Ganesh wrote: > Does any one have good sources on Antique Jewelry making techniques?
Could you be a bit more specific, like in "What kind of antique jewelry?"
Victorian, Edwardian, Art Deco, Art Nouveau, Etruscan, Egyptian, European, Asian, Middle Eastern.
The variety is much too large to answer the question easily.
However, the short answer is, examine every piece of antique jewelry you see or get to repair, very closely. By doing this, an experienced goldsmith can usually figure out how it is made. Do this for many years, and you will become quite good at making jewelry the way it was made years ago.
A colleague of mine here in San Francisco, is one of the best "copiers" of antique jewelry, and he is mostly self taught. He has literally repaired many hundreds of pieces of antique jewelry over the last several decades. By doing this he has learned how to copy pieces in the style they were made.
Most recently, he had to replace a lost 18th century earring, which was made of silver and gold, with rose cut diamonds. The result was practically indistinguishable from the original. I was the only one of 6 colleagues who picked the copy from the original. (the color of the gold ear wire was different from the original. The alloy of the copy was more yellow than the original, which was only visible under certain lighting conditions).
Ganesh wrote: > Does any one have good sources on Antique Jewelry making techniques?
The word 'antique' means 'over 100 years old'.
Do you mean 'reproduction jewellery'?
If so you need to define a period and style.
-- William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat single handed with a quarterstaff.
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:56:59 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry Ganesh
<ganesh.growthsoluti...@gmail.com> wrote: >>Does any one have good sources on Antique Jewelry making techniques?
Most of the modern techniques of jewelry making, at least the traditional "benchwork" methods, have roots in antiquity. Modern times have added better steel for tools, electric motors and lights, torches, etc. But the basics haven't changed all that much. If you understand jewelry making well by modern methods, then careful examination of ancient works will usually give you a fairly good idea of how things were made. But of course, some of the specific methods will be different. For example, if you are used to setting stones with a flex shaft motor and burs to cut the seats, and have never seen a manual bow drill used, or seen a seat cut with and engraving tool, then that method may not be apparent to you. Likewise, if you're used to making sheet and wire with rolling mills and drawplates, then ancient methods using hammers to forge sheet, or making wire by cutting a strip of sheet metal and then rolling, forming, and stretching it, may also not be as apparent. If you're used to soldering with a torch, then soldering using a furnace might seem strange. But in reality, the things the metal is being asked to do is about the same in any of these cases, only the specific tools change. And the effort and skills involved.
Some good references for background and history and the like might include Jack Ogden's 1983 book, "jewelry of the ancient world", which gives lots of good information that can help you identify old authentic pieces from modern reproductions, as well as info on ancient metalurgy and methods. For more modern information, such as the 1900s or so, find almost any of the old books on goldsmithing by George Gee. These turn of the century (1900 or so) books detailed the methods used in england at the time, which are pretty typical of methods from the beginning of the industrial revolution up till then. The more modern book, Herbert Maryon's "Metalwork and Enamelling" is still in print as a Dover reprint. Maryon worked as a restorer and smith for the British Museum, and his detailed text is a goldmine of both old and new methods. There are, of course, many other fine books on goldsmithing or metalworking, all of which have something to add. But these should give you a start. Ogden's book may be hard to find. If you find a copy for sale, snap it up. It's worth the money. Maryon's books is available, inexpensive, and good enough to recommend to any interested jeweler, not just those looking to past methods. George Gee's books, of course, are long out of print, but occasionally you'll find them in libraries, or antique book stores, especially in England and Europe.
On Aug 25, 9:56 pm, Ganesh <ganesh.growthsoluti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does any one have good sources on Antique Jewelry making techniques?
One way to accomplish this would be to use the books appraisers use - one that a world renowned appraiser wrote is Cameos - Old & New - the link to it on Amazon is:
There are books on Gold Filigree - books by period ie Victorian, Art Deco, etc.
These books tell you what to look for when dating a piece - those are the same details that would be important if you were trying to reproduce or just create in the style of...
