The age of "good" foreign turquoise

Many collectors have been told that having American turquoise in a piece of Indian jewelry is necessary for authenticity, and that pieces with foreign stones should be avoided. In the contemporary pieces this might be true, though there are some absolutely beautiful stones being mined overseas. Pieces that incorporate turquoise from the classic American mines are generally quite collectible and valuable, while Chinese turquoise is almost a four-letter word. But with antique material, there is one huge exception that should be in every collector’s knowledge base (and collection): Persian turquoise from the 1890-1930 eras.

Most turquoise in early pieces came from the early mines of the Southwest, such as those around Cerrillos. There is evidence of prehistoric turquoise mining, and there are many accounts of Indians mining turquoise in the 1870s and 1880s. The commercial mining operations at the Cerrillos mines went from the mid-1880s until the collapse of the turquoise market in 1909-1912. (At one point, turquoise had been more expensive than gold, which explains why companies such as Tiffany were so eager to purchase turquoise mines in New Mexico.) After that, very little came from those mines, though there were small-scale mining operations in the area for years.

When the New Mexican mining operations came to an end, the traders needed a source of turquoise for the Navajo and Pueblo silversmiths, and the major Nevada mines had, for the most part, not been opened yet. The only large-scale source of turquoise available was overseas, and so the traders brought in quite a bit of Persian turquoise for the Indians to use. Most of it came in already cut into domed cabochons, which are different from the generally flat pieces the Indians had used previously. (There was, however, Persian turquoise in the Southwest far earlier than that—pieces from the 1890s set with domed cabochons are rare, but not unheard-of.)

With the opening of the big Nevada turquoise mines in the early 1930s, the stream of Persian turquoise slowed down greatly. Most Navajo or Pueblo pieces with Persian turquoise, therefore, can be safely dated between the mid-1910s and the late 1920s. In this time, some of the best pieces of Indian silverwork held turquoise from across the sea, and these pieces are both extremely collectible and highly important in the development of the art.

Another note on "made for sale"

In 1905, noted trader Juan Lorenzo Hubbell published a "Catalogue and Price List" for "Navajo Blankets & Indian Curios". This was not the first catalog published by a trader--both C. N. Cotton and J. B. Moore had already done so. The Hubbell catalog is not nearly so well known as that of the other traders, but is still worthwhile reading.

The catalog offers a very nice selection of blankets (although no rugs yet; Cotton and Moore were ahead of Hubbell in recognizing the shift towards floor coverings). There is also a selection of Hopi crafts, and even minerals such as "Navajo rubies" (probably garnets). And not least, there is a page devoted to "Navajo Silverware and Jewelry". The prices are very interesting, to say the least.

The items offered include concho belts, bridles, strings of beads, conchos for belt buckles, bracelets "with matrix turquoise", bracelets without settings, and "finger rings". There are no squash blossom necklaces offered for sale, though the catalog photo shows them; the same for ketohs, buttons and spoons. There is no mention or picture of earrings, which were an extremely uncommon product and sale item at that date.

Here are some prices:
Concho belts--$30 to $40
Silver beads--$10 to $35, depending on length of string
Bracelets with turquoise--$2.25 to $10, depending on color and size of stone
Bracelets without turquoise--$1.25 to $1.75 per ounce
Rings with turquoise--$1.25 to $5.00, depending on color and size of stones

Affordable, but not being given away. Considering that a loaf of bread in 1913 cost about 5 cents, spending 100 times that on a ring is equivalent to spending $250 today (considering that a loaf of bread is $2.50 in my supermarket if I'm buying the cheap kind). So, even back then, the traders had a sense that what they were selling was not just cheap tourist junk.

Made for Sale vs. Made for Use

In the ethnographic antiques trade, items made for native use are almost always treasured more highly than items made for trade or sale. African and Oceanic art has to be “non-tourist” to be truly valuable in the eyes of experienced collectors. And this is indeed true in some areas of American Indian antiques, but there are many important and far-reaching exceptions, especially amongst the Navajo and Zuni.

