posted on September 18, 2003 05:48:45 PM new
Hi all,
I need help ID-ing this old necklace. It's very pretty although a few stones are missing. Looks like '20s to me but I'm certainly not a jewelry expert.
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Lucy
Watch the donut, not the hole.
edited to hopefully post a bigger pic...
[ edited by ohmslucy on Sep 18, 2003 05:50 PM ]
posted on September 18, 2003 06:47:57 PM new
Beautiful and yes it looks like late 20's. Stones can be replaced. Tough to match the old color rhinestones but if you haven's any old color stones you can either sell it as is or replace all the stones. Can't find any pictures to date the chain but the ornament looks 20's.
posted on September 19, 2003 04:52:22 AM new
Given the constant flow of reproductions, fantasy pieces and imitations from today's jewelry manufacturers, I'm surprised at any attempt to determine a date for an object based on the apparent style.
The metal on both pieces looks like a brass stamping, so this is clearly costume (if the glued-on pearls and rhinestones didn't already tell you that). Such pieces are still made today. Rhode island is rife with companies that can turn out any brass stamping you want. The shape of the chain argues for a recent manufacture date: thick, flat chains like that were not part of the Edwardian aesthetic.
But what is really telling is the faux pearls on both pieces: lustrous and apparently undamaged. The pearlized coating on fake pearls flakes off over time.
Our motto: Bright and shiny baubles for persons with low impulse control.
posted on September 19, 2003 05:57:28 AM new
ohmslucy and rarriffe shows us the backs of your pieces that will help. Rarriffle how old do you think your piece is and how long have you hand it?
posted on September 19, 2003 11:27:44 AM new
Libra,
I got mine this spring in a box of jewelry I purchased at auction. My first instincts say this is not that old...I think it was made to look old. It just doesn't have the right feel to me.
The metal setting looks "antiqued" and the pearl beads are glued in and not very skillfully.
maybe 50's but definitely not 20's, IMHO it would be much lighter weight if made in the 20's
posted on September 19, 2003 01:46:03 PM new
Hi all,
Here's a picture of the back. It's not a brass stamping, it's cast. Gray metal with copper over it, then plated with yellow metal over that. The copper is visible in the top leaves in the picture of the front. The links connecting the chain are copper. It weighs 0.8 ounces.
Rarriffle, your pretty brooch looks shinier than my necklace. Is it stamped or cast?
posted on September 19, 2003 02:43:47 PM new
I still think the necklace is old. Stones will be replaced if the old ones fall out. Same with the pin. I think the older the heavier. Maybe I am wrong as I have been before but it just doesn't have the look of the 50's
posted on September 19, 2003 02:46:57 PM new
Looking at the pictures again. Notice in the necklace the two stones together are red and in the pin one is a pearl. The stone was probably missing and the pearl put in by the owner of the pin. Looked and looked this afternoon but can't find anything close to it.
[ edited by Libra63 on Sep 19, 2003 02:47 PM ]
posted on September 19, 2003 03:01:59 PM new
Maybe every stone was suppose to be red and someone replaced one of them with a pearl and one with a clear stone? It looks very old to me and not like '60's 'paste'. The fact that it is not signed may indicate it was mass produced costume jewelry in the 1920's or 1930's. Still, should have some decent kind of value you'd think.
-------------- sig file ----------- President John F. Kennedy said, "There are three things which are real: God, human folly and laughter. The first two are beyond our comprehension, so we must do what we can with the third."
posted on September 19, 2003 03:17:31 PM new
The clear stones and pearl looks out of place to me as well. As for age, couldn't say. I had a neckalce with a chain just like your that I thought was old. Turned out it was 1950's repro. But, you never know.
Three pink stones are missing from the necklace. The foil backing remains, which looks like a clear stone in my picture. One end of a bead hole in the pearl at the bottom is visible, the other is filled with the pearl coating. Could be a replacement of what was originally a pink stone.
I doubt very much this is from the '50s. The pink stones vary in color enough to make me think it's pretty old. Also the casting is nicely detailed. Just doesn't look like a repro to me.
Anyway, thanks for the help. Maybe I'll mosey on over to my estate consignment jeweler and see what he thinks.
posted on September 19, 2003 04:50:14 PM new
sorry, just got back home lucy.
mine is cast also. the 3 stones are a very pretty pink. the one pearl setting, you can see part of the setting space under it.
I tried getting a good pic of the back but I live in a cave as far as light goes so I will get that pic tomorrow. it matches the stone setting on yours exactly though, with the open sides and all. this is definitely not a stamped piece.
posted on September 19, 2003 05:53:07 PM newMost costume jewelry is unsigned. After all, the vast majority of it was made to be worn a few times, then discarded. It wasn't made to be durable.
Am I the only person that finds that a ridiculous statement? The wealthy bought expensive jewelry and the non-wealthy bought inexpensive jewelry that looked expensive at a glance. Custom jewelry will last almost as long as expensive jewelry, we're not talking about Bic lighters here.
-------------- sig file ----------- President John F. Kennedy said, "There are three things which are real: God, human folly and laughter. The first two are beyond our comprehension, so we must do what we can with the third."
posted on September 19, 2003 05:58:58 PM new
bigpeepa,
you should know better how much it is worth.
no one talk about that turquoise stone in the middle,i have seen this kind of faux stone before ,cant recall where ??
it has this marble look ,may be this is a clue for dating the piece.