> Most of the modern techniques of jewelry making, at least the traditional > "benchwork" methods, have roots in antiquity. Modern times have added better > steel for tools, electric motors and lights, torches, etc. But the basics > haven't changed all that much. If you understand jewelry making well by modern > methods, then careful examination of ancient works will usually give you a > fairly good idea of how things were made. But of course, some of the specific > methods will be different. For example, if you are used to setting stones with > a flex shaft motor and burs to cut the seats, and have never seen a manual bow > drill used, or seen a seat cut with and engraving tool, then that method may > not be apparent to you. Likewise, if you're used to making sheet and wire with > rolling mills and drawplates, then ancient methods using hammers to forge sheet, > or making wire by cutting a strip of sheet metal and then rolling, forming, and > stretching it, may also not be as apparent. If you're used to soldering with a > torch, then soldering using a furnace might seem strange. But in reality, the > things the metal is being asked to do is about the same in any of these cases, > only the specific tools change. And the effort and skills involved.
> Some good references for background and history and the like might include Jack > Ogden's 1983 book, "jewelry of the ancient world", which gives lots of good > information that can help you identify old authentic pieces from modern > reproductions, as well as info on ancient metalurgy and methods. For more > modern information, such as the 1900s or so, find almost any of the old books
Thanks for the inputs provided. I wanted to study in-depth the old methods.
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:56:59 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry Ganesh
> <ganesh.growthsoluti...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>Does any one have good sources on Antique Jewelry making techniques?
> Most of the modern techniques of jewelry making, at least the traditional > "benchwork" methods, have roots in antiquity. Modern times have added better > steel for tools, electric motors and lights, torches, etc. But the basics > haven't changed all that much. If you understand jewelry making well by modern > methods, then careful examination of ancient works will usually give you a > fairly good idea of how things were made. But of course, some of the specific > methods will be different. For example, if you are used to setting stones with > a flex shaft motor and burs to cut the seats, and have never seen a manual bow > drill used, or seen a seat cut with and engraving tool, then that method may > not be apparent to you. Likewise, if you're used to making sheet and wire with > rolling mills and drawplates, then ancient methods using hammers to forge sheet, > or making wire by cutting a strip of sheet metal and then rolling, forming, and > stretching it, may also not be as apparent. If you're used to soldering with a > torch, then soldering using a furnace might seem strange. But in reality, the > things the metal is being asked to do is about the same in any of these cases, > only the specific tools change. And the effort and skills involved.
> Some good references for background and history and the like might include Jack > Ogden's 1983 book, "jewelry of the ancient world", which gives lots of good > information that can help you identify old authentic pieces from modern > reproductions, as well as info on ancient metalurgy and methods. For more > modern information, such as the 1900s or so, find almost any of the old books on > goldsmithing by George Gee. These turn of the century (1900 or so) books > detailed the methods used in england at the time, which are pretty typical of > methods from the beginning of the industrial revolution up till then. The more > modern book, Herbert Maryon's "Metalwork and Enamelling" is still in print as a > Dover reprint. Maryon worked as a restorer and smith for the British Museum, > and his detailed text is a goldmine of both old and new methods. There are, of > course, many other fine books on goldsmithing or metalworking, all of which have > something to add. But these should give you a start. Ogden's book may be hard > to find. If you find a copy for sale, snap it up. It's worth the money. > Maryon's books is available, inexpensive, and good enough to recommend to any > interested jeweler, not just those looking to past methods. George Gee's books, > of course, are long out of print, but occasionally you'll find them in > libraries, or antique book stores, especially in England and Europe.
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:56:59 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry Ganesh
> <ganesh.growthsoluti...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>Does any one have good sources on Antique Jewelry making techniques?
