Photos

Comments

• 

  Luda Hunter February 16, 2014 at 11:46pm

  Any info on this set of Turkoman temporal ornaments would be greatly appreciated - close up detail also posted.
• 

  Linda Pastorino February 17, 2014 at 5:40am

  These are very beautiful quality . They are used on each side of the headdress as pendants that flank the face. They are early most likely not later then mid 19th c
• 

  Patricia Deany February 17, 2014 at 1:09pm

  Lovely ornaments, I would disagree with the age, however, put them more into mid twentieth century.
• 

  Amber-Tiznit February 17, 2014 at 1:23pm

  Lovely!!
• 

  Linda Pastorino February 17, 2014 at 5:09pm

  The reason I feel these are mid 19th c is because of the shapes of each componant is not what was done in the mid 20th c as well as the type of engraving and style of the engraving with use of additional stone inlay. I have had others like this , some dated and they have produced early dates. You usually don't get the unusual shapes that these have in later pieces . Also the stone color and way they are cut looks as usual but they also appear to have a more clear uniform color and glow from them , also indicating a better grade of carnelian often referred to as fire carnelian. This is also something that one sees in earlier pieces.
• 

  Luda Hunter February 17, 2014 at 11:16pm

  Thanks so much for your input. Unfortunately I have misplaced my notes from the seller when purchasing this piece but can remember the seller also saying this was around mid 19th c. And you are right Linda in that the Carnelian glows much like fire carnelian. Is there a particular region/tribe regarding the piece?
• 

  Linda Pastorino February 17, 2014 at 11:40pm

  Hi I'm having trouble with identifying it. i believe from the etched design and shapes of the components that it is Yomud from Choresm.  It is most like the Asyk on page 221 of Old Silver Jewelry of the Turkoman in the handling of the drawing and type of fire carnelians. The feeling as a whole says this to me from all  types of Tenecir  I have sold. 
• 

  Patricia Deany February 18, 2014 at 6:30am

  I have to respectfully disagree, for what it is worth. I also have to add that it is very difficult to date anything from a picture unless it is a very archaic piece which simply has never been reproduced over the years. In this piece it is impossible to see true patina or wear patterns which would, in fact, be far more indicative of vast age than stones. The stones are  carnelians which are not uncommon to Turkoman pieces of any age , I have seen many pieces both old and new with this particular color-- stones can also be easily and are often changed out in  old and new pieces. Further, if we are going to take stones as dating proof, I would suggest that the presence of the turquoise or blue opaque glass takes it pretty much out of the nineteenth century altogether and places it more into the twentieth. This lovely tenecir actually reminds me a lot of the pieces of the Wolf collection which we have discussed at length on this forum, the presence of turquoise, the presence of oddly shaped and diverse pendants all point to a later origin in my opinion.If we are going to place it further back, I think mid nineteenth century is a real stretch. The vast majority of jewelry discussed in the Schlecter book is late nineteenth or early twentieth century -- I think mid-nineteenth is very difficult to find and would not include the blue stones. In reality, I think it is very difficult to date anything from a picture and that all of this is basically conjecture unless the real piece is before the eyes of a Turkoman jewelry expert. Whether it is old or new,it is a very beautiful tenecir of value.
• 

  Patricia Deany February 18, 2014 at 11:44am

  Just for a little reference, here is a pic of a tenecir from the Wolf collection which displays the same chainwork, unusual pendant shape, turquoise stones and color carnelians as this lovely work. I myself possess lots of examples of this kind of later Turkoman work and it is very fine and excellent. It just happens to not be very, very old. As an addendum to my last statement, later Turkoman work often contains turquoise stones whereas the earlier work can contain blue or green opaque glass which was used a little bit in the late nineteenth, early twentieth century. In general, as I have said, it is really not possible to date something from a picture, the weight, wear, patina, the constitution and quality of the stones or glass all have to be taken into consideration and that can only be done with the item in hand.
• 

  Linda Pastorino February 18, 2014 at 5:05pm

  These two pieces are the same type of piece but not the same.  The chain work is often similar in most of the pieces . This one is more typical of the type that is often listed as Yomud and is made in a way that is usual for this design.  The age of the one in the Wolfs book would be more in line with the end of the 19th c through around 1920 or so.  The piece above exhibits different drawing and the shapes are different although subtle if one has seen enough of the differences that belie earlier pieces then one can tell from photos.  At least I can.  I would also not use the Wolf's book as reference since about 75% of the pieces in that book are new fakes. One can use that book as a reference of what to look out for if one wants to stay away from new pieces that are being sold as old.