Who to collect--the forgotten ones, and before a unique becomes unique

I knew it would happen. I tried very hard to be comprehensive, and sure enough, I forgot some people. I asked if there were any artists who should have been in the "who to collect" blog that were left out, and some of you had some really good suggestions. So, I have this small addendum. I have included the category in which the artists should be listed, as well as a * if they are no longer with us. With all apologies, here we go:

Ron Bedonie, Navajo (Traditionals)--an outrageously talented silversmith, whose filework and sense of design is simply breathtaking. He does not exhibit at either of the major Indian Markets, so some people are not as familiar with him as they should be, but the true cognoscenti know him and his work.

Richard Chavez, San Felipe (Uniques)--a late addition! Perhaps the most modernist of all Indian jewelers, and someone whose work befits a man who started his college studies in architecture. Each piece has clean lines and impeccable workmanship.

Boyd Tsosie, Navajo (Uniques)--his work is instantly recognizable and completely unique. As a former student of Kenneth Begay, he learned about traditional techniques and materials before going off on his own to create his "dot" inlay pieces for which he has become rightfully famous.

And speaking of Tsosie, his work brings up an interesting point--what about the work a Unique does before they truly develop their own unique style? After all, Harvey Begay worked for a short time in the White Hogan, doing typical White Hogan silver and ironwood designs like his father had before. And Raymond Sequaptewa started out working in traditional Hopi overlay before he found his own groove. Are those pieces collectible, or should they be dismissed as not fully-formed works of a developing artist?

Take the pendant above--a beautiful silver and turquoise pendant by the one and only Boyd Tsosie. It is clearly a superior work, but it does not have the kind of "dot" inlay work and unusual materials for which he is now known. It is hallmarked, and the quality of the work is consistent with what he did later in his career, but it is definitely an earlier, developmental piece. Collectible as an early example, or not because it is atypical? In this case, we believe it is collectible, because of two defining characteristics: quality and a certain something that identifies it as the work of someone special. The quality speaks for itself--it is beautiful. But what puts it over the top, and makes it different from Harvey Begay's work for the White Hogan is that it has some technical and artistic traits that are unique. Mainly, the small gaps in the silver that accent the filework surrounding the stone. That small touch gives the piece huge visual "pop", and though this as not the direction in which Tsosie chose to go for future pieces, it identifies the maker as a real talent. Contrast that with Harvey Begay's White Hogan work, which is very well-done but offers no hints that the artist was a future great. (To see this pendant in greater detail, go to the NECKLACES section of the Turkey Mountain Traders website.)

Buying developmental pieces by great artists can be marvelous fun--look at Loloma's early cast silver pieces, which are very different from what his work would become but are of extremely high quality and creativity. Just be sure that there is something to recommend the piece beyond just a hallmark.

Who to collect, part 3--the uniques

In Part 2, we looked at silversmiths who could be classed as innovators, people who pushed the limits of what Indian jewelry could be. Now, in Part 3, we will look at those artists who we call the "uniques", people whose work is so unique as to defy convention. These are people who have done things in a completely new way, and have redefined what is acceptable in Indian jewelry. They could also be classed as innovators, but their work is so unique that to call them merely innovators did not seem like a strong enough term. So, we have given them their own class, because their work is truly in a class by itself. Again, those who are no longer with us are marked with a *.

Michael Kabotie*, Hopi--though he always considered himself a painter first and foremost, his jewelry, especially his triple overlay work, was absolutely unique and gorgeous. He took traditional Hopi motifs and gave them his own personal spin to create intricate and beautiful designs in both gold and silver, and took overlay work in a completely new direction. Like many of the artists in this class, his work is instantly recognizable, even from a distance.

Raymond Yazzie, Navajo--the younger brother of Lee Yazzie, and the creator of some of the most fantastically detailed jewelry made anywhere by anyone. His use of very small pieces of stone as inlay accents to larger stones is something done by no one before he came along, and he combines it with very clean and precise filework in his silver and gold.

Charles Supplee, Hopi--there is no "typical" piece by him. The variety of his work is amazing, and the quality of his materials is always top-notch. It is sometimes difficult to tell a Charles Supplee piece, because his work comes in so many different flavors.

Don Supplee, Hopi--the only jeweler who can match Charles Supplee's variety is his brother, Don. Again, his work is unconstrained by one particular style, but is always expertly made with the highest quality materials.

Harvey Begay*, Navajo--the son of the great Kenneth Begay, and as innovative and skilled as his father. Begay started out doing clean silver pieces, much like his father, but soon expanded his horizons to include casting, gold and even diamonds.

