Plus I know what beads they had thirty years ago—having been in their store in 1987, and since then.

Nevertheless (as I remarked to the owner), the beads in-question, in terms of the work and floral patterns, have some congruency to Chinese beads that have circulated for about ten years now.

I am still seeking recognition (!). Thank you, just the same. Jamey

http://beadcollector.net/cgi-bin/anyboard.cgi?fvp=/openforum/&cmd=iYz&aK=58757&iZz=58757&gV=0&kQz=&aO=1&iWz=0

I am still seeking recognition. But, as always, I appreciate your input. Jamey

"The in-question beads have well-rounded and melted ends, and small perforations. And, in that, they look more like Japanese beads."

I wrote this in-reply to the Chinese beads that are similar-looking, but do not have well-rounded ends (they being blunt), nor small perforations.

I said this based upon what I can see in the photos—which is all I have. And anyone else can see this too.

And most tombodama were decorated with mosaic-glass appliques, rather than being trailed.

I would be inclined to think the beads you are showing are recent Chinese beads—and that they have been misrepresented to you as "Japanese tombodama." This is all-too-common.

Nevertheless, in viewing your photo, I think the long tapered white beads (on the right), are the most-like the beads we are discussing. However, their shapes are different, in having blunt ends and large perforations. (More consistent with Chinese beads.) The in-question beads have well-rounded and melted ends, and small perforations. And, in that, they look more like Japanese beads. (Or even the European beads that inspired the Japanese beads.)

So, if the beads you show are indeed recent Chinese beads (as I have remarked), they are the self-same beads I discussed with the owner some ten days ago. And are not pertinent to the quest for recognition.

But I thiank you for taking the the time to suggest all this. Jamey

http://beadcollector.net/cgi-bin/anyboard.cgi?fvp=/openforum/&cmd=iYz&aK=56991&iZz=56991&gV=0&kQz=&aO=1&iWz=0

http://beadcollector.net/cgi-bin/anyboard.cgi?fvp=/openforum/&cmd=iYz&aK=6311054&iZz=6311054&gV=0&kQz=&aO=1&iWz=0

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32657979525.html

https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1j7UgIpXXXXabXFXXq6xXFXXXz/226468774/HTB1j7UgIpXXXXabXFXXq6xXFXXXz.jpg

Some of theirs seem to have four OR three flower petals. Your examples have three petals and the clear glass bubble in the flower center...

No. What I said was that the present owner believes these are beads from some thirty years ago.

Over my thirty-plus years of assisting people I have been presented with numerous instances where someone believed that certain beads were "very old"—or even said they had owned them for that long. But, often enough one of two things probably happened. 1) Some later beads got tossed-in with some earlier beads. Or, 2) The person has confused one bead or group with another bead or group.

The third option is that the whole story is a crock of poop. I've been through this often enough too. Memorably, with someone whom I believe is a scam-seller—talking about "these beads were in-storage since the 1950s," about beads made in the 1980s or later. In fact, I was contacted by the same person, hawking this story, twice—ten years apart (!). I reminded him/her that we had already been through all this.

When someone asks for my help, I try to help him/her. I do not usually challenge the owner to prove the beads were from whatever time they were said to have been collected. That would be impolite. However, IF I RECOGNIZE the beads I would say so. So this entire proposition and response has been based on the owner's belief that the beads are old. My FIRST reply to her was to compare them to recent Chinese beads. So she knows this.

The beads in-question, to me, resemble Japanese beads. But, as I have remarked, I don't know of any Japanese glass beads that have trailed decorations resembling what I can plainly see on these beads. Since modern Japanese beads derive from Czech production practices, I always expect some congruency may occur between Japanese and Czech beads. And we know the Czechs are able trail-decorators. Yet the beads in-question do not seem Czech to me.

This is why, when seeking an answer, one asks whether anyone RECOGNIZES the beads. Even if this seems unlikely to happen. I can compare "A" to "B" for days, weeks or years. But a comparison is not a recognition.

To which I responded by saying:
'I understand you said they are not recent production, as they were collected 30 years ago. This means that either the information from the collector is incorrect for whatever reason. Or it means that the beads in this market stall are copies of beads that were made earlier. '

Seems to me we are on the same page here. But I may be wrong.
My response was intended to come across as this: I recognize these beads. They are modern Chinese beads. And I have a picture of a whole set of these beads to prove it. However, if it was 100% sure that they are older than 30 years, there must be another explanation, so it is then still a mystery. I am very much aware that people's memories of when they got certain beads can be jumbled. I am also aware that some people simply do not tell the (whole) truth. Perhaps I did not express myself clearly, not wanting to step on the collector's toes.

I would be interested to know if you share my idea that the beads I showed are the same as the ones you showed.