> Most of the modern techniques of jewelry making, at least the traditional > "benchwork" methods, have roots in antiquity. Modern times have added better > steel for tools, electric motors and lights, torches, etc. But the basics > haven't changed all that much. If you understand jewelry making well by modern > methods, then careful examination of ancient works will usually give you a > fairly good idea of how things were made. But of course, some of the specific > methods will be different. For example, if you are used to setting stones with > a flex shaft motor and burs to cut the seats, and have never seen a manual bow > drill used, or seen a seat cut with and engraving tool, then that method may > not be apparent to you. Likewise, if you're used to making sheet and wire with > rolling mills and drawplates, then ancient methods using hammers to forge sheet, > or making wire by cutting a strip of sheet metal and then rolling, forming, and > stretching it, may also not be as apparent. If you're used to soldering with a > torch, then soldering using a furnace might seem strange. But in reality, the > things the metal is being asked to do is about the same in any of these cases, > only the specific tools change. And the effort and skills involved.
> Some good references for background and history and the like might include Jack > Ogden's 1983 book, "jewelry of the ancient world", which gives lots of good > information that can help you identify old authentic pieces from modern > reproductions, as well as info on ancient metalurgy and methods. For more > modern information, such as the 1900s or so, find almost any of the old books on > goldsmithing by George Gee. These turn of the century (1900 or so) books > detailed the methods used in england at the time, which are pretty typical of > methods from the beginning of the industrial revolution up till then. The more > modern book, Herbert Maryon's "Metalwork and Enamelling" is still in print as a > Dover reprint. Maryon worked as a restorer and smith for the British Museum, > and his detailed text is a goldmine of both old and new methods. There are, of > course, many other fine books on goldsmithing or metalworking, all of which have > something to add. But these should give you a start. Ogden's book may be hard > to find. If you find a copy for sale, snap it up. It's worth the money. > Maryon's books is available, inexpensive, and good enough to recommend to any > interested jeweler, not just those looking to past methods. George Gee's books, > of course, are long out of print, but occasionally you'll find them in > libraries, or antique book stores, especially in England and Europe.
with modern tools and methods, yes. Doing it with starting raw materials and tools available to the 7th century byzantine goldsmith might be a bit more daunting. A ring like that, for example, likely was not cast, so one would need to have some skill with chisels or engraving tools to do the carving, and the steel back then wasn't as good, not to mention the fact that the goldsmith would have had to make his own tools beforehand. Remember, files for shaping metal were not yet available either. Most forming would be with hammers... And you couldn't just go to your metals dealer and buy ready to use sheet or wire...
Also, the niello (black) inlay isn't quite as simple to do as might seem, especially with ancient technologies. Doable? certainly. But I think I'd take the word "very" out from your sentance...
>>It is said that these ornaments are with the British. Does any one >>have the photograph of the originals.
Hard to tell from the painting, which looks a bit rough in any case as far as details go.
She looks Indian, more than British, though of course, the Brits took a lot of things back to England with them. And the jewelry itself looks mostly like strung beads or pearls of one sort or another, including, I suspect, those larger drop stones (emerald or something else?) Lacking better stylistic info, one can observe that beads on a cord are a style of jewelry made by almost every culture on earth. Most of what I see in the painting are lots of pearls, which also require little in the way of "making", being more an indication of wealth than technology. I'll bet, if you gave him the pearls and large stone beads, any street goldsmith in India could make necklaces to roughly match what's in that painting... The earrings, forhead ornament, and the very crudely drawn stuff below the large beads, well, hard to say what all that is. The stuff below the beads might even be ornaments embroidered onto the dress. Can't tell. As for "originals", likely your painting was a portrait of some important lady. There's no reason to think the jewels themselves were extraordinary enough that you'd find them pictured elsewhere from some museum today, is there? Who is the lady? Research her family, and perhaps you'll find the originals still in the possession of the desendents...
> with modern tools and methods, yes. Doing it with starting raw materials and > tools available to the 7th century byzantine goldsmith might be a bit more > daunting. A ring like that, for example, likely was not cast, so one would need > to have some skill with chisels or engraving tools to do the carving, and the > steel back then wasn't as good, not to mention the fact that the goldsmith would > have had to make his own tools beforehand. Remember, files for shaping metal > were not yet available either. Most forming would be with hammers... And > you couldn't just go to your metals dealer and buy ready to use sheet or wire...
