Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Any Jewelry, post: 4612908, member: 2844&quot;]Neither am I.</p><p><br /></p><p>Agree.</p><p>It is Navajo made, just like most Bell&#039;s sterling and turquoise jewellery. Navajo made means NA made, there are no two ways about it. Navajo made for a commercial company doesn&#039;t make the person who made it any less Navajo. If it was made by a Navajo, by simple logic it can&#039;t have been made a non-Navajo. </p><p>Quite a few NA silversmiths began their career working for companies like Bell&#039;s, and went on to work for themselves. </p><p><br /></p><p>The ring J posted is a certain Zuni style ring that I&#039;ve seen before quite a few times. Most of those rings were not marked by the maker. IMO it is an older ring, with lovely older turquoise, that has been handled a lot. Older generally means unmarked.</p><p>The law is only relevant if you want to sell it in the US.</p><p><br /></p><p>I have said it before, that specific law completely ignores older NA jewellery, which was usually unmarked. It denies a long period of NA jewellery making, and some important names in NA jewellery (Frank Dishta etc). Consequently it denies part of NA culture and history.</p><p>If we base our opinion on whether an item is NA made or not on that law, we collaborate in denying part of NA culture. I for one am not prepared to do that.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in