This dialogue took place at a time when I was not participating at BCN Forum—and I am seeing it for the first time today.

By now I have been dealing with the questions instigated by conflicting information for what now seems like an almost daily group of inquiries. I have responded to these questions at Facebook more times than I can count. I will make a few points here.

1) The most important thing to know about the beads in-question here. (And in contradiction to opinions expressed in some replies.) Mel has said that the beads were ID'd as "Scottish agate." I cannot disagree with that—on the face of things. But what people (apparently) do not understand that the banded agate beads and elements used in Scottish agate artifacts ACTUALLY CAME FROM IDAR-OBERSTEIN. So it is not mistaken to compare these beads to Scottish agate, and it is correct that the beads and elements are actually from Idar-Oberstein, Germany. So, the agate was not "mined in Scotland." And, in fact, the agate is color-enhanced using the typical German methods of caramelization, carbonization, and beizen coloring.

2) Some opinions I hold, based on my experience. I think there are four classes of beads that are very similar in appearance, and are easily confused with each other. And people who don't understand this are contributing to the confusion. AND, they will argue with me about it (because they don't know the facts). For the sake of simplicity I call these "one-line agate beads." (This is a name used by others as well, whether they understand the sorting issues or not.)

3) Certain sellers of these beads insist they are "Sulemani beads." (Spelled various ways.) Based upon my 40+ years of experience with Central Asian beads, my opinion is that "Sulemani" was made-up about ten years ago. (At the very least, if it were a local name, somewhere, it has been actively promoted, and is now said to be the "traditional name for these beads"—which is a proposition I sincerely doubt.) And it was made-up as a false story intended to be an interest-garnering name that some people will gravitate to. So it's all PR and false advertising. Suleman the Magnificent had nothing (zero) to do with these beads (!). In the Himalayan region, one-line agate beads can be referred to as "bhaibasyaguru." (Not everyone agrees this name is used by Himalayan people. But some do. More about this shortly.) Further, there IS a traditional name, in India, for Indian beads. And this is Babaghori—named for Babaghor, who was admired as the "patron saint of Indian agate beadmaking." Babaghori would encompass a broader variety of banded agate beads, but would be inclusive of one-line beads.

4) In the briefest terms possible—the four classes of these beads are as follows: A) There are ancient beads from India, that may be in the range of some 2000 years old (+ or -), that became popular in Central Asia, and possibly across Asia. B) There are factory sites in India where these beads are being retrieved from the ground. Some are unfinished, and are drilled to become usable beads. But no one (that I am aware) says word one about any of this. it is assumed that people will believe these beads have been handed down across generations, and are "ancient hierloom beads." (Even if this is not expressed—it is implied.) C) Versions of these beads were made at Idar-Oberstein (as expressed above). I think I can sometimes recognize the Idar beads, because I have a long-standing familiarity with their output. However, I would not say I can do this 100% of the time. The thing is—I know it is a factor to be considered. D) In recent years Chinese beadmakers have made reproductions or imitations of these beads. Some of these, like the prototypes, are or may be structurally-banded agate, that has been color-enhanced to become black, and have a white band around the equator. But more of these beads are imitations. They look similar, and are likewise carbonized agate—but they have an artificial white line around the equator that is applied via chemical decoration. (The process used for zi beads, and many other beads.) In real life, these beads are fairly easy to spot, because they look mass-produced. (They match well.) It is more difficult to be certain when they are viewed singly, and from photos.

5) When a certain bead attains a level of popularity (in this case, mostly based upon the fake name), and when huge quantities are suddenly available, the price normally goes down. Yet, in the marketplace, suddenly, sellers have full strands and a huge inventory. They are not explaining how this is possible, and they are not lowering the prices. Apparently the attraction of the fake name is working very well. And no one is questioning how all of the above has come to pass. Except me.

6) Once the name "Sulemani" became known and created a stir, sellers began calling ANY banded agate bead a "Sulemani bead." So the name has become a seriously abused made-up name.

7) We can see that the extension of names for beads as applied to other beads can be an issue and a problem. (This can be endemic in many parts of bead collecting.) In a similar way, in the Tibetan sphere, although bhaibasyaguru (these same beads) have a presence, and some Tibetans respect and use them, it is a truism that zi beads are not spheroidal as bhai beads are. But, be this as it may, beginning just a couple of years ago now, suddenly, bhai beads are being fronted as "Tibetan zi"—rather than being an adjunct to the popularity of zi.

This sums up my present thoughts.

JDA.