> Also, the niello (black) inlay isn't quite as simple to do as might seem, > especially with ancient technologies. Doable? certainly. But I think I'd take > the word "very" out from your sentance...
We don't know what the original looked like.
We don't know what purity of gold was used.
The thing has a thousand years of wear and other detail placed on it.
How do you find out what the original looked like?
-- William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat single handed with a quarterstaff.
Ganesh wrote: > On Aug 27, 10:05 am, Peter W. Rowe <rec.crafts.jewe...@earthlink.net> > wrote: >> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:56:59 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry Ganesh
>> <ganesh.growthsoluti...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Does any one have good sources on Antique Jewelry making techniques? >> Most of the modern techniques of jewelry making, at least the traditional >> "benchwork" methods, have roots in antiquity. Modern times have added better >> steel for tools, electric motors and lights, torches, etc. But the basics >> haven't changed all that much. If you understand jewelry making well by modern >> methods, then careful examination of ancient works will usually give you a >> fairly good idea of how things were made. But of course, some of the specific >> methods will be different. For example, if you are used to setting stones with >> a flex shaft motor and burs to cut the seats, and have never seen a manual bow >> drill used, or seen a seat cut with and engraving tool, then that method may >> not be apparent to you. Likewise, if you're used to making sheet and wire with >> rolling mills and drawplates, then ancient methods using hammers to forge sheet, >> or making wire by cutting a strip of sheet metal and then rolling, forming, and >> stretching it, may also not be as apparent. If you're used to soldering with a >> torch, then soldering using a furnace might seem strange. But in reality, the >> things the metal is being asked to do is about the same in any of these cases, >> only the specific tools change. And the effort and skills involved.
>> Some good references for background and history and the like might include Jack >> Ogden's 1983 book, "jewelry of the ancient world", which gives lots of good >> information that can help you identify old authentic pieces from modern >> reproductions, as well as info on ancient metalurgy and methods. For more >> modern information, such as the 1900s or so, find almost any of the old books on >> goldsmithing by George Gee. These turn of the century (1900 or so) books >> detailed the methods used in england at the time, which are pretty typical of >> methods from the beginning of the industrial revolution up till then. The more >> modern book, Herbert Maryon's "Metalwork and Enamelling" is still in print as a >> Dover reprint. Maryon worked as a restorer and smith for the British Museum, >> and his detailed text is a goldmine of both old and new methods. There are, of >> course, many other fine books on goldsmithing or metalworking, all of which have >> something to add. But these should give you a start. Ogden's book may be hard >> to find. If you find a copy for sale, snap it up. It's worth the money. >> Maryon's books is available, inexpensive, and good enough to recommend to any >> interested jeweler, not just those looking to past methods. George Gee's books, >> of course, are long out of print, but occasionally you'll find them in >> libraries, or antique book stores, especially in England and Europe.
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat single handed with a quarterstaff.
> with modern tools and methods, yes. Doing it with starting raw materials and > tools available to the 7th century byzantine goldsmith might be a bit more > daunting. A ring like that, for example, likely was not cast, so one would need > to have some skill with chisels or engraving tools to do the carving, and the > steel back then wasn't as good, not to mention the fact that the goldsmith would > have had to make his own tools beforehand. Remember, files for shaping metal > were not yet available either. Most forming would be with hammers... And > you couldn't just go to your metals dealer and buy ready to use sheet or wire...
> Also, the niello (black) inlay isn't quite as simple to do as might seem, > especially with ancient technologies. Doable? certainly. But I think I'd take > the word "very" out from your sentance...
> Peter
An interesting question, how easy was it for a 7th cent Byzantine gold smith to make?
He could either, have cast it, or wrought it from a single piece of metal.or at least acouple of pieces then soldered it together.
