F. I received a broken specimen today and thought that it may be interesting for others to see too - can't remember whether an inside view of any of these was ever posted; a tapered mandrel was used, and there is evidence of a white mandrel release in the perforation. This particular bead was collected about 30 years ago. Many thanks to Q. for making it available!
Q. As one can see these beads have a taperd perf.And most are ground flat on one end. Any ideas w/ this new info (showing inside the bead)would be appreciated.
U. The taper would rule out Venetian made. There are several sub varieties of these; the ones you show appear to be some of the newer made ones from my point of view.....the look of the glass etc., I believe that there are examples similar to this from an earlier Islamic era context but I think these are India or possibly even Indonesia manufacture.
Q. Are the Indians/Indonesians making spiral-rolled mosaic glass beads which we believe these to be ? These beads came off an old strand from a private collection.
C. There may be an alternate reason for whatever the "white mandrel release" material is. It is very atypical for anyone who worked on a tapered mandrel to also use a releasing compound. That these beads have tapered perforations has been discussed by me many times. And yes, I also think that limits their production to non-Venetian and probably non-European industries.
These beads have been around for nearly as long as beads have been coming from Africa to the US (to me in California), since the early '70s. [And probably a lot longer than that. We wouldn't want to date things from when they reach you in California.] They are old beads, but not ancient beads. I do not know of a qualifying "new" reproduction of them, though I have made technical comparisons to a few other beads (of Middle Eastern and particularly Indian manufacture). [So what? Then what are they, if these comparisons are useful?]
When these beads were made, there was essentially no Indonesian glass [read "bead"] industry to have made them. I think Indonesia can be ruled-out.
The manufacture [but we're interested in origins] of these beads (as I presented it [when and where?] , and in contrast to any other researcher or collector—all of whom had mistaken ideas [We don't recall seeing anyone else's "ideas"]) is parallel to ancient beadmaking practices (as from Egypt, the Middle East, and possibly India). They are not made like European beads (as from Venice) for the reasons mentioned: tapered perforations, and consisting of a preformed striped pad that is rolled onto a mandrel.
Now the fun begins....
If valid information [Who says it's valid?] is garbled and rehashed, there can be no real progress in discussing these beads. [The three students above are now being accused.] I tend to resent having to restate my position and opinions over and over again. [So don't do it. Why do you think your "position and opinions" are so superior and essential?] My ideas are my ideas. [And our ideas are your ideas too, aren't they?] They are not floating around to be misquoted and appropriated, nor garbled and rehashed as though this information were anonymous and "common knowledge." [We fail to see anything in this thread that's your exclusive property, "misquoted and appropriated" or "garbled and rehashed". Do you have a copyright on the tapered mandrel "idea"?]
Copyright 2006 by C.
Since my work is being appropriated and published by certain people who frequent this and other boards [Name names, cite concrete examples, or shut up. This is paranoia.], I guess I am going to have to post the above notice every time I write anything original or worth consideration. It is not natural to me to have this attitude. [Actually, you've had this attitude forever. You're constantly accusing people of lying and stealing your ideas.] My motive for being here is to SHARE information. [So stop complaining and pretending. You're a phony.] But one gets tired of being misquoted and ripped-off. [Cite examples or shut up.]
Q. "If valid information is garbled and rehashed, there can be no real progress in discussing these beads. I tend to resent having to restate my position and opinions over and over again"
I thought seeing one of these beads broken in half exsposing the inside would or could shed new light about these beads.
You're not allowed to shed new light. All the light has been shed and you haven't given the Bulb his credit. Shame on you!
"Since my work is being appropriated and published by certain people who frequent this and other boards"
This I have no clue about. And will you be posting a "copyright" notice along w/ all of your posts?
And you won't get any clues. It's delusional. But haven't you noticed? Everything on the BCN forum now automatically gets copyright protection. Remember, it's either the exclusive idea of the Bulb or you got it wrong!
K. Again, I will emphasize the importance of getting familiar with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. It's important. There seems to be a prevalent attitude that just because information is available on the net, it's there simply for the taking, with no need for acknowledgement, credit or permission. Although there is a lot still unprecented in the courts, the guidelines are quite clear. The DMCA is available for everyone to read on the net. It's a huge pdf file.
Get serious! As if anything here is novel, valuable, or exclusive. Who are you kidding?
Q. What I do not understand is who is violating anyones "copyright" ? Why was this even mentioned ? All this over a bead photo ??????
Nobody is violating any copyright. This has been mentioned for years. We can't even find the novel ideas, let alone the copyright infringements.
F. Yes, there is an alternate reason for the white "mandrel release"! After I had made the post you are referring to, Q. told me that he had forced this bead apart by using a length of white cotton string with a large knot in it, which he pulled through the bead perforation in order to break it into two halves. The "mandrel release" is not a residue connected with the bead's making, but consists of particles of white cotton fibre.
Well, that explains that!
I can understand it if the image is of no interest to you, but please consider that it may be of interest to others.
Other views and interests don't count.
I well remember previous discussions re these beads, hence I did not ask questions, nor did I misquote, appropriate or garble any information. My reason for making the post was to show the inside view of one of these beads, because I cannot recall one having been posted in any of the many previous discussions.
You obvious have ulterior motives and you're using this photo as a vehicle for ripping off exclusive bead research.
C. Thanks for admitting that your interpretation of this broken bead may be mistaken.
Please tell us what you think is the interesting new information provided by the photograph, particularly in light of the fact that the white material is not mandrel release (?). As you know, I'm the sole source of "interesting new information" and you're just ripping me off.
Since I have written nothing that reflects my level of interest, nor have I suggested anyone else should not be interested in this topic, please do no so-interpret me to this audience. The suggestion that I would have such an attitude is very misguided.
Are you serious? Get the stick out of your bung hole.
Q. "my work is being appropriated and published by certain people who frequent this and other boards"
Who is violating your copyrights ? Please do tell us. Why was this even mentioned in the first place [It's supposed to be a friendly bead ID chat] & what does your last paragraph have to do w/ the posting of this bead ? [Nothing, of course. It's totally arrogant and irrelevant to bead ID.] Also, who has misquoted you in this thread about my bead? [No one has misquoted anybody. This guy volunteers to "share" info, then he turns on you.] Please do explain your remarks.
It's really simple. Either you're stealing exclusive "ideas", garbling exclusive "ideas", or you're just plain wrong. Don't expect answers to your questions and don't expect the Bulb to cite any genuine examples of your lies and rip-offs. It's fantasy!
