2 Necklaces-same question-older, or just wanna be-warning pics heavy

[vernon1959]

 So I picked up these 2 necklaces as part of a costume jewelry lot.

The first piece is stamped "14K" (I haven't had it tested yet.)

It "looks" like an older piece, BWDIK??

If it is in fact older, what era?

Opinions please 

 The second one same question.

Does it look like a "real" flapper necklace or just one that wants to be

 For some reason I'm thinking it's a "wanna be." 

Gezzz they changed the way we upload pics to the board 😞

Thanks to all who take the time to look/reply.

Pauline

[1940fc]

Hmmm..I thought created at first..but in looking at the metal sections..they sure look the same to me.  Can`t say I care for the pearl..but if all original....but wait for other eyes 

[vernon1959]

Hi Sara,

The bars/sections look to be part of the setting-the pic of the back doesn't appear to have seams.

I'm curious as to what the darker portions are on the side/top/bottom of stone. At first I though very heavy tarnish, but looking at it with a loupe it appears to be "moulded" for lack of a better word.

Thanks for looking!

P

[1940fc]

Well dang....guess I`m more tired than I thought..dunno why I thought you had questioned if it was a put togther or not..sowwy.  (I`m really not an airhead  lol)  

[hollyblue83]

The spring clasp is a replacement and not original to the necklace.It looks like an "art deco" style,but the construction is probably after 1960.It appears to be cast with bad flaws on the reverse right side.

[vernon1959]

hey sara,

 It didn't "sound" like an normal answer from you-The brain does funny things when you're tired. 

 So you're thinking post 60's hollyblue?

[authentic*vintage]

The sautoir looks to be an older piece - until we get to the teardrop beads - these look newer. I have a couple of these from the '20s and generally if there is a teardrop adornment, the type of bead used would be a more elongated teardrop. Not so fat and round. So I say later on that one.

The other necklace is a puzzle. The spring ring clasp is definitely a replacement - it does not fit well with the closure, which I think is original. It looks as if it had a foldover type clasp originally so that it would lay flat on the back of the neck - the way it is constructed now it would have an awkward lay.

The links and the clasp in the necklace definitely look older to me. It would not be unusual to have a not so well made piece. Even cheaper jewelry existed back then. I'm still not sure though, so anxious to see what others have to say.

[vernon1959]

Hummm,

I replied and poof it disappeared! I was thinking the same thing about the teardrops, so I guess I'm thinking this is a "wanna be."

 As far as the other piece.....I'm going to have to talk my husband into taking this to out local guy and have it tested. I'll be happy if we can confirm it's a "real" piece or costume. 

 I like it and was thinking about keeping it, but then I think about the tons of jewelry I already own and never wear!

Pauline

[kpamber]

I agree, the spring ring is definitely not original to the piece, and if it is 14k, it is the only gold part of it.  It is definitely a costume piece in my mind. 

Considering the fact that if it is as old as the style of it, say 1920's...white gold had only recently been "invented", it would certainly have not been used in such a crudely constructed piece.  The elements would have been nicely finished.  It looks like it might have been made from chromium, which was sometimes used in "costume" jewelry back then.  I'd think that the purple stone is glass.

[vernon1959]

so just spent 20 minutes trying to get this in my chubby neck! guess it's not a keeper for me 🙂

Fit's like a high choker, while I like the look the chain is uncomfortable (for me.)

 Lot's of amazing knowledge here.

I'm thinking chromium may be a possiblity. While it doesn't show in the pics, the back side is very glossy, from what I read this material natually passivates.

As far as the "stone", it's very hard. I've tried several methods I found on the 'net to test the hardness and nothing seems to effect it. Seeing as how amethyst is fairly cheap (no bubbles in the stone) I don't see why it would have been used in a costume piece.

Like I said I think we need to have this tested.

Thanks for ALL the amazing info!!!

Pauline 

[vernon1959]

so just spent 20 minutes trying to get this in my chubby neck! guess it's not a keeper for me 🙂

Fit's like a high choker, while I like the look the chain is uncomfortable (for me.)

 Lot's of amazing knowledge here.

I'm thinking chromium may be a possiblity. While it doesn't show in the pics, the back side is very glossy, from what I read this material natually passivates.

As far as the "stone", it's very hard. I've tried several methods I found on the 'net to test the hardness and nothing seems to effect it. Seeing as how amethyst is fairly cheap (no bubbles in the stone) I don't see why it would have been used in a costume piece.

Like I said I think we need to have this tested.

Thanks for ALL the amazing info!!!

Pauline 

[vernon1959]

is it just me or are the boards wacky?? this AM i posted and it disappeared. just now it duplicated my response??????

[kpamber]

I would be really surprised if that is amethyst.  If it is 1920's, which I am just assuming, the jewelry that was made for the masses had glass stones.  If you google art deco jewelry, even sterling silver filigree, which was a "cut above" the chromium, etc. those pieces had glass stones. 

Historically, the transport of gems, even less expensive gemstones like amethyst, would have been cost prohibitive and time consuming.  A company that made this type of mass produced jewelry would have had easy and cheap access to the glass stones, likely somewhere factory nearby.  One that is as deep purple as the stone in your necklace would have been very good quality, and since the mounts for it on the necklace look like they could be moved with a fingernail, I don't see it being set with amethyst.

Just my opinion...

[goaldeelocks]

---

@vernon1959 wrote:

is it just me or are the boards wacky?? this AM i posted and it disappeared. just now it duplicated my response??????

---

Same thing happened to me just now (on another thread) - I clicked "reply", nothing happened, so I clicked it again. Then voila! TWO copies of my post appeared (but I was able to delete one of them by using the "Options" thingy in lower left corner).

[vernon1959]

"Same thing happened to me just now (on another thread) - I clicked "reply", nothing happened, so I clicked it again. Then voila! TWO copies of my post appeared"

well at least I know I'm not nuts! 🙂