It might be celluloid, good thought. I did wonder Edwardian into 1910s, that choker thing.
I vaguely knew, but I’d never seen any. The quality is superb.
That reference will only have meaning to Brits. Anyhow, house clearance peeps had loads of jools at a pound a pop. I rehomed some. [ATTACH]...
RD isn't registered in this context, it's got a copyright symbol and date, so someone with the initials RD copyrighted it in 1996.
Oh, I fibbed, THREEEE bags. [ATTACH]
I own ONE Jean Muir piece. A vintage silky knitted edge to edge cardigan in turquoise bought years ago on Ebay. Now, I own a necklace. This was...
The black leaves are glass. I can't work out what the yellow ones with the black tips are. They're all of a piece on stiff cotton (?) stems and...
Oh, I lied, two bags. Forgot this one. [ATTACH] [ATTACH]
Bought a bag.... one whole pound. [ATTACH]
[ATTACH]
I have been buying, but keep forgetting to post. Oops. Anyhow, I bought a shed load last weekend, all at a quid a pop, including this oddity. I'm...
Nice bit of Rooke that. I’m wondering if the slabs are not from the U.K., tbh. Although, the mark is vaguely familiar.
Good point, I meant to comment on the hollyhocks as also not being Raj! They grow wild here.
It’s not thin enough for Egyptian or Israeli, either. Italian is a definite possibility.
Those look right. I think the figures are older than the burner. They look early nineteenth, the burner maybe mid.
It looks fine to me. These do often have a sort of shiny look to them.
Hnh. That solves a question. I bought cufflinks with that pink stripy stone.
I think this is actually transfer printed rather than all painted, as Ruth rightly says. It’s also not British Raj as a depiction. That’s a...
It’s fine, I’ve seen Lalique signatures which were a tad messy. I think the bird is a quail.
Sell, definitely. Someone can grind the end of the dauber. That’s lovely quality and colours. A bit peachblow.
Separate names with a comma.
