Featured Question on turquoise earrings

Does anyone recognize the mark on these earrings? I've used Google lens and couldn't find a match for the mark. I did find an identical pair on Etsy, but no information provided on the origin or maker. Since they're screwbacks, I'm assuming they're probably 1940s-50s?

 

I think you're right re date.

Debora

 

I just realized that the mark might be Navajo or another Native American picto mark. I had them stored with other NA jewelry, but when I took them out today I didn't think they looked quite like typical NA, so decided this evening to look further online and found the mark which belongs to Maisels Indian Trading Post 3. I was going to post a photo from the website, but noticed the Copyright 2008-2023 Association de Pech Contal 82330 VAREN FRANCE. There's information about Maisels on Wikipedia if anyone is interested it its history.

 

I'm not sure they're turquoise either. They do look like a lot of what was popular in the 50s.

 

After looking at Maisels examples online, I'm thinking they're most likely turquoise, but more highly polished than others I've seen. The color in my photos is a little bluer than what they actually look like.

 

Put a small drop of water on top of the stone and see what happens.

 

The drop of water sat there like a bubble. I suppose that means the stone was either hardened/stabilized or it's not real turquoise. Whatever they are, the stones have surface cracks and irregularities that I can feel with my fingernail and see with a magnifying glass.

 

I thought it looked a little like chrysoprase, but it's hard to judge with a photo. They didn't much stabilizing with resin until the late 1960's.

 

I looked at examples of vintage chrysoprase jewelry on eBay and saw a few stones that look kind of like the earring with the plainer stone.

 

Nice earrings, Joan. A rather timeless style, which makes dating difficult.
Maisel's employed Native American silversmiths, so they're likely NA made.

Screwbacks are still made for people who don't have pierced ears. Maybe not so much now, but very much so until the early 80s.

Highly polished could mean later. Maisel's jewellery used mostly turquoise, but also other stones and even glass. Yours aren't glass though.

The 3 is the number the site uses for that specific mark, it isn't known as such.
I haven't been able to find a timeline for Maisel's marks, but understand that this is one was used some time after 1950. Unfortunately I don't know how long after.
Maybe @reader knows?

Yes, it is a French site, hence the name 'Amerindien', a French term for Native American, to distinguish NA Indian from 'Indien', original Indian. What's in a name.

No harm in posting the link though:
https://www.art-amerindien.com/hallmarks/3-southwest-indian-shop-trademarks.htm

 

Great looking earrings. What does the bubble of water tell us?

 

That the stone is stabilised, which helps date the earrings.

 

Thank you Any Jewelry for clarifying the various issues with these earrings and glad to hear the stones are turquoise. I have one other pair that look like older NA screwback earrings. The screwbacks are a little smaller and are signed Sterling (there are no marks on the backs of the earrings).

I noticed the stones on the older earrings look about as highly polished as the Maisels, so I did the water droplet test and the drop stayed as a bubble. Now I'm wondering if there's some type of coating on the surface, or maybe just oil from years of handling?, or are both sets of earrings possibly 1960s-70s after turquoise stabilizing started as Hollyblue said.
P.S. I found a website that says the stabilization process first began in Arizona in the 1950s (palmstrading.com), but who says they're the final authority on the topic.

 

I don't know if they are, but they could be. They could also be chrysocolla, as Holly thought they might be.
Chrysocolla is a beautiful, intriguing stone, and it isn't as if they are less beautiful or worth less if it is chrysocolla.

No marks and unmatched stones (different shades) means 1970s or older.

 

Sorry, Any Jewelry, for some reason I thought I remembered your post said the stones are turquoise...I have short term memory issues. Interesting to hear about chrysocolla possibility. Hollyblue said possibly chrysoprase....is that the same/similar?

 

Don't worry, I have ADD, so I have similar issues. I only register part of what's going on anyway.

Oops, an example of ADD, I thought Holly said chrysocolla. Chrysoprase and chrysocolla are two different stones, chrysoprase is green, sometimes jade green, and chrysocolla green to blue. It can look like a dark turquoise.

 

Chrysoprase is the green version of carnelian. It was a hot stone in the Depression era. It's usually set with an open back because it's translucent. Chrysocolla is what I think the original earrings are.

 

I thought so too. They have that beautiful deep dark colour.

 

So the consensus seems to be chrysocolla. I looked at examples of chrysocolla jewelry, and the stones do look more like my Maisels earrings than chrysoprase and turquoise. Thank you to all who contributed helpful information. It's also good to know that "No marks and unmatched stones (different shades) means 1970s or older"--thanks Any Jewelry.

My knowledge of gemstones was pretty much limited to birthstones and a few other common examples -- most everything I know beyond that I've learned here on Antiquers.

 

That applies to Native American jewellery of the Southwest only though. The second pair you posted is a very good example of it.
If you look at recent turquoise clusterwork, the stones are all the same colour and shade, and the backs are signed.

Matched stones look more perfect, but I love the charm of the old unmatched ones.