Also, if you would have time to elaborate on the timeline of the modern introduction of lampworked bead in China, I would very much appreciate it.

I began this dialogue with "I gave the owner my opinions."

Anytime one asks for additional opinions, one cannot say what opinions have been expressed already. That would spoil the objectivity of the proceeding opinions.

Here is something you don't know. After giving my opinions to the owner, she asked me if I could ask elsewhere of other "bead experts." I said I would—but that I could predict what anyone else would probably have to offer. And I said that, since I haven't seen every bead in the world, there was a minor chance that someone might recognize her beads.

And what I predicted is exactly what happened. (Here and at FaceBook.) Rather than anyone saying, "I know these beads," there has been a repetition of my original expressions (to the owner) by those who responded. And, no recognition.

You ask, "I would be interested to know if you share my idea that the beads I showed are the same as the ones you showed."

And the answer is no. You have shown another selection of the beads that I discussed with the owner prior to the dialogue here. And others have likewise made the same association (as predicted). They are SIMILAR beads. They have some features that are similar. (Mainly because the actual approach to trailing—in the Venetian style—was composed similarly.) But they are not "the same beads."

So, the "mystery" stands.

Regarding Chinese lampworking. I began an essay on Chinese glass-beadmaking a couple of years ago. I got distracted by other matters. But I hope to pursue it. I'll tell you my perspective on lampworking in brief terms.

It is already conceded that glass was of minor interest to the Chinese, with notable exceptions in antiquity, up to the late Ming Dynasty. Then they made some furnace wound-beads. Some for domestic use, and some for export. Also, their beads divide into those for Emperial use, and those for common people (and export). Throughout the late-Ming and the Xing Dynasties, most beads were monochromatic. A few had scattered crumb decoration (to resemble jade). They did not approach trail decoration as did most glass industries.

Everything changed after two events. First, there was a German enclave at Boshan. It is said, they came to make beer in China. But they also introduced glassworking. And they probably pursued a Chinese version of lampworking—demanding preformed elements. Rather than canes, they apparently made and used bars of glass. (This is according to Simon Kwan.) Soon after this, the Japanese occupied China, and likewise promoted glass factories at Boshan. It is thought that their intent was to have beads made cheaply with Chinese labor, to have products to sell at various regional client bases. In addition to beadmaking, they produced other products—such as paperweights, in the Venetian style. So this work began with producing Japanese-style beads, that were themselves inspired by Venetian beads. (It is my opinion that Japanese lampworking was incited by Dutch Europeans, who brought Venetian beads to Japan—and eventually the theory of the apparatus. And, clearly, their earliest beads were imitations of Venetian beads.) But, as happens, the output in China quickly became their own idiom. And these are the antique beads that began to be circulated in the US beginning in the 1970s (in my experience) and that became more prevalent in 1985. (At the International Bead Conference in Long Beach, CA.) And since then.

By 1987, after an apparent fallow period, The Boshan beadmakers took up beadmaking again. And their new products were essentially exactly the same as previous editions. (I have side-by-side photos of beads I bought then, and from a private collection.) The new beads I acquired came from Leekan in New York. (See Paddy Khan's article on Boshan beadmaking, with Robert Liu, in Ornament.) And, by the way, Boshan beads feature some very rudimentary trailing. As though this technique were entirely new to them. But the beads also feature distinct mosaic-glass canes, for millefiori and filigrana applications. (The murrine canes made it possible to make imitations of Venetian paperweights, as well as beads.)

So, to the next wave. Less than twenty years ago, a new glass-beadmaking industry was inducted into China. It may be centered at Boshan. And it may have some connection to the previous industry. But, in any event, this was the beginning of a HUGE operation. In just a few years, their output has produced SO MANY beads, one has to speculate that a large body of workers have been trained and put to work, to make the beads that have become commonplace now. The primary differences between these and previous industries is that the current workers are reasonably adept torchworkers, who perform a lot of trailing. They also produce mosaic-glass beads, as I have shown here as these beads were released into the marketplace. Some of the early work produced has consisted of imitations of ancient beads (and beads that they would like you believe are "ancient"). Both pristine and artificially-aged versions have been routinely available. I showed these in my pap[er for the Istanbul Conference in 2007.

JDA.

In the early 1980s a large cache of Boshan millefiori beads was (it was said) discovered in a warehouse in Hong Kong. Little by little, these beads were released into the marketplace. Americans who actually went to Hong Kong had the best opportunities to acquired these beads. And I had the opportunity to study and document them. Robert Liu also composed some pictorials in Ornament, at that time.

The perspective of these beads was not generally known. I had to piece-together what I know and believe. I had been after the story of the Boshan millefiori beads since the late 1970s, when I first saw them, and acquired some (from a Chinatown store in San Francisco). Eventually, I managed to document five very good collections of these beads.

