could die of starvation before summer. Money from the sale of this auction goes directly to save lives of the tribal families in Kenya who made these beads" (not word for word but darn close).