Beads look good.
Frame is 20s or 30s, it was probably home made, not commercial.
I'd have said Indian, bwdik. @Any Jewelry ?
Cheryl, it's a crappy stamp, you can see the remnants of the missing bits. That'sa really useful image , I'll stare some more.
Both, I suspect.
I squinted at it for hours. The city mark cartouche and stamp is what's swinging me to 1819 at the moment. If it wasn't so badly struck , the duty...
There's a lot of tat in that catalogue and not good tat, either.
Oh god. That glass is SO not Roman. Far too thick, too considered and too perfect. Irridescence is all wrong too. The ushabti is about five...
Really nice silver clips with what might be an indistinct maker's mark. I'm thinking maybe Mexican. And I could see the brooch had a Chester...
Spray furniture stuff is even more the work of Satan. My 1780 ish dining table gets dusted with a soft cloth. It has the patina of 240 years of...
Feed me JOOLS.
I think it's an ombre type thread. I'm not seeing overmuch damage on it. I pay ten to twenty pounds for these but I'm a tight cheapskate.
Wisteria.
Yeah, I can't quite recall what colour my spare room carpet is!
Diamonds in 9 ct is quite common here. They're usually much lesser ones, often chips.
That's interesting. I've a necklace with that Replica mark.
Drool. I'd agree, plaque imported to the UK and fitted.
@BoudiccaJones - I can't see lash holes, but I'll squint again. I knew it was Weekenders, I had that very outfit! Check your inbox.
I buy clips. ;) But I'd not pay more than a few quid for those.
There's shiny and there's the dead look which Tarnex gives.
Separate names with a comma.
