Also not from the 40’s. We didn’t see turquoise cut like this until the late 60’s, and really the early 70’s, and again - the workmanship. This appears far more modern than represented. Whoever this vendor is, I would personally ignore any representation made with regard to this piece, and focus solely upon the the quality of the stones, and the value of the metals.
Very nice turquoise but that is really all this piece has to it
That’s what I meant. Both bracelets carry fake hallmarks to push prices up. We can’t say if vendors misinterpret on purpose.
BOTH COMPANIES ARE IN THE USA.
The latter found someone to pay $5100 for the bracelet.
Are you talking about the original posted bracelet? I think Brown’s Trading is usually pretty good, they are one of the sites I often look at, but there can be mistakes from any site. I don’t think @gt75’s cuff at the start of the thread is from Browns. But I don’t in general understand how to tell the age of jewelry.
Correct, first is from an Etsy vendor and available, second is sold and from Browns.
I don’t think Brown’s is known for fake. Not everything with that hallmark is fake. In general don’t trust stuff on etsy. But there are good legit sites.
If Browns is a good company, they should contact and refund the buyer.
I suppose any good company can make an honest mistake. Maybe you could try contacting them and correcting them.
Done, let’s see what happens.
Yeah, maybe this one is really what it says. Looks more realistic to me.
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/tom-burnside-turquoise-navajo-sterling-silver
hallmark questions aside, i want to throw this into the mix.
this is a very good block imitation of Hubei.
50+ other examples of block/faux turquoise in a FB group: TRADITIONAL PUEBLO JEWELRY & BEADS SANTO DOMINGO ZUNI HOPI TAOS ACOMA NM | A ton of pics of block material, imitation turquoise, coral, etc | Facebook
I was concerned you meant the Brown’s Trading. It’s a mistake to assume Brown’s has it wrong. They’re multigeneration traders and mine owners in good standing as ATADA members and, as far as I’ve ever heard, of excellent repute. Do report back on their response to your inquiry.
As to the stones: Zuni lapidarists were making and setting dimensional stones (sometimes called “nuggets” in the period literature) since at least the 1930s, not to mention cabbed fetishes as sets. Among those were C G Wallace artists Leekya Deyuse and Dan and Chauncey Simplicio and probably Juan Dedios.
From the CG Wallace auction catalogue and the book on Leekya Deyuse, examples
We’ll have to agree to disagree. I just don’t buy it on this piece.
Got a response from the vendor of the Hubei turquoise bracelet, the vendor on Etsy.
He agrees that the hallmark is very likely not true to any of the two T.B. silversmiths. He has updated the item description to reflect this. Fair enough.
Let’s not be too quick to defend others without backup. That would be for them to offer proof. But if the buyer is happy with their 5 figure bracelet… And to be fair, the sold for price is not listed.
The video @Steve found clearly demonstrates the pieces Tom Burnside made. I agree with @mmrogers and although not as knowledgable as many here, even I can see this is a much later bracelet. But at or around $5100, I don’t think so.
And yes, mistakes even at major auction houses have been made in the millions. I have seen it especially with Chinese porcelain.
What I find truly amazing is how people will fork over huge amounts of money on someone’s say-so without asking for proof of provenance or authenticity. But then the art and antiquities market has been doing it for centuries.
Have I got a deal for someone for the wonderful price of $600K: 
Trust the seller with over 30 years experience in oriental porcelain 
A Chinese Wucai ‘dragon’ zun
The vase is decorated with iron-red, green and yellow enamels to depict dragons chasing a flaming pearl amongst clouds, all amidst floral sprays. The neck is similarly decorated. The base with an apocryphal Wanli six character mark.
Glad you posted these examples because they illustrate a couple of important points.
#1) We aren’t discussing or seeing the same things.
#2) As is the case in so many other areas in life, honest mistakes are sometimes made in reference texts.
#1) As an academic and collector, you’re presuming I’m referring to carved turquoise stones. I’m not.
Without getting too far into the weeds, what I’m discussing is a cutting style which really came into its own in the 70s, especially for sleeping beauty turquoise, which was and still is primarily cut for yield. The stones in the bracelet in question weren’t carved per se. They were cut for yield taking advantage of the natural surface contours, and coloration of the small depressions (usually done with enamel or liquid shoe polish) to add contrast and create a nuggety effect. I honestly don’t remember ever seeing stones cut in this manner set prior to 70s, and the items you posted are no exception.
There are however plenty of examples of this cutting style in jewelry made from the 70’s on. Looking at the way the stones are cut, and depth of the stones as set, I would lay odds that they’re cut on a Devcon backing, which is a more modern technique. The finish on the stones is typical of Sleeping Beauty or Castle Dome finished with Zam.
Having worked extensively with Sleeping Beauty in my own cutting shop, and in decades of wholesale operations, I can tell you from the coloration of the stones, and lack of aging and color changes that come with oxidation, contact with skin oils, etc, that it is highly unlikely the stones as cut are nearly 80 years old.
#2) Looking at the color photo you provided, and thank you for this example, I think the dating is most likely flawed.
CG Wallace (d.), who worked personally with these two artists (Leekya 1899-1966, Dan 1917-1969), and the Heard Museum, current repository and undisputed authority on these artists and this work, would be interested in this analysis.
I have no skin in the game here, but do take seriously any highly reputable seller to stand by their offerings. It’ll be interesting to see Brown’s response.
Clearly you do have an objective, which seems to be creating the impression that I have some sort of conflict with this vendor. I don’t.
I do think you’re projecting your own differences with me into this discussion, and on a personal level I find that very disappointing.
You’re absolutely entitled to your opinion. You’ve expressed it here, and I’m comfortable with that.
Not at all, Michael. Your expertise is undoubted and an amazing asset here. My objective is about the material…to express my own experience, ideally as helpfulness.
We’re all at the disadvantage of not being able to see and handle and have full info.
