Hi Peter,

These beads were also produced at Venice with translucent red eye-spots, from the glass they (seem to have) devised at about 1825 (based on my research). So I would place them no earlier than that time, and guesstimate the mid-19th C.

I would reserve the popular name "skunk bead" for black beads with flush white spots.

People (formerly including myself) are sometimes surprised that a spotted bead should have this name, when we all know that skunks have stripes—and there are many black-&-white striped beads that would seem more appropriate. There is a variety of skunk that is black with white spots, not usually known to the rest of us, but living in certain areas. I would not have believed this had a friend not shown me a photo of one such skunk a couple of years ago.

Some things do make sense, once real information is provided.

Be well. Jamey

this is another GREAT example of how modern hobbyist names get totally inflated, distorted, and misapplied. You call this "skunk"?

Well, when I was back there in bead research college, studying under the great authorities, a "skunk" bead was something completely different, as in different shape, size, color, decoration. Wound Venetian glass, of course. Meanwhile, the black with white dots was called "Kitty Fisher", but that also was no good (another specific bead started that name) and is another example of inflating all-inclusive names. Then the faux "Kitty Fisher" became a "skunk". The rest is history. Anything round with dots became a "skunk", although qualified by color, as in "red skunk". I'm sure other shapes and sizes are also "skunk" by now, as long as they have the spots. That you call your bead "skunk" proves the point.

Meanwhile, back in the golden age of bead neologisms, like the 1970s and 1980s, your bead was known as a "raised eye" or maybe "horned eye" bead.

You may call it what you want! Make up something stupid or humorous and sell it on eBay as such. I think the black-and-white "skunk" got its current name when some aficionado or Mountain Man was shown a string of mixed beads that included both the original "skunk" and the B/W ones.

Here's the dialogue:

Audu, the bead trader: Here's a string of old beads! [Mixed up decorated black beads that include the original "skunk" and other stuff, like the B/W spotted ones.]
Tombstone, the mountain man: Wow! What do you call them?
Audu: These are old "skunk" beads!
Tombstone: Wow! How much?
Audu: I give you good price!

Never mind that it was a mixed up string of beat up lampwork. We call those CROWD beads: Common-Raffia-Oily-Worn-Dirty. And the O-W-D portion became "patina"!

If we want to be taken seriously as bead collectors, dealers or whatever we choose to call ourselves, we really need to deal with the whole identification issue, one might almost call it a crisis if I can be dramatic for a moment.

Skunks, Polecats, Medicine-Bats or what-have-you, it has even gotten worse with the whole so-called "trade bead" business and Ebay, etc.

With as large a following as this forum has, we should develop the baseline, or whatever we decide to call it, that was discussed not that long ago. A recommended list of appropriate terms for beads and bead types, preferably based on construction type and decorative style.

Not the old archaeological terms (IIAB, etc), either, something more for the collector or lay-person to understand.

Joyce should appoint a Secretary or a non-controversial collector of data (someone other than Jamey, Pudgy, etc.), also it should not be a seller such as myself or others. But someone that can (and will), organize and collect recommendations from all who wish to contribute and then develop a peer review system to discuss the list and finalize it.

Then we should publish it like an article or such here on the forum and stand behind it.

It really is past time to deal with this problem. I know there are other lists out there, but none of them yet are exactly what we really need.

Sorry, I will get off of my soap box now,

Jan Skipper,
Mosquitobay

How about the timelines? Meanwhile, it's really all about Origin, Material, and Technique. Make a catalogue analogous to a stamp or coin catalogue and you got your framework. Add in details like the major descriptors -- shape, size, color, decoration. Slice and dice according to knowledge and need. Put in chronological order under each Origin, like a timeline. Put pet names and metaphysics in footnotes. Make it kind of like the Linnaean binomial system. You can thank van der Sleen for bringing the "thought" this far.

And don't forget Byrd's "Beadmonger" guide.

At a minimum, the "skunk" beads of this thread are "Venetian-Glass-Wound" 19-20th century. Thousands of things fit this ID, so you start slicing and dicing according to the major descriptors.

It's a big job, of course, but at least people should refer to beads in a structured way, instead of with ephemeral neologisms.

All this was discussed years ago, of course. For practical purposes, it's probably better to update Byrd and have some fun.

Just think if the 16,000 images on this site could at least be searched according to standardized Origins, Materials, and Techniques. Is this not what people ask for when they want an ID?

I call them raised bumps beads, even though some don't have raised bumps, this is only a name I use for my own sake......I do like this type of bead, the bigger the better!

And crumb to be confused with "end-of-day" beads...? Anyone care to step into the fray and explain the difference, other that crumb beads can be planned and consistent, and end-of-day is what just might be laying around?

Hi Peter,

Crumb beads and "end-of-the-day" beads are more or less the same thing. The first describes the units used as decorations. The second (generally falsely) implies the process of their manufacture.

Crumb beads have random decorations. They are not planned, except for color combinations.

The crumbs (that may be small, large, varied; sharp, rounded or both), can be sparse or crowded. They can be one color, two, or any mixture desired.

The typical manufacture involves spreading a pile of glass crumbs, and taking a still-hot bead (on its mandrel), and rolling it across the fragments, so that they stick to the surface.

The crumbs become flush from being rolled-in, and the bead further heated. If they are not rolled-in, care must be taken to prevent further amalgamation of the glasses, for raised-spot (or crumb) beads.