The early establishment of highly developed trading networks between the Indians of the Southwest and the Anglos (and Spanish, in earlier times) meant that Navajo and Pueblo crafts were trade items from a very early date. In fact, items such as Navajo blankets were highly prized trade items among other Indian groups as far back as the 1820s, and a good blanket could bring its owner a fine group of horses from a Sioux chief.With the coming of the Americans and the establishment of the trading post system in the 1860s and 1870s, the main customers became the art collectors of the East and demand for Indian “curios” has remained high to the present day.

The line between items made for use and items made for sale was never a clear one, because the Indians were often willing to trade or sell personal items. Many years of exposure to Anglos and the market economy had given them a keen sense of the value of items—quite different from the early situation in places such as sub-Saharan Africa and New Guinea. This extended to jewelry and items of personal adornment, which were available for sale in trading posts pretty much as soon as the posts opened their doors. For that reason, it can be said that almost all of the 19^th Century jewelry that made it to market was made for personal use, and ended up on the market as a result of happenstance.

In the 20^th Century, Indian crafts developed into an occupation for certain people. John Adair’s book is filled with tables illustrating the growth of silversmithing as a full-time occupation among the Navajo and Pueblo Indians, and a similar trend can be traced in other crafts such as pottery and weaving. These artisans would make pieces specifically to be sold, but would also make pieces for personal and family use. The pieces for sale tend to be a bit less elaborate than the personal pieces, but both are generally of good quality. The advent of “Fred Harvey” jewelry, which was light and of poor quality, widened the gulf between the two classes, though fine pieces continued to be made for sale.

In later days, the situation was reversed. The finest work done by the great Zuni inlay masters were almost entirely done for sale, as were most of the masterpieces from Kenneth Begay, Joe Quintana and the other great silversmiths of the mid-20^th Century. Up to the present day, the art market has been the final home for the vast majority of great jewelry made in the Southwest. Southwest Indian crafts, especially jewelry making, became a collectible art form very early in its history. Because of that, the “made for sale” distinction is not the kiss of death it is in other ethnographic art areas.

When a hallmark isn't enough...

Beauty in art is subjective. What appeals to one person might be repulsive to another. This is as true in antique American Indian art as in any other type of art, and doubly true in jewelry. Many collectors adore the turquoise and coral nugget pieces of Dan Simplicio, while an equal number think them garish and awkward. Collectors of older Navajo pieces wish that older Zuni pieces had heavier silverwork, while the Zuni devotees search in vain for older Navajo pieces with fine lapidary work. Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder, which is why many collectors find themselves reaching for something tangible as a sign of quality. Which brings us to the hallmark.

The first artist's hallmark on a piece of American Indian jewelry probably dates to 1925, when Juan DiDeos hallmarked a belt buckle now in the C. G. Wallace collection at the Heard Museum. Before then, all jewelry was made anonymously unless a patron or buyer took note of the artist. The idea of art as an individual exercise was not part of the extremely community-minded Indian culture, and as late as the 1960s many major jewelers had to be told to hallmark their pieces. People like Leekya, Leo Poblano and Charlie Houck never did use a hallmark, though contemporaries such as Dideos, Morris Robinson, Frank Vacit and Ambrose Roanhorse hallmarked many (though not all) of their pieces. In many cases the artists with more exposure to Anglo culture and markets, such as Robinson (who lived in Phoenix), Roanhorse (who exhibited as far away as New York) and Fred Peshlakai (who had his own store in Los Angeles) were more likely to use a hallmark. Still, even for those three it was not universal--Peshlakai was known to hallmark pieces only when requested or when entering a piece into a show, and nearly identical pieces both with and without his hallmark can be found.

It is only natural that a collector would want to know everything possible about a piece before adding it to their collection, and nothing is more important than identifying an artist and a date. The hallmark takes out much of the guesswork, and is a wonderful tool because of that. But there is a danger in collecting by hallmark, which is that a hallmark is a guarantee of origin, not of quality. A piece with Kenneth Begay's KB can be assumed to be his work, and if it has the White Hogan shop mark as well it can be reasonably dated to the 1948-1962 period. Does that hallmark make the piece better than a White Hogan piece with no hallmark, or with the hallmark of one of the other artists who worked there? Certainly not. Begay was such a fine smith that his pieces are likely to be of the highest quality, but there is no reason why an unsigned piece cannot be equally good, or maybe even better (unlikely, but possible).