Nevertheless, at first some wild ideas were circulated about these beads. The most-silly one being that they were "ancient Chinese beads from the Sung Dynasty"—which would have made them about 1,000 years old. (The person who promoted this ridiculous idea still thinks it. And he thinks I should change MY mind!)

The early-generation Boshan beads have also come out of places such as Thailand and Yunnan, where they were used by local people. And in the mid-1980s and since then, have come into the inventories of bead sellers, to be acquired by us. Steven Dunning (Hands Of The Hills) was a primary supplier of these beads, since 1985.

JDA.

http://beadcollector.net/cgi-bin/anyboard.cgi?fvp=/openforum/&cmd=iYz&aK=49607&iZz=49607&gV=0&kQz=&aO=1&iWz=0

In 1997, in Making Glass Beads (pg.72-3) Cindy Jenkins describes (and demonstrates) the decoration as “floral plunge” developed by Patricia Sage (Holland). True or not, the design was based on common techniques, widely taught and used by many intermediate lampworkers starting in the late 1980s to early 1990s. The rounded cylinder shape was also a favorite in US/European classes.

I don’t think there’s much likelihood that Japan or China were sources for these beads. Japanese work is much more refined. The Chinese mass-produced versions are much more recent and likely “inspired” by American bead artists at bead shows starting in the late 1980s.

Sadly, Chinese were notorious for buying “samples” from the artists which were then copied and exported worldwide.

For more details, I’d recommend queries to folks who have been active in the American lampwork bead movement and teaching for the last three decades: people like Sage and Tom Holland, Jim Kervin, Sharon Peters, Leah Fairbanks or the International Society of Glass Beadmakers.

1) I am a bead historian; and glass beads are one of my principal interests, upon which I am an authority.
2) I was one of three judges for the exhibit at The Bead Museum in 1993, when the SGB was founded.
3) I was the first President of the SGB in 1993.

The date you bring up related to Chinese knock-offs is too early, by about ten years.

I've been friends with Tom Holland for decades, and with Sage since she met Tom (1993). If you know Tom's reproductions of ancient folded beads, he began this work at my suggestion and encouragement. I am good friends with Sharon Peters—whom I also admire. Leah Fairbanks has nothing to teach me.

The technique being discussed is essentially a Venetian technique. I worked-out the process in 1979. I recognize it when I see it in the work of others (as mentioned earlier in this dialogue).

Regarding Japanese work: The art they created for themselves is highly refined, often austere, and uniquely beautiful. However, the post-WWII commercial-quality beads are an entirely different story. The art-sense invested in them is sketchy. They will never be regarded as "great beads"—though they have a following. In recent months I have been paying more attention to these products at eBay. But I began collecting Japanese glass beads in the '70s.

And, let's not forget, it was my stressed opinion that I don't know of any Japanese beads with this sort of decoration.

I certainly would not reject the idea that these beads could have been made by a studio artist. I don't know whom. And this is why I am (still) seeking recognition.

JDA.

Personally I found the photos for this ID request to be inadequate to the task.

Even with better photos, there is often a difference of opinion, and that is a welcome part of BCN each and every time it occurs - IMHO of course!

Note: I am willing to take photos and/or post them on BCN for anyone who can't do so themselves. You can contact me through the BCN message feature. All I ask is that you pay the postage both ways and I'd be happy to help. Or if just a photo that you can't reduce, I will fix that too. I have helped a number of US and international bead folks already and it is a pleasure to share my bead interests with others.

The photo shows one of the beads send to me by a person who wanted to find out if it was Bakelite. It's not - can you guess what it's made of? (sorry for the topic diversion...)

The second photo shows the fracture surface of the "mystery" horn bead. I should mention that it was sent from Thailand.

Thanks for all the comments & I hope this was a good illustration of how difficult it can be to ID from a photo!

I have a pretty good stereomicroscope and a pretty good sense of smell.

That’s about as scientific as I can get without any modern analytical equipment.

When placed side-by-side you can notice some differences - the horn beads for example show the edges of the layers that form the body of the bead. I don't know exactly how horn is processed to make beads but you won't see evidence of layers on phenolic beads.

On the other hand, there are horns that are bicolored or multi-colored. But this is usually spotty or discrete (like tortoise shell), or changes from the base to the tips. These are not layers, in my experience.

In contrast, once a phenolic bead has been made, it's possible that an external change in color (due to radiation, heating, or dying) may appear to be an "external layer" or "skin."

In any event, the structure of phenolic beads differs greatly from that of horn beads. Horn beads, made to imitate amber (such as those from East Africa—that have been boiled in oil and dyed) can be determined visually, by the differences in structure.