this guy is missing some layers from the center outward

not the brightest of greens but surely not a blue

Do they not have a core by their very nature of being perforated, As in a bead has a hollow core? Is it incorrect to use "core" as innermost layer as opposed to outer layer because of another reason? Thanks, Thomas

Hi Thomas,

I have addressed this topic quite a few times—including just a few days ago (!). Note this post in-answer to one left by Lawrence on the topic of core-formed articles, via the link below.

I realize this is a dicey proposition. I will bet the ancient-artifacts-intelligentsia expect the bead-people to change, and vice-versa.

Cheers, Jamey

I read the prior post and agree that with "core formed" objects the core is removed....but the word core when used outside the context "core formed" does not implied anything has to be removed. Core as is commonly used in our language is considered the the center or innermost or base of an object or idea. When referring to the "red core" I think most readers understood this to mean the first layer starting from the inside out and I don't believe anyone would mistake my use of the word to imply the chevron was built on a "core" that had been removed. The meaning of "core" would be determined in the context in which it is used more so than a predefined use as it relates to one facet of bead making. This does not mean we have to re-write history books or re-think our already established methods of manufacture, it is strictly a semantics thing. Words a typically used to convey ideas and as such may have many meanings for the same word, the term inside layer would probably be more precise in my description but I believe my use of "red core" was an accurate visual descriptor. I won't beat this to death here, just posing a different point of view. Thanks, Thomas

Hi Thomas,

I understand entirely—and I don't half disagree with you. That's why I said, "I realize this is a dicey proposition. I will bet the ancient-artifacts-intelligentsia expect the bead-people to change, and vice-versa."

I firmly believe that certain words or names have entirely different meanings, or indicate different things, when used in different contexts. There are lots of examples of this.

Let's take the name "star bead." In drawn beads, this is a rosetta bead with a starry internal (or even external) pattern/shape. The basis of chevron beads. But there are also beads that have images of stars on them, that would rightly be called "star beads," and there are beads shaped like conventional stars, that are easily called "star beads." Someday, someone may take a piece of a star, and make it into a bead (for all I know). I have maintained (for a very long time) that it is the CONTEXT that ought to help us distinguish between any of these beads.

Nevertheless, it was not too many years ago that one of our friends argued with me that the name "star bead" was too confusing, because it might be applied to so many different beads—and that beads all ought to have their own unique names.

I think it would be nice if unique names existed for everything, and if people would not apply the name of one bead onto another bead (of a different type or group). There are more examples of this happening, than there are names (which is, in part, why it happens).

I used to refer to the insides of chevron beads as their "core layers" too! My concern is that the folks who are intelligent about ancient glass are going to think that "bead collectors" don't know what they are talking about, when they discuss "cores" for products that do not have cores.

As in many other instances, I may be working against the stream of many other bead collectors. It was not so long ago that I had a tough time trying to convince ANYONE that not all rosetta beads were "chevron" beads (which is something I continuously worked on for over twenty-five years..., and some people STILL don't get it).

Believe me, I'm not expecting anyone to change his/her mind about "cores," just because I say so. I do not expect miracles. I just present my case, my rationale, and my advice. Ultimately, as in most things, the majority will rule—and I'll just be some lone footnote in history....

Jamey

In antiquity, core-forming was essentially parallel to what we now normally think of as "winding" in a bead context (that is, making a wound glass bead).

An ancient bead was often formed around a rod that was coated with a friable refractory material, so that the rod or mandrel could be released. At that time, this was exactly the same thing that was done in making small vessels (and large vessels basically didn't exist at all, until glass-blowing was devised). The difference, as I have mentioned, is that the core for a vessel was shaped to form the shape of the intended vessel—typically being enlarged to form the cavity of the body of the vessel. And the vessel is formed on the end of the rod, versus a bead—where the rod penetrates all the way through the body of the bead. In either instance, the cores were removed. Or you could say the bead was pulled off its core.

Granted, even from early times, beads were formed on pig-iron rods, and were knocked-off once they had cooled enough for this to be practical. (And thus they did not require a separating compound.) But, until the invention of mosaic-glass productions and glass-blowing, vessels and beads were much more alike than different—and were clearly made by the same artisans. (This has been demonstrated by G. Eisen in his under-appreciated works that often covered beadmaking, as well as by other authors.)

Modern lampworking or torchworking ALSO routinely uses a separating compound to facilitate the removal of a bead from its mandrel/rod/wire. So it is not an anachronism from the long-ago past to be concerned with "cores."

I'll grant this, in the context of drawn beads, if we were to speak of the "core layer(s)" of a cane or bead, I would not find this objectionable. However, I think the words "base(s)" and "base-layer(s)" are equally serviceable in discussing the anatomy of beads.

Nevertheless, I expect that just as "chevron bead" is frequently presented as "chevrons," core layers will be called "cores"—and almost no one will object to it. Likewise "millefiori beads," and "millefioris," etc., etc.

You all have a good day. I'm going to sleep......

Jamey

P.S. Thirty years ago, most authors described chevron beads by discussing them from the outside layer to the inside layers. I was probably the first author to advise people to reverse this and to account for their structure from the inside-out—following the sequence of manufacture of the cane. Nowadays, most people follow this logical and useful advice. I do manage to score once in a while....

I count from the inside out, thanks for that....but a Chevron bead is still commonly called by its outside layer color, ie. a Green Chevron would mean the outside layer is green, (I'm sure you agree), we are all in a state of limbo when it comes to terminology in the "grey" areas, Jamey it is high time you get someone to publish your book! :)
Thanks for all you do, Thomas

Which is why I always say "green seven-layer bead," or "blue six-layer beads"—or whatever. I also characterized what the word "typical" means in a naming context.

My book is progressing. But the articles I wrote in 1982 and '83 are still valid, and information-packed. Bead collectors are still catching up. There is considerable reinventing-of-the-wheel, even today.

Jamey

Thomas, is the first layer of this bead translucent?

Keep it coming, Thomas! I am mesmerized!

Great beads Thomas I really love the the dark green one. I love beads that show their age like that. That bead is just great looking.

Here is a 7 layer? with a messed up black core

Hi Thomas,

Usually, when parts of a layer are missing from a multilayered drawn bead, this is due to the bead having been made from a piece of cane that was (originally) situated near the END of the cane. Because the layers cannot be expected to be consistent, completely, from end to end, the ends of canes are generally the most inconsistent part of the cane when it's pulled.

There are many examples of such beads.

Jamey