The idea that these were made from collected leftovers, the sweepings of floors, or whatever, at the end of a manufacturing session is usually just a cute story. MANY of the beads so-described are made in large editions, and appear on sample cards. It's best to think of this as just a name, and not an indication of glassworking practices. Better to avoid the name entirely. (Nevertheless, as a small-production beadmaker, I myself have made odd beads from leftovers, at the ends of beadmaking sessions. I do not not say there is 'no such thing.' I say most beads so-described as that are NOT that.)

I cannot think of any crumb beads that are "planned and consistent," in terms of their appearances. They present very random arrangements. But, as mentioned, as groups of beads, they often were made in consistent editions.

I hope this helps.

Jamey

Another fanciful bead story is that Hurricane beads are molded glass beads which are made quickly to use up glass as a hurricane approaches and the equipment has to be shut down.

I've always thought that story ridiculous. They don't have hurricanes in Czechoslovakia and Germany where the beads are made.

It would be helpful if bead sellers standardized the terms for such "designs." Once listed and repeated by a dealer, and bought, the name tends to stick. Also, not everyone has the Picard volumes, especially 1 and 2. I've know them as skunks for about 15 years, flat- and raised-dot. I have some of the earliest ones with raised dots on a ugly clear translucent, and to me, they are one of the ugliest beads ever, no matter what their history!
Maybe there is a "Webster" in BCN that would care to develop a glossary of terms which would be on-line.

You don't need to have the books. You might find these beads on some dated sample card. CROWD varieties are surely ugly. Otherwise, "chaqu'un a son gout".

Maybe YOU can be "Webster". We'll call you Noah. We can't seem to make a good list of bead names, let alone match pictures and words to them. There are some glossaries around...people here are sure to know.

All you gotta do is make up some story, preferably with Indians, and pretend they're "rare". Add at least 50 years to the age. Excuse the damage with some palliative like "nice shape considering what they've been through" or "hard to find, even in this condition" or "great patina". Start 'em low and watch 'em fight for 'em. Make sure your picture only barely shows the beads...small and dark works well. Don't mention Africa...the bloom is off that romance. Maybe you gots some hillbilly relatives who find things for you down in the holler. Maybe youse stumbled on 'em when youse is huntin' mushrat. Be sure you say "surface find" or "legally acquired" or "not grave goods". Say they come from an "eastern site". By all means, act ignorant. Scramble the key words in your title so it reads ambiguously so they don't get you for spamming. Here's a good title: "Rare North BEADS Native Hillbilly Glass American TRADE". Misspell words here and there. When you act dumb, "smart" people will try to cheat you. Let 'em! It's called "rope-a-dope". Put 'em in the 1800-1950 category. Make postage cheap.

If you're going to lie and misconstrue, you might as well have fun doing it!

Hi Peter,

It is instructive that a previous poster says a "skunk bead" is "something completely different"—but he says ZERO about what that might be. Some people delight in making-up stuff to sound authoritative, but have nothing to offer.

This is followed by, "black with white dots was called 'Kitty Fisher'." Well, not exactly true. A "Kitty Fisher's eyes" bead was translucent gray with a particular pattern, presenting red and blue dots on slightly larger white dots—so these dots are multi-colored, and resemble eyes. (Kitty Fisher was an actress who was said to have one blue and one brown eye.) In 1969, an American trade bead authority, Arthur Woodward, suggested that black beads with similar dots were or might be called by the same name—and many people don't realize the actual beads were grayish. (I thank Stefany Tomalin for this information.) Black beads with either white or blue/white-red/white spots are NOT "Kitty Fisher's eyes" beads, according to the original British definition.

What I think of as a "skunk bead" is a more plain, merely white-spots-on-black bead. Again, the white spots are flush with the black surface. These can be spheroidal or cylindrical. As I understand it, the name was applied to the beads by Native Americans (Blackfoot and Crows) in Montana and that part of the North-Western Plains. This is what I was told when I was hanging out with Indians in the early 1970s.

Then, he proceeds to offer misinformation on the use of "horned eye." A raised eye and a horned eye are not the same thing at all. Your beads have raised eyes (as Thomas mentions). Horned eyes are tall conical prominences, formed by applying four or more superimposed spots of glass that are built up to a peak. These conical shapes suggest a "horn." But the name is constantly misused by bead-sellers to make their beads seem important.

By the way, I am not a "controversial collector of data." I am a genuine bead-researcher, with a bona fide history of pursuing actual research for nearly forty years. I PUBLISH my research, and put it out for peer-review, and particularly for the benefit of anyone interested in the topic. Furthermore, I don't just "collect data." I candidly reveal my processes, my trains-of-thought, my sources, and my speculations, conclusions and recommendations. I make meaningful contributions to an evolving lexicon for dealing with beads of all materials, manufactures, origins, and times. My peer group appreciates my contributions—affirmed by my participation in several significant publications (beginning with The History of Beads and Collectible Beads), and by the fact that I am hired to write catalogues and mount exhibits at museums and universities—and to present papers at conferences internationally. I have no desire to be "placed in charge" of some "list project." I have enough work to do. I am often told by my friends that I spend too much time here, pointlessly, sharing information for an audience that doesn't really care. It is my hope that some people DO care—and it is for them that I am here. But it is very likely I will be here less frequently as time passes.

That I should be mentioned in the same breath as "Pudgy" is pretty thoughtless.

The link posted here is to a funny video at YouTube. It's entertaining, and shows a spotted skunk beautifully. Wade through the introductory commercials.

JDA.

Since I'm hitting the scanner tonight, I thought I'd throw in a bad scan of these "bumpy" beads - always a favorite of mine.

.... indicate continuing or revival manufacturing, well into the 20th C.

A nice group of this type of bead.

JDA.