We have a vast collection of images here which have been shared over the years ...
Click on an image to see the discussions around the piece.
Enjoy!
You need to be a member of Ethnic Jewels to add comments!
Request your copy of our newsletter.
If you would like to receive our newsletter
Comments
Ah, good to see the buckle. Your belt is quite similar to mine. a very nice piece!
Thanks, howah. I posted yet another image as well, showing the rosettes and buckle together, in a way.
This is interesting as I had a buckle like this I sold without the belt. will have to post to show ,, now it makes sense.
How do you view this belt as something a woman wore or a man? The reason I'm asking is that I have a whole book on these that has them as being worn by woman. see photos,, yet when I have seen them advertised I see them as Polish sword belts.. see the problem with this.. I have seen them many many times advertised this way and yet in this book only woman are seen wearing this style..
As well one posted as advertised as a sword belt
this is the same style belt and yet many places advertise these as sword belts. In my book men don't wear this style. I'm suggesting that perhaps some of this stuff starts with incorrect information and just gets repeated and then the item gets categorzed and sold impropertly.
Thanks for these photos, Linda. I think that perhaps a reason why people might think of the belt as "male" is the loop near the buckle to which something might be attached: but I doubt that it would have been there for a sword. Overall, I do *not* think of this type as for men. Ours is actually quite short; it is not heavy; and the decorative style suits women perfectly. I also grant your point - in this case, at any rate! - that someone may readily decide, on insufficient evidence, "this is for a male", which assertion then gets repeated from one place to another. Alas, that is how a mistake can become firmly ensconced. The absence of photos of men wearing them, per se, would not necessarily compel me to think that men may not have done, but (a) your photographic evidence certainly shows that women wore them, and leaves the question of men doing so up in the air, while (b) the objects themselves do not seem to me to be particularly indicative of male use (I find that second point very important). Possibly, if some of these were very large, they *may* have been worn by men. But the examples I have seen so far would not suggest that in any important way.
Note,, what is attractive about your buckle in particular to most I have seen is that there is open space which makes it very different. I believe the one you have might be a bit older. The fabric stripe in fact is from the 1770's to 80's and I always thought when you showed me the back it was 18th c but didn't want to discuss it due to not having enough evidence. I think this as others are a type of belt that was made for several hundred years almost the same so very little changes except these slight nuances. As well not the wrap of the belt on the figure of the woman especially on right. See it wraps several times around, not once...
This is the one i sold yet different again.. but of same group. The woman I sold this too had the belt with out the buckle... at the time I had no idea what this was but knew it was either Polish or Hungarian but had never seen one published before .. .I got this from a guy living in Hawaii !
Hi Linda, - Yes, I agree: I too had ours down as probably 18th c, and indeed because of differences from others I have seen. Less of a "panel" construction; more home-made in a way, overall. There is nothing special about its front, although that too looks old. But the rosettes are particularly good and individualised. I do prefer it to others I have seen.