James Little, Navajo--one of the few Indian smiths who can rival Begay's work with diamonds, but also a master of more traditional materials and forms.

Denise Wallace, Chugach Aleut--we're cheating a little bit here, because she is not Southwest Indian, but her talent and creativity is amazing. She made incredible pieces with her husband Samuel, and after his death she continued to be fabulously creative, sometimes in collaboration with her daughter Dawn.

Maria Samora, Taos--one of the most exciting young talents in the field. Her work straddles the line between Indian jewelry and fine jewelry, with oxidation one of her favorite techniques.

Jesse Monongye, Navajo--the master of his own type of inlay, often imitated but never equaled. When you see an opal moon in a lapis sky, it is more than likely you are looking at one of his pieces.

Raymond Sequaptewa, Hopi--one of the artists for whom there really is no precedent. His use of found materials and his sense of design is completely unique in the Southwest, and perhaps even the world.

So, who did we leave out? There are dozens of great Indian jewelers working today, so if you have a particular favorite who was not mentioned in these blog posts, we would love to hear about it! Give us a call, or drop us an email.

Who to collect, part 2--the innovators

Part 1 of our Who To Collect blog series got quite a reception, so let's keep it rolling with Part 2, which will discuss the contemporary Indian jewelers whom we consider to be innovators, and worthy of your collecting attention. Keep in mind that this list does not include people who made their reputations before 1980, so no Charles Loloma, Kenneth Begay, Preston Monongye or Julian Lovato. We had to draw the line somewhere.

What do we mean by innovator? Basically, someone who, within the tradition of Southwestern Indian silverwork, pushed the boundaries by an unconventional use of techniques or materials (like Loloma with his height inlay, or Begay with his use of ironwood.) We have withheld some artists for the third part of this series--the uniques. Those are people whose work is difficult to categorize--they are certainly innovators, but they have gone above and beyond in one way or another. For today, though, let's focus on the innovators. Those marked with a * are unfortunately no longer with us. Photos are mostly items in our inventory, though some have sold.

Vernon Haskie, Navajo--Haskie does Navajo forms, but uses high-quality materials in inlaid patterns that are almost Zuni in their precision.

Gibson Nez*, Navajo/Apache--for a rodeo cowboy, Nez was quite a silversmith. He brought a level of craftsmanship to large-scale pieces that had not previously existed, and showed that big could indeed be beautiful.

Lee Yazzie, Navajo--possibly the most talented Navajo silversmith of the 20th Century, though Kenneth Begay and Fred Peshlakai might have something to say about that. His pieces are an inspiration for all other silversmiths, with their combination of top-quality materials, especially turquoise, and impeccable craftsmanship. Nobody has been more responsible for the movement towards great turquoise in high-end jewelry.

Verma Nequatewa (Sonwai), Hopi--in a way, she belongs in the traditionalists category, because she works in the tradition of her uncle Charles Loloma. But her work is modern in style rather than traditional, and her use of materials is innovative and creative.

Clarence Lee*, Navajo--the first Indian smith to bring storytelling and humor to his work. Lee created a whole new genre of silverwork (the storyteller bracelet, where an entire scene is laid out in silver) and nobody since has done it better.

Cody Sanderson, Navajo--his work, with its pop-art symbols and over the top forms, is at once fun and wearable. His work is extremely distinctive--though he has his imitators, like all successful artists, none match his quality of work.

Pat Pruitt, Laguna--the first Indian jeweler to gain widespread acclaim for using modern technology (like Computer Aided Design) and space-age materials (like titanium) in his work. Some consider his work too modern, but he is following in a long line of artists who have used new technology and materials to advance the art.

Gail Bird and Yazzie Johnson, Laguna and Navajo--in a way, their work using semi-precious stones was a return to the days when Navajo smiths used petrified wood in their work. But they have taken it beyond that, into a great variety of different stones and minerals.

Ric Charlie, Navajo--the master of patination. He uses patina to create interesting colors and textures on silver jewelry, though his cast gold jewelry is also top-notch.

Darryl Dean and Rebecca Begay, Navajo--they took the tradition of pictorial and textured sandcasting started by Preston Monongye and brought a level of detail and storytelling to it that is unmatched. Darryl Dean was originally the main artist, but Rebecca has become extremely skilled at the work as well.

Who did we miss? Let us know who else should be here. And keep an eye out for part 3--the uniques. Coming soon to a computer screen near you. In the meantime, stay safe.