Hallmarked pieces will always be very popular because much of the guesswork in owning them has been removed; a collector can match technical aspects to the maker through the hallmark, rather than having to work in a vacuum. But a hallmark on an inferior piece means one of two things: either the artist didn't do his best work, or the artist didn't actually make that particular item. Either way, collecting a bad piece with a hallmark is the wrong way to go. For a hallmark to matter, the name must match the quality. And a masterpiece with no hallmark is always better than a hallmark with no masterpiece.

Things to look for in old American Indian silver jewelry

Here is a short list of technical and stylistic things to be aware of when looking at old (or not so old) American Indian silver jewelry.

1. Materials
There were a limited number of stones (almost entirely turquoise, with some jet and shell) available to craftsmen of the 19th and early 20th Centuries, and the metals used were silver (overwhelmingly), copper (rarely), and brass (very rarely). As additional turquoise mines were opened in the 1930s and more coral was imported, the variety of materials increased. Gold was only used very rarely until recent times, and exotic gems and minerals are a very recent innovation.

2. Techniques
The earliest pieces were made by simply heating and hammering silver wires or coins; more sophisticated and later pieces used techniques like annealing, casting and finally inlay. Early pieces will usually show annealing marks and stress cracks on the unfinished back side or inside. Inlay pieces should be cleanly and skillfully done, because the early inlay artists were not working in mass quantities as in later times. Overlay was developed at Hopi in 1946, and the vast majority of Hopi overlay pieces postdate 1960.

3. Bezels
Bezels are the silver strips used to affix stones to silverwork, and have changed greatly over the years. Early bezels were folded over the stones, and notched to prevent wrinkling. Some “sawtooth” bezels were made with many small notches, especially in the 1900-1920 time period. As a general rule, the thinner and more even bezels indicate a later date of manufacture.

4. Designs
Designs were limited by the tools available. The earliest designs were done with files and chisels, with very simple stamped elements. Later stamped designs were more elaborate and intricate, and covered more of the silver surface than in earlier pieces. “Indian” designs like the teepee and dog were characteristic of tourist trade pieces from the 1930s and 1940s.

5. Wear patterns
With very rare exceptions, old silver jewelry will show characteristic wear patterns from contact with skin, cloth or other jewelry. Old pieces made from ingot silver will wear smooth from being handled, and later pieces made from sheet silver will not show such obvious wear and will retain sharper edges. (Sometimes, a piece collected early on that was never worn will not show these patterns—wear patterns should not be a rule unto themselves, but should be taken into account with all other factors.) The coloration of the turquoise is also a kind of wear, because over time, turquoise will often absorb the oils off the wearer’s skin and darken in color.

6. Provenance
Provenance is helpful in determining a date of manufacture, but only if the provenance is consistent with all the other factors. Provenance establishes the history of an object, and is strongest if there is matching documentary evidence (such as photographs or collection records).
7. Hallmarks
If it is hallmarked and/or has a “sterling” stamp, it is probably post-1950. There are rare exceptions, but that is a good rule of thumb.

8. Automatic Dating Clues
Certain styles were popular at certain times, mainly in the 1970s during the Indian jewelry craze. Bear claws, sea foam turquoise, attached old coins, applied silver leaves, massive turquoise settings, shadowbox settings and dime beads were all integrated into Indian silverwork during this time, but not before. Lapis and yellow pin shell appeared in Zuni inlay in the 1970s, but generally not before. There are exceptions to some of these rules, but they are unusual and notable.

9. Revivals and Fakes
A revival piece is a piece made in an earlier style, while a fake is a piece made to deceive a buyer. Revivals are acceptable and real, fakes are not. Most fakes are made to look crude and early, but true early Indian silver was made by careful craftsmen who had simple tools but lots of time; while early pieces may look simple, they are not crude or sloppy. Fakes are also often too thick, because people think early pieces are ingot silver and ingot pieces have to be thick. In reality, silver was a precious commodity and early smiths would use only as much as was necessary for the job.

10. Other factors
Family history is provenance, but stories can change over time. Since most pieces of Indian jewelry were made after 1970, that is when most “my grandmother bought this” stories really begin. A piece that is considered “old” may have been bought 35 years ago, which could mean it was new at the time and made in 1974.

To see examples of old pieces, please visit our shop in Scottsdale or our website at http://www.turkey-mountain.com.