Considering the former first, Casting of metals had been well established for at least 3000 yrs before the 7th cent. witnessed by the thousands of everyday cast bronze age artifacts that have been found here in the UK and elsewhere so my guess is it was cast first of all then chased up with chisels and punches. The intaglio design would have been cut with chisels and then with punches. A well established technique used in coin reverse punch making. Look at this metalworking practice in the coinage of this period and earlier to understand this process.. . most medieval metal workers were multiskilled and drew on the expertise in other metalworking areas.more then than we do today.
So was it wrought? Considering how malleable gold is, it would be quite possible to take a piece of alluvial gold and with hammers , punches, and just a bronze mandrel form it first into a round disk with a upstand across the diameter. This section could then have been pierced with a punch and stretched over a mandrel to form the shank. An intersting exercise would be to take a piece of lead to try and replicate this way of forming this ring completly cold, ie without any heat. Then when one was able to replicate this design in this way, do it again in fine silver. then in gold. As to the carat quality of the original ring , our assay office in london currently uses spectrographic analysis of metal alloys using only the minutest quantity of the original metal. Do you Peter get the annual Goldsmiths Review, published by the Goldsmith s Co in London? The current issue has an interesting study of the assay offices work in a large forgery case of early English silver. they run the assay offices in the UK. They could tell exactly what the metal constituents were. If the ring in question is fine gold it would be ductile enough to forge up cold using the above technique.
The niello formula and inlay technique is well documented in Uppi Untrachat's book on jewellery making through the ages. Tho I havent looked at this book on my shelf for sometime.
Ted Frater wrote: > so my guess is it was cast first of all then chased up with chisels and > punches. > The intaglio design would have been cut with chisels and then with > punches.
I don't know when they invented gravers and chisels hard enough to work metals and long lasting enough to be economic.
They're certainly in the medieval pictures in the British Museum 'Goldsmith's' book but I think all the earlier pictures show only punches.
> A well established technique used in coin reverse punch making. > Look at this metalworking practice in the coinage of this period and > earlier to understand this process.. . > most medieval metal workers were multiskilled and drew on the > expertise in other metalworking areas.more then than we do today.
That's something to do with the goldsmiths being the leaders in the 'whitesmiths' group of skills.
They'd have spent a lot of time socialising with other people who worked metals cold.
> The current issue has an interesting study of the assay offices work in > a large forgery case of early English silver.
Assuming you're talking about what has become known as 'The Ashley-Russell case, does anyone know who actually made that stuff? It's all very good indeed.
-- William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat single handed with a quarterstaff.
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 22:02:27 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry Ted Frater
<ted.fra...@virgin.net> wrote: >>Do you Peter get the annual Goldsmiths Review, published by the >>Goldsmith s Co in London? >>The current issue has an interesting study of the assay offices work in >>a large forgery case of early English silver.
No I don't. Hadn't heard of it before. Any idea what the cost is?
Peter W. Rowe wrote: > On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 22:02:27 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry Ted Frater > <ted.fra...@virgin.net> wrote:
>>> Do you Peter get the annual Goldsmiths Review, published by the >>> Goldsmith s Co in London? >>> The current issue has an interesting study of the assay offices work in >>> a large forgery case of early English silver.
> No I don't. Hadn't heard of it before. Any idea what the cost is?
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat single handed with a quarterstaff.
Peter W. Rowe wrote: > On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 22:02:27 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry Ted Frater > <ted.fra...@virgin.net> wrote:
>>> Do you Peter get the annual Goldsmiths Review, published by the >>> Goldsmith s Co in London? >>> The current issue has an interesting study of the assay offices work >>> a large forgery case of early English silver.
> No I don't. Hadn't heard of it before. Any idea what the cost is?
> Peter
Peter,
Google for ISSN 0953- 0355 Youll see the current issue. This is the Annual report of the goldsmiths company the livery co in the city of London. They have the task of regulating the quality of all noble metal jewellery, plate and objet de art made in the Uk. they have this authority under the UK hall marking acts. this annual review is a record of their annual work. You might just be able to see the current copy at your local library. Cost =A35.00 per annum. If you can mail me off list your snail mail addres Ill see if they can send you a complimentary copy.