Where we were, where we are and where you should be--who to collect, part 1.

Time was, Turkey Mountain Traders was the purest of the pure. If a piece of jewelry was made after 1940, we did not want to handle it. A simple rule, enforced with an iron fist. We were ANTIQUE Indian arts dealers, after all, and we had to draw the line somewhere. So, 1940 it was. If it was hallmarked, no dice (with very rare exceptions.) And now--what has happened? Our website is absolutely littered with post-1940 pieces, and there are even pieces there by (gasp!) LIVING ARTISTS. Crikey! What happened to our pureness? Did we fall out of love with the truly old material? How do we sleep at night? Do other dealers and collectors look at us funny?

The answers to these questions are all very simple, and come down to two main points. First, the really good pre-1940 material is rare and VERY hard to find. To support a viable business, it was necessary to broaden our horizons. (We do like to eat, after all.) And second, the best material from the 40s, 50s and 60s was truly great. As connoisseurs of Indian art in general and Indian jewelry in particular, how could we not love the mid-century work of Fred Peshlakai, Kenneth Begay, the great early Hopi masters and pieces incorporating stones from the top Nevada mines that were coming on to the market? From there, it was a small step into the 1970s, which have a generally bad reputation for Indian silverwork but saw the full flowering of the genius of Charles Loloma, Preston Monongye, Larry Golsh and other great innovators. One thing led to another, and it was on to the 80s and what we all consider "contemporary". We decided that what was most important was not age, but rather quality and authenticity. SInce the finest work being done today rivals the best of any other era in Indian silverwork, why would we not want to handle it when we could?

Which leads to a question we are often asked by newer collectors: what artists should we collect? A tough question, because the first answer to that question is always "buy what you like", but the full answer should go deeper. We would never tell someone not to buy something they love, but we would ask them to spend the time beforehand to hone their knowledge and their eye as to what is truly great. "Great" is the most overused word in the art business, just ahead of "genuine", and sometimes the only way to tell good from great is to see the two side by side. Sack did this for antique American furniture with his "Good, Better, Best" books, but collectors of Indian silverwork do not have a comparable reference; they have to rely on the advice of others and their own knowledge. That is where a dealer comes in--very few collectors have the time to spend all day, every day looking at things like dealers do. And thus, a list of contemporary artists we like and think are worth collecting.

This will be a 3-part entry. The first entry today will focus on the traditionalists, artists who mostly worked after 1980 whose work could be classified as "traditional" rather than innovative. There is absolutely nothing wrong with traditional work, as long as it is done with care and skill--some of our favorite artists fall under this category. The second entry will be the innovators, and the third entry will be the uniques. So, onward to the traditionalists.

Perry Shorty, Navajo--the pre-eminent contemporary Navajo smith working in traditional forms (cuff bracelets, squash blossom necklaces, concho belts) and using traditional materials (coin silver, turquoise.) That is not to say that he doesn't do some different things now and then, but he is best known for his mastery of the more traditional forms.

Bernard Dawahoya, Hopi--the heir to the mantle of premier Hopi overlay smith. His wonderful small silver vessels are unsurpassed in quality.

Norbert Peshlakai, Navajo--though many of his designs are innovative, his techniques are quite traditional. The great master of stampwork, often using the same stamp multiple times to create an intricate aggregate design like a rabbit.

Mike Bird-Romero, San Juan Pueblo--very few people can work "heavy" like him, with large stones and thick-gauge silver.

McKee Platero, Navajo--the undisputed king of working "heavy". His use of traditional techniques such as repousse and filework is unsurpassed.

Did we miss anyone? Undoubtedly we did. Let us know who else you think should be on this list.

Next entry--the innovators.

Lots of Loloma stuff

I was once asked what we look for in Charles Loloma pieces--what makes one "better" than another. I sat down and wrote out what we look for, and what influences the pricing.

1. Gold or silver? Gold will command a higher price than silver, unless there is something extremely special about the silver piece.

2. 18K or 14K? This does not make as much of a difference as it should, honestly. 18K pieces should be quite a bit more expensive than 14K pieces, but generally they are not—only a bit more expensive.

3. Quality of materials—mainly refers to the quality of the turquoise in the piece. Pieces with Lone Mountain, Bisbee, #8 or Lander will command a premium. And pieces with fossil ivory can be a problem to sell in certain states, so that can depress the price somewhat.

4. Date, and who made it. Earlier pieces are usually tastier to savvy collectors than later ones, because of the likelihood that Charles did the work himself. “Sonwai” Lolomas are still highly collectible, but all things being equal, more collectors will go for the earlier pieces.