-sig file -------The thrill is gone!!
posted on September 19, 2003 06:18:50 PM new
I agree with AuctionAce - I don't think costume jewelry was necessarily not durable or intended to be discarded. As far as it not being signed, anyone ever heard of Trifari, Haskell, Eisenberg, Boucher, Iradj Moini, David Mandel, Bob Mackie?
Of course, to me, "costume jewelry" is anything not made of precious metals. Maybe I'm wrong in that opinion...
Anyway, back to the necklace. The center stone seems to be glass, it's green, looks very much like malachite.
posted on September 19, 2003 06:27:57 PM new
i think it is meant to be turquoise,malachite has more distinct stripes running across it.
the stone may be the clue as to when it is made.
i have a feeling the 2 pieces are not that old.
-sig file -------The thrill is gone!!
posted on September 19, 2003 06:45:09 PM new
When I say that most is unsigned I am talking about the volume of costume jewelry on this planet. Look on ebay or at any flea market and you will find that the majority of it is unsigned.
I agree that designer pieces/signed pieces can be made very well and can stay beautiful for many years. So can unsigned pieces if not worn daily.
But the majority of costume jewelry does not have the durability of real gold and real stones. If worn for long periods, the plating can eventually wear and the stones can fall out, some pieces much faster than others.
posted on September 20, 2003 06:57:12 AM new
It's no good, Kiara; these "experts" just know more than you or I.
Never mind that I started out in the antiques biz dealing exclusively in costume jewelry and have both read extensively and written on the topic.
As far as it not being signed, anyone ever heard of Trifari, Haskell, Eisenberg, Boucher, Iradj Moini, David Mandel, Bob Mackie?
Most costume jewelry is inexpensive, not made to last and gets thrown out eventually. That a few designer names are avidly collected means only that their goods were of higher quality and design value. Not that each of those names hasn't produced a load of crap in addition to some worthwhile pieces...
The usual scrounger motto ("Buy it for resale if it has a famous name on it" is going to bite you big-time if all you know about costume jewelry is a few names.
There is junk Haskell, Trifari, Eisenberg (even Eisenberg fakes), Boucher, etc. that no one will buy from you, not even on eBay. And there is stunning unsigned jewelry that will always have value because it was beautifully designed and made.
Our motto: Bright and shiny baubles for persons with low impulse control.
posted on September 20, 2003 07:07:14 AM new
No offense Tuffie, but most of the sterling silver closeout or clearence jewelry that you sell on ebay for a few bucks is just cheapo jewelry that the store couldn't sell because of ugly designs and poor quality. The 'costume' jewelry necklace in this photo looks ten times better than your average 'reject' jewelry you push on ebay for a one cent start with no reserve. You're really just making a few bucks on 'castoff' jewelry on ebay.
For someone that has read extensively about costume jewelry to make a remark such as After all, the vast majority of it was made to be worn a few times, then discarded. It wasn't made to be durable. shows you to be a gross phony and really not much more than a schoolyard tough that only wants to derail a thread by very nice woman about a beautiful vintage necklace. Go ahead and sell your bargins on ebay.
-------------- sig file ----------- President John F. Kennedy said, "There are three things which are real: God, human folly and laughter. The first two are beyond our comprehension, so we must do what we can with the third."
[ edited by AuctionAce on Sep 20, 2003 07:21 AM ]
posted on September 20, 2003 07:16:08 AM new
I may hate myself later today but, I have to agree with Fluffy. Case in point. I have a necklace that was my grandmother's. She wore it all the time and it's costume jewelry. It looks as bright and shiny as the day she bought it (in the 1940's) and it's not signed. THe rhinestones are prong-set. I also have a piece of 1950's costume jewelry that is signed Trifari. It's a mess, IMO. The plating is wearing and there are stones missing. The stones were glued in. It appears to be one of Trifari's throwaway pieces. I happen to know that my grandmother's necklace was purchased in the jewelry department at Halle's Department Store and was probably not a cheap piece of costume jewelry. You definitely get what you pay for.
If it's dull, the plating most likely is worn and there's not too much that can be done about that. No amount of polishing will make it better. Believe me, I tried on my Trifari. It just looks like a dull worn out piece of junk.
Your necklace is pretty, though. I like the style. If anything, I'd lean more toward 1940's than 1920's. The Deco era was pretty prevalent in the 1920's and I just don't see Deco in this necklace.
posted on September 20, 2003 07:29:18 AM new
I guess a necklace purchased for $5 in 1940 is really quite inferior to a necklace purchased for $150 in 1940 but for the decade or so the women could wear them they looked exactly like the $150 necklaces from a few feet away. Thank goodness the common people finally got a chance to wear elegant looking jewelry like their wealthy counterparts.
-------------- sig file ----------- President John F. Kennedy said, "There are three things which are real: God, human folly and laughter. The first two are beyond our comprehension, so we must do what we can with the third."
posted on September 20, 2003 07:41:32 AM new
in all fairness,
something just do not look right for this piece of so called antique jewelry-the chain,the centre stone and the pearls ??
-sig file -------The thrill is gone!!
posted on September 20, 2003 08:51:32 AM newI guess a necklace purchased for $5 in 1940 is really quite inferior to a necklace purchased for $150 in 1940 but for the decade or so the women could wear them they looked exactly like the $150 necklaces from a few feet away.
If the $5 necklace was worn all the time for 10 years it would look like a piece of junk from a few feet away. Sometimes gold plated rings with cubic zirconias look okay from a few feet away also.
You're really just making a few bucks on 'castoff' jewelry on ebay.
I just checked your auctions and it looks like she makes quite a few bucks more than you do with your 'castoff' yearbooks.
is going to bite you big-time if all you know about costume jewelry is a few names.