Yes to Bill Black, the Ashley Russel case. Of 120 fake boson's calls. Ted.
> Hard to tell from the painting, which looks a bit rough in any case as far as > details go.
> She looks Indian, more than British, though of course, the Brits took a lot of > things back to England with them. And the jewelry itself looks mostly like > strung beads or pearls of one sort or another, including, I suspect, those > larger drop stones (emerald or something else?) Lacking better stylistic info, > one can observe that beads on a cord are a style of jewelry made by almost every > culture on earth. Most of what I see in the painting are lots of pearls, which > also require little in the way of "making", being more an indication of wealth > than technology. I'll bet, if you gave him the pearls and large stone beads, > any street goldsmith in India could make necklaces to roughly match what's in > that painting...The earrings, forhead ornament, and the very crudely drawn > stuff below the large beads, well, hard to say what all that is. The stuff > below the beads might even be ornaments embroidered onto the dress. Can't tell. > As for "originals", likely your painting was a portrait of some important lady. > There's no reason to think the jewels themselves were extraordinary enough that > you'd find them pictured elsewhere from some museum today, is there? Who is the > lady? Research her family, and perhaps you'll find the originals still in the > possession of the desendents...
I've read a bit about her before, she's supposed to have worn the Koh-i-Noor diamond in her navel.
That diamond is famously in the Jewel House at HM Tower of London.
The rest of the stuff is now almost certainly in the V&A, as I mentioned previously.
In the unlikely event that it isn't then they'll certainly know what happened to it all.
-- William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat single handed with a quarterstaff.
>>On Aug 31, 10:44pm, Peter W. Rowe <rec.crafts.jewe...@earthlink.net> >>wrote: >>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:23:15 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry Ganesh >>> <ganesh.growthsoluti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>It is said that these ornaments are with the British. Does any one >>> >>have the photograph of the originals.
>>> Hard to tell from the painting, which looks a bit rough in any case as far as >>> details go.
>>> She looks Indian, more than British, though of course, the Brits took a lot of >>> things back to England with them. And the jewelry itself looks mostly like >>> strung beads or pearls of one sort or another, including, I suspect, those >>> larger drop stones (emerald or something else?) Lacking better stylistic info, >>> one can observe that beads on a cord are a style of jewelry made by almost every >>> culture on earth. Most of what I see in the painting are lots of pearls, which >>> also require little in the way of "making", being more an indication of wealth >>> than technology. I'll bet, if you gave him the pearls and large stone beads, >>> any street goldsmith in India could make necklaces to roughly match what's in >>> that painting...The earrings, forhead ornament, and the very crudely drawn >>> stuff below the large beads, well, hard to say what all that is. The stuff >>> below the beads might even be ornaments embroidered onto the dress. Can't tell. >>> As for "originals", likely your painting was a portrait of some important lady. >>> There's no reason to think the jewels themselves were extraordinary enough that >>> you'd find them pictured elsewhere from some museum today, is there? Who is the >>> lady? Research her family, and perhaps you'll find the originals still in the >>> possession of the desendents...
She wrote this when she left Chunar Fort and escaped from British captivity
"You put me in a cage and locked me up. For all your locks and your sentries, I got out by magic ... I had told you plainly not to push me too hard - but don't think I ran away, understand well that I escape by myself unaided ... When I quit the fort of Chunar, I threw down two papers on my gaddi and one I threw on a European charpoy, now don't imagine I got out like a thief!"
>>On Aug 31, 10:44pm, Peter W. Rowe <rec.crafts.jewe...@earthlink.net> >>wrote: >>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:23:15 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry Ganesh >>> <ganesh.growthsoluti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>It is said that these ornaments are with the British. Does any one >>> >>have the photograph of the originals.
>>> Hard to tell from the painting, which looks a bit rough in any case as far as >>> details go.