5. Artistry. Here is where the subjectiveness comes in, and makes things interesting. Some pieces are just better than others.

6. Rarity—early pieces tend to be more uncommon than later ones. That is also a factor, though not as much a factor as other ones, like artistry and materials.

7. How it fits into Loloma’s art. Again, very subjective. But Loloma was known for certain things, like the “landscape” style of setting stones in bracelets, and the “inner beauty” inside inlay pieces. Things that show Loloma at his most creative will command a premium. I’m not doing a great job of explaining it, but as you go through the Loloma book, some pieces will just hit you right, and you will say “Yes, that is who he was.” That’s a big x-factor, and it shows up in pricing. That’s why his kachina face bracelets tend to be the most expensive of all (at the height of the market, they were selling for around $100,000).

8. Provenance and genuineness. This did not used to be a problem, but after 2006, when a lot of fake "Lolomas" started hitting the market, any piece with provenance back to before that time will command a premium.

Crosses and letters-what do they mean?

Recently, one of our favorite old bracelets came back to us. As you can see, it is indeed a great one:

The old green stones, the gooey silver, the terminal stones on the ends--it truly has it all.

There is one thing about it that is puzzling, however. On the sides are very clearly stamped the letter "E" several times.

The question is, why? Was the bracelet made for the silversmith's friend Ernest? Or his wife Edith? Was he a big fan of Evergreen High School? Or does the letter E have a deeper meaning in Navajo culture? The answer to these questions is, in all cases, probably no. (All apologies to the mighty Evergreen High Cougars.)

And how about this squash blossom necklace, where one of the blossoms has been replaced by a silver cross?

Was this done for a born-again Navajo around 1930? Again, probably not.

But then why? Why incorporate such powerful Anglo symbols into Native jewelry? The answer is, surprisingly, a variation on "why not?"

The Navajo have long been known as great adopters and adaptors, right down to their art. Those two most "Navajo" of art forms, weaving and silversmithing, are in fact relatively recently adopted from the Hopi and Anglos, respectively. And the symbols they use in their art sometimes borrow from other cultures as well, and sometimes for purely aesthetic reasons. In fact, the reason that letters and words will often appear on old Navajo weavings is because the weaver liked the way they looked. Proper spelling and the direction the letters faces were not important--what mattered was the visual appeal.

Crosses are a more complex matter, being inextricably linked with the spread of Christianity across Indian land. However, at the time this necklace was made, most Navajos were not Christian. Therefore, it is more than likely that a Navajo liked the way the single cross looked on the necklace, so decided to include it when the necklace was being strung.

Kenneth Begay and Charles Loloma--the wooden connection

In 1956, an innovative young Hopi potter and occasional jeweler named Charles Loloma moved to Scottsdale, Arizona into a studio space on Craftsman Court. There, he met many of the local artists who helped him along with his work and career, including Lloyd Kiva New and Fred Skaggs. His work progressed from purely silverwork to the creative use of stones and inlays for which he would become famous. By 1962, according to Martha Struever's LOLOMA, he was setting turquoise and coral like other Indian artists, but he had also started using the rather nontraditional material ironwood as well. It might seem an odd combination of the old and the new, but considering where Loloma lived and who some of his friends were, it was perfectly natural that ironwood would become one of his favorite and most commonly used inlay materials.

Just down the street in Scottsdale was the White Hogan, a shop which employed some of the best and most creative Navajo silversmiths of the day, including the Kee brothers and their cousin, Kenneth Begay. Loloma's admiration for Begay was no secret--he even made some pieces in Begay's signature "bar" pattern, as shown on page 62 of LOLOMA. One thing in which the White Hogan smiths were pioneers was the use of nontraditional patterns and materials, and one of their most commonly used inlay materials was ironwood. No other Indian artists of the day used ironwood in jewelry, and it makes perfect sense that the ever-open minded Loloma would learn about how to use this material from Begay and the others. By the mid-1960s, Loloma jewelry would often incorporate ironwood, as well as other unusual materials such as fossil ivory. Which brings us to...

This silver pendant by Loloma is in his "corn maiden" pattern, but unlike most other similar pendants, he used ironwood to simulate long, flowing brown hair. There is also turquoise and coral, but the colors that predominate are those of the ironwood and fossil ivory. It was likely made circa 1965-70, and is a fitting tribute to Begay and the other White Hogan smiths who introduced Loloma to ironwood.