Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="George Chaney, post: 4272857, member: 19137"]As someone that loves American Indian jewelry, taupou is correct. Though as reader stated, I am not nearly as rigid. This is simply my opinion, so take it as such.... The signer is known, but is "Unknown". That does not mean they were not American Indian, it means they have not yet been recognized by a tribe or the name is unknown to any tribe. The modern system of tracking artisans was not always in place, and it is not uncommon for older pieces to be unsigned and unmarked or for the signers to be unknown. Or, using this example, signed but unknown. You will note in tribal work, it is not uncommon to see generational craftsman and it would be difficult to track a one generation branch that died out. As I tell everyone, if care is not taken, your family history will be lost in 2 generations. Just this past week I sold a ring from circa 1880 to the relative of the man that owned the company. Even after decades and writing a book about the company, they had no idea the family jewelry business had a company makers mark until they found the ring I had for sale. Hence, why I am not a signature snob. The law referenced was not passed until 1990 and was not just intended for jewelry. Since the passing of this law, the signing of pieces and tracking registered artisans has become crucial to the various members of tribes involved in profiting from the American Indian commercial enterprises. (Good for them by the way!) An unsigned piece like this, simply marked sterling, will bring basically the same amount as a piece that is signed, but an unknown signer. The rub on signed pieces like this is, nobody can prove either way as to origin outside of the style and quality of the work and the stones used in the setting(s). Using the law as a sledgehammer can in fact result in the massive loss of American Indian heritage as pieces get scrapped/repurposed, thrown away etc because the "artisan" is not known or recognized at a given moment in time. Care should ALWAYS be used to preserve history and when in doubt, attribution should be made based upon age, quality and materials and NOT just assumed to be a reproduction/fake. Seeing examples of this artisans work was helpful. Without holding them in my hands, visually the work is on par with known Navajo artisans and the turquoise stones mounted are just lovely, though again, without deeper inspection, it is assumed they are undyed. Yes, you will see the same design used multiple times, especially on more complex pieces. Various types of castings are used over and over for items produced for "commercial" sale from ring bands, to cuff bands, etc. It is not uncommon to see the same design and style by the same American Indian artisan with very slight nuanced differences - the most important are stone color, stone shape, turquoise mine source, and matrix variation as examples. Pieces are hand worked to create the finished product making each piece slightly unique. The bezel set is the most common setting because it is easy to shape around the stone(s) chosen for the project. Stone quality is almost always high, and are hand chosen for the particular piece. It is unreasonable to expect an artisan to spend the time to create a castings, work metal, choose stones all to produce a one off cuff bracelet sold for a few hundred dollars. Regardless, the better crafted the piece (marrying stones to metal) the more rare it is for a stone to become loose or ill fitted over time. Jewelry made by American Indians tends to be "tight" using time honored traditions. Shoddy workmanship and stones that fall out is the type of thing you see out of reproductions. At the end of the day, call it southwestern in the style of Native American....Do not attribute it to a tribe, test to ensure it is sterling, and price accordingly. It is a solid, petite, piece. If I had it in stock, I would have no reservations about offering it for sale.[/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches