Photos

Comments

• 

  Joost Daalder June 5, 2011 at 2:54pm

  I think this is a very nice, well-worn example, Becky, and I agree with your dating, possibly veering more towards 100 years than 70 years, as the wear is quite pronounced and the patina very rich; also, there is nothing sharp and lifeless about the workmanship, which is always a good sign. Again, Truus and I have one very similar to yours, and again it can be found on p. 409 of Truus's *Ethnic Jewellery and Adornment*! We obviously like similar things! Cheers, Joost
• 

  Joost Daalder July 1, 2011 at 8:47pm

  What a patina! Definitely very early. I see I have commented to that effect before. And I have no doubt. It's a lovely piece.
• 

  Alaa eddine SAGID July 1, 2011 at 9:07pm

  sorry to be a buzz killer but the patina could very well be forged!!

   

  there is a big contrast of patina level between the buckle and the ornated part!

   

  what is very bizarre here is the shape of the khamsas!! this shape is not early and in general, symetrical khamsas figurations are not old

   

  we need to have a look a the backside
• 

  Joost Daalder July 1, 2011 at 9:10pm

  I have no doubt, Ayis, that this patina is perfectly genuine, whatever else may be the case.
• 

  Joost Daalder July 1, 2011 at 9:13pm

  It is perfectly natural that the top should be more worn than the side. Without seeing the piece with my own eyes from all sides I can see absolutely no problem.
• 

  Alaa eddine SAGID July 1, 2011 at 9:17pm

  i can somehow follow you on your patina argument, but as for the khamsa's shape i am still very skeptical.

   

  Any hallmarks becky?
• 

  Joost Daalder July 1, 2011 at 9:27pm

  The shape seems entirely logical, consistent and fluent to me, without any problems that I can see.
• 

  Alaa eddine SAGID July 1, 2011 at 9:32pm

  i was just stressing on the fact that symetrically shaped khamsas were really odd in antique moroccan jewelry.

   

  virtually all the early moroccan khamsas were not symetrical

   

  The presence of a hallmark should be very natural on an early buckle like this...if it is genuine. Its absence would make me even more skeptical
• 

  Joost Daalder July 1, 2011 at 9:43pm

  I don't think that hallmarks can be expected as a matter of course, Ayis. Practice seems to have varied greatly in that regard. Not least on early pieces. From the literature I have I would also observe that there is really nothing extraordinary about the (rough) symmetry. Again, these things varied, and would depend on the maker. The key thing is to me that the wear and patina here, on the top, are entirely convincing. I do not for a moment think that they are faked. And ultimately it is the evidence of the eye which seems to me important rather than the question of how often hands were more or less symmetrical. As pieces were individually made, they did, also, vary. Sure, there were conventions, but not in such a way that one can rule out variation.
• 

  Becky Rogers July 1, 2011 at 11:07pm

  Some of the questions might have to do with when I took the photographs - before I polished or after. It is of course easier to get a shiny surface when it is smooth. There are no hallmarks on this one. Would it be better if I left everything untouched - no cleaning?

  Becky