Hi everyone! I’ve been away for a bit, life has gotten in the way and travels and whatnot, but I’m happy to be back perusing the many posts with eye candy and information.
I found the chunky necklace on the right a while back. I didn’t have it appraised, but an appraiser did say that the turquoise was cheap and the beads were handmade and worth it. As I recall, I didn’t pay a whole lot. There is no hallmark of stamp.
Today I stumbled across the necklace on the left and after close inspection of the beads, I decided to purchase it. The cones are stamped “Sterling.” I just took a closer look at the turquoise and noticed some pyrite chips in quite a few pieces. I’m including close-ups of some. What do you all think?
Side by side, I feel like they could be from the same artist (beads are similar, same clasps, same stringing material), but who really knows?
Pretty necklaces! While I am not good at decifering if beads are handmade, I am curious about the matrix in these stones. Back in the 70’s or so (I think) black shoe polish was sometimes used on Kingman turquoise to darken the matrix. A few of your stones have that look, but then others don’t, and have whitish matrix. Maybe it’s all naturally different, or I’m wondering if there was some blackening done, and it has faded away.
@Ziacat thanks! Um, yes, I noticed the black and white matrix, too. It is my understanding that on larger pieces of Sleeping Beauty turquoise the white matrix has been blackened, it is not naturally dark. I do not think this is Sleeping Beauty, I’m just stating the info I have about blackening the matrix on some turquoise.
When I look at the drilled holes, they are turquoise inside, so I don’t think the chunks are fake. I just hadn’t seen chunks with such apparent pieces of pyrite (that I didn’t notice until I got home )
And it may have been a bad purchase (although <$95), but if the beads are at least sterling, I guess that it’s ok, lol
It’s interesting how on the other necklace the supposed “cheap” turquoise is fairly uniform, but on this necklace the chunks vary a lot. I have no idea if they’re handmade or not.
It was also done occasionally with Kingman - I have a ring with Kingman that was blackened. Maybe your turquoise is Kingman, and your stones look real to me. But I don’t know that all SB matrix is white; I just bought a heishi necklace the artist said is SB, and it has a lot of dark matrix (no shoe polish).
Ooooh, I would love it if the dark matrix is natural in my SB pieces.
That is the beauty of this forum, learning about what you don’t know. I thought Kingman matrix was always darker, but now I know it might have been light naturally.
I’m assuming that this necklace is Kingman, but only because it’s so prevalent, no other reason
You’re welcome, doesn’t mean I’m 100% right A lot of Kingman is darker, but there were some pieces that had polish used on the lighter matrix. I only have one, maybe two, pieces of Kingman that have the shoe polish treatment, and they are the nugget type stones. I don’t think shoe polish has been used for quite some time. I don’t really know a lot about SB, I’m just pretty sure she didn’t use any on my necklace. I have a cuff with SB, but it has very little matrix at all.
Thank you, @Patina. They were not represented that way. I wish they were, but figured they weren’t. As long as they’re sterling, I’m ok with it.
I know the ones in my first chunky necklace are, and that’s fine. (On the right in the first photo).
Edited to add:
Unless you mean those beads? They have visible tool marks and the holes are jagged on some. They might not be the best quality, but I believe from what I’ve learned here (and an expert opinion), that they were handmade. But again, who knows?
also a very random thought, but i’m wondering if the residue could be an indicator for natural turquoise? Like, that the stuff couldn’t stay attached to the smooth surface of the resin coating of stabilized material but could get a firmer grip on the dry matrix parts of natural material, which have a tendency to soak things up.
@Bluegreen your post is very helpful! I remember reading through. Your beads turned out gorgeous after all of your hard work.
And I don’t know, maybe you’re right! The stones in my first necklace look like they’ve been sealed and are fairly uniform in color, but a few of the ones that are the subject of this thread look like they’re discolored from skin oils…so maybe they are natural? I think that’s what you meant. I really don’t know.
I don’t know if that matters. I have 2 1970 ish rings that I believe were hit with polish. One looks stabilized, and the stuff is still on it. The other is natural (low grade because it went from pale blue to a much darker blue), and the black appears to be wearing off.
)
A lot of Kingman is darker, but there were some pieces that had polish used on the lighter matrix. I only have one, maybe two, pieces of Kingman that have the shoe polish treatment, and they are the nugget type stones. I don’t think shoe polish has been used for quite some time. I don’t really know a lot about SB, I’m just pretty sure she didn’t use any on my necklace. I have a cuff with SB, but it has very little matrix at all.