November 10th, 2007
||Viking Granulated Necklace
I don't have much info on this. I do know that I swiped the picture, and thus have NO right to be posting it! *guilt*
I wish I had an approximate scale, frankly. if the original were actual-sized, the largest pendant is 3 inches (about 75mm) in diameter, which seems large. For my own purposes, I've decided to assume that that's about twice the real size- but in the re-creation of the bits, I will probably play some with the scale.
|Date:||November 11th, 2007 01:05 am (UTC)|| |
Seems that either the picture was deleted or it is not accessible. A friend of mine has a lot of resources and research material in this area, if I see a pic I might be able to identify it and size it for you.
But... 3" is large for a viking pendant, 1.5 - 2" is more likely.
Since I am being very illegal by posting it, I set the access to "registered users" as a sort of compromise.
I'm guessing that 1.5 inches for the large pendant is fairly reasonable.
|Date:||November 11th, 2007 01:06 am (UTC)|| |
Oops, that was me...
|Date:||November 11th, 2007 01:07 am (UTC)|| |
and it appears that if I actually log in I can see the picture.
I recognize the picture, but I don't remember which book I saw it in.
Thanks! Yes, I decided to restrict viewing to registered users, since I'm feeling guilty about posting it at all. :/
I'm thinking that a 1.5-inch diameter for the largest pendant seems sane.
I know! Isn't it amazing???
I would have to be entirely nuts to try to duplicate it. And yet... :)
My god, that's gorgeous! Thank you for posting it. This is an actual ancient necklace?
Apparently. I have no data on where it was found, under what circumstances, what size anything is, etc. I found the pic on a Norse culture list I lurk on. The only other references I've been able to find were in Hungarian or some such language. Really. :P
I think it looks plausibly ancient- both the granulation work, and the quartz cabs and their (rough) finishing. Neither looks modern to me- although the regular sizes of the granules is thought-provoking; nonetheless, the Etruscan granulation work I've seen has very regular granules, so I know it's possible.
|Date:||November 11th, 2007 11:52 am (UTC)|| |
I was just going to ask how old it was, etc. Any ideas as to which period?
Sadly- none at all. I'd sure love more data! but I've done some web-searching, etc. and have not found much of anything. (I'll admit my google-fu is not the best, though.)
At the moment I'm still trying to figure out the scale, since I'm determined to replicate at least some of the elements. I'd be happier knowing what sized stones I'm looking for, and approximately what sized granules they're using. It looks like I'll be punting on these, though. This round, anyway. :)
The stone settings on this are amaaaaaaaazing!
I know! Just- wow.
I'm determined to re-create at least some of the elements. I'm ordering some granules, and more sheet stock, and some amber and carnelian in as big round cabs as i can find easily (just under an inch). I started one of the beads today, to check out what thickness of metal I'll need, so I'm heading in the direction!
|Date:||November 11th, 2007 06:15 pm (UTC)|| |
*covet* *covet* *covet*
Oh, I know. The little demons of over-ambitiousness (which tend to find me a ready audience) are saying, "Yes! 21 pieces aren't really that many! You could DO this!"
And, gods help me, I'm listening. :P
Still. I am determined to start small(ish). I will re-create maybe 1-3 of the beads (probably in multiples of either 2 or 4), and probably 2 of the pendants. To start. And then we'll see. :)