Hello there! I picked up this cuff second hand / background unknown and it’s really interesting. This one looks to be something of a rarity if this is old as it looks gnarly and primitive. What era of time does everyone think it is from?
It does look to be completely handmade with rough tools, and it has chisel and file marks all over it, although it is difficult to see that from my photos, but it is definitely ingot silver, and has signs of having been hammered out by hand. In addition, the raindrops on the front are handmade and the stamping is different on each one, also the stamping on the sides is worn and uneven. The bezels have those cuts around them; I’m guessing that the maker did sort of a rough tearing of the silver in order to manipulate the stones into place?
I was also thinking 60s / 70s. To quote @Ravenscry ”Imperfect Perfection”. Your bracelet is the type I watch out for to purchase. Have to admit the bracelet is a bit on the natural side but I like it just the same.
Thank you for the guesses! It is definitely a unique one, and I think it must have been for a man because it is huge on me, and I’m having to wear it shoved halfway down my forearm. It’s thick and doesn’t seem to want to give to form better on my arm.
It is definitely a pretty rough looking piece; everything about it is very primitive and everything about it looks like it was done with non-fine tools. I like its personality! I was thinking it may be older than that, because I had read that ingot and coin silver had quit being used in the 1930s or '40s.
Looks possibly sand cast. The metal is most likely coin or sterling silver and probably tempered / hardened over the years and would have little to no give. It would need to be annealed to soften the metal. And to anneal, the stones would need to be removed. But it’s a paradox. If you try to remove the stones prior to annealing you could crack the bezels if the metal has hardened. And you can’t soften the metal by annealing without removing the stones. So it’s a great piece to admire as is.
The Brown’s cuff is not a comparable in era. Those daisy-like stamps on the applied drops are absolutely a midcentury and later idea. Early cuffs had simple, ball-like raindrops. The bezels seem off for early Navajo, too.
I agree with the above estimates of 60s-70s, though possibly could be as early as 50s.
Not much to add to what others have observed @StevesTrail. As you pointed out the shank is sand cast. I agree with @chicfarmer about likely period. The way the stone is cut and the way the bezels are filed with notches looks like Zuni style work to me.
@LiquidGold there is a little bit of bend to it, but not enough for me to feel okay about trying to shape it more. I’m afraid that it might pop out one of the stones in the middle. It is silver but not sure if as high as sterling; it seems a bit different than other sterling I’ve seen.
@mmrogers The way the bezels are cut into thirds or quarters is something I’ve never seen. Zuni vs Navajo is something I have a hard time identifying when they are working in the typical style of one another.
As far as being sandcast, it does have the characteristics, but under a loupe there’s all kinds of cracks, digs, bends, and file scrapes over all the surfaces. More looking like done on purpose versus came out of a mold that way, I guess is the best way to describe it. If it is sandcast, someone really took a file to it and worked it hard after the fact.
I wonder if the way this piece look looks is more due to the maker not having access to great tools, or that they just weren’t that skilled, or learning silver work.
That is interesting about the silver hardening after so many years @StevesTrail. I’ve never really heard of that, but I have sometimes wondered why some older sterling pieces seem so much less bendable than others. I don’t think I’m going to try to reshape this one, because I think it would ruin the piece. I can wear it, I just have to shove it further up my arm.
You could always do what female friends of mine do with pieces they can’t live without or can’t/don’t want to modify. They use thick foam tape to build thickness, from 3M, not the cheaper stuff. It’s comfortable and works really well for them!
They wouldn’t have worked hard to add irregularities; if anything they would’ve filed to eliminate those. Even in early times with almost no tools, clean finishing of the shank reverse was a goal.
@chicfarmer perhaps I didn’t phrase that correctly…. I didn’t mean that they had made it look rough on purpose; the inside is smooth as are the edges, I just mean that you can see the filing marks all over it when you have it under magnification. It just isn’t what I have normally seen on my other sandcast pieces. The texture is not the same. And maybe something that I can’t really convey correctly without being able to also show the magnification, but I don’t have the camera power to do that. . I don’t know a lot about production, so maybe it doesn’t mean anything in the long run, but it just looked like a different kind of hand working than any other pieces that I have.
@Ravenscry thanks for the information and the tip on the 3M tape! You are always such a good source for photos and information of the historical pieces! So maybe the bezel cuts, while unusual, aren’t completely abnormal. I just figured that it meant that someone had a more manual way of having to bend the silver to get it around the stones tightly.
One would have to be skilled to make this bracelet @Xtina. The nature of the casting and finishing work indicates to me that it was likely made by a skilled craftsperson with limited access to electricity and electric motors used commonly in finishing. Some place like Zuni Pueblo where access to those items was limited. Someone with ready access to heavy gauge milled sheet would have purchased sheet rather than casting and finishing an ingot into a shank. This took real time to make, and I’m thinking this was something a silversmith likely made for themselves or someone close rather than as a commercial enterprise. The casting style with a bit of stampwork, flat stamped shot, notched bezels and home cut stones are very reminiscent of the type of work Effie Calavaza used to do, and may be an earlier work by her or another family member working with similar techniques in a similar style. Even as late as the 70s and 80s many Zuni homes had plain dirt floors, no plumbing, and limited electricity. Grinding buffing and finishing was often done (when access to electricity permitted) with plain electric motors with simple accessories attached. To digress a bit, access to the closest real supply house was 35 miles distant, with limited access to transportation, and folks coming into town in groups in one vehicle to purchase supplies and do business.
ETA: The stone in this particular bracelet looks like it may be stabilized, which would likely be an element of a later work, 60s or 70s rather than mid century or earlier.
Oh, OK …. interesting, @mmrogers ! So perhaps the reason that it looks a bit rough and uneven may be because of actual wear and a bit of abuse, not that it was made by a novice or always looked like this. My initial thoughts were also that this was not something that was made to sell to someone, but rather for the artist him or herself, or a family member. Whoever it was made for must have had a wide, flat, and large wrist and forearm, because the whole underside of the shank underneath the stones is pretty flat. My cuffs are more curved…further evidence than it was a custom job that wasn’t meant for sale.
Thanks, as always, for the educational insight!
Yeah, the stones are a bit of a mystery. I wonder if a jeweler or gemologist can tell me if it was stabilized. Of course, the stones might not be original to the piece, either.
How many of us have had moments like this where we wish that we could hold an object and magically visualize where and when it was made! What a great power that would be.
90+% it’s stabilized Kingman @Xtina. Looks like it was cut by the craftsperson.
ETA: Would suggest having the shank sized for your wrist. It’s heavy but it’s also cast which means it’s far more brittle than a shank of similar weight in milled sterling. It won’t take much repeated bending to fracture it.
here is an early belt buckle with faceted stones and the style of hand cut bezels more commonly seen on early works.
. I don’t know a lot about production, so maybe it doesn’t mean anything in the long run, but it just looked like a different kind of hand working than any other pieces that I have.