http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180050383151&ssPageName=ME...

Here's some really common nonsense.  Even though this guy is wrong to say these beads are "most likely African" (totally stupid), he compounds the problem by calling them "Native American."  These beads, of course, are neither.  Beads are not identified as to where they're found, nor does their value vary according to where they're found.  These are the marks of the true thoughtless novice or con artist.

As ever, we're going to hear arguments about provenance.  Fine!  Primary provenance is where things are made.  Secondary provenance is an authentication tool useful when authenticity is questionable.  But when a bead's origin is known without question, secondary provenance is useless and doesn't alter the value unless special provable circumstances are involved, such as ownership along the way by some famous person, say Elvis.

These AACA people somehow think beads are more valuable as "North American" vs. "African" or if they passed through somebody's collection, this somebody having "authenticated" them.  This misuse of the provenance concept is typical of American Nat Am artifact collectors (and a lot of eBay bead sellers in general), as is readily apparent by even a cursory look at the eBay listings in the Nat Am categories.

This guy, allpointscovered, is a veteran rip-off artist, revealing all of the amateurism we've come to expect from the AACA.  The beads in this auction are obviously Venetian drawn beads -- nothing else.  Value them accordingly.  They're not worth any more or less because they're purportedly "Nat Am".  Suppose they were found in France, would they be "French" beads?