>>> She looks Indian, more than British, though of course, the Brits took a lot of >>> things back to England with them. And the jewelry itself looks mostly like >>> strung beads or pearls of one sort or another, including, I suspect, those >>> larger drop stones (emerald or something else?) Lacking better stylistic info, >>> one can observe that beads on a cord are a style of jewelry made by almost every >>> culture on earth. Most of what I see in the painting are lots of pearls, which >>> also require little in the way of "making", being more an indication of wealth >>> than technology. I'll bet, if you gave him the pearls and large stone beads, >>> any street goldsmith in India could make necklaces to roughly match what's in >>> that painting...The earrings, forhead ornament, and the very crudely drawn >>> stuff below the large beads, well, hard to say what all that is. The stuff >>> below the beads might even be ornaments embroidered onto the dress. Can't tell. >>> As for "originals", likely your painting was a portrait of some important lady. >>> There's no reason to think the jewels themselves were extraordinary enough that >>> you'd find them pictured elsewhere from some museum today, is there? Who is the >>> lady? Research her family, and perhaps you'll find the originals still in the >>> possession of the desendents...
Ganesh wrote: > On Sep 2, 3:26pm, Ganesh <ganesh.growthsoluti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Aug 31, 10:44pm, Peter W. Rowe <rec.crafts.jewe...@earthlink.net> >>> wrote: >>>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:23:15 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry Ganesh >>>> <ganesh.growthsoluti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I wonder who used to make these >>>>>> http://diamondbigs.blogspot.com/2009/08/what-cut-does-this-green-emer... >>>>>> It is said that these ornaments are with the British. Does any one >>>>>> have the photograph of the originals. >>>> Hard to tell from the painting, which looks a bit rough in any case as far as >>>> details go.
>>>> She looks Indian, more than British, though of course, the Brits took a lot of >>>> things back to England with them. And the jewelry itself looks mostly like >>>> strung beads or pearls of one sort or another, including, I suspect, those >>>> larger drop stones (emerald or something else?) Lacking better stylistic info, >>>> one can observe that beads on a cord are a style of jewelry made by almost every >>>> culture on earth. Most of what I see in the painting are lots of pearls, which >>>> also require little in the way of "making", being more an indication of wealth >>>> than technology. I'll bet, if you gave him the pearls and large stone beads, >>>> any street goldsmith in India could make necklaces to roughly match what's in >>>> that painting...The earrings, forhead ornament, and the very crudely drawn >>>> stuff below the large beads, well, hard to say what all that is. The stuff >>>> below the beads might even be ornaments embroidered onto the dress. Can't tell. >>>> As for "originals", likely your painting was a portrait of some important lady. >>>> There's no reason to think the jewels themselves were extraordinary enough that >>>> you'd find them pictured elsewhere from some museum today, is there? Who is the >>>> lady? Research her family, and perhaps you'll find the originals still in the >>>> possession of the desendents... >>> She is Maharani Jind Kaur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jind_Kaur) is >>> mother of Maharaja Duleep Singh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duleep_Singh) and >>> wife of Maharaja Ranjit Singh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranjit_Singh)
> wonder who's going to buy it... wish someone from India buys that
The last couple of times Indian millionaires bought bits of looted Indian heritage and then tried to bring them back to India and give them to the state the Indian government promptly announced that they'd be charing the owner the full rate of import duty and local taxes.
So Indian millionaires seem to have stopped doing that...
-- William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat single handed with a quarterstaff.
On Oct 10, 7:10 am, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> The last couple of times Indian millionaires bought bits of looted > Indian heritage and then tried to bring them back to India and give them > to the state the Indian government promptly announced that they'd be > charing the owner the full rate of import duty and local taxes.
> So Indian millionaires seem to have stopped doing that...
Well, they are more interested in things like these if there is lot of mileage associated with it. This necklace did not have lot of press coverage and it seems not lot know she was the one originally possessing the kohinoor.
|
