How Much Is My Native American Turquoise Jewelry Worth? — A Value Guide

Chambless & Ryan (2021) separate the two words buyers tend to blur:

“The price is what a buyer is willing to pay and a seller willing to accept; value is more a function of what something is worth.”
— Chambless & Ryan (2021), p. 173 ^[1]

On who uses which stone, Chambless & Ryan (2021) put it plainly:

“In general, artisans prefer natural turquoise, whereas the mass producers use the much lower-cost stabilized product.”
— Chambless & Ryan (2021), p. 182 ^[1]

According to Chambless & Ryan (2021, p. 183), the price gap between natural and stabilized turquoise shows up as the significant difference in retail prices between commercial, mass-produced, southwest-style jewelry and handcrafted, fine art Indian jewelry. ^[1]

As of 2021, Chambless & Ryan described how steeply price climbs with grade:

“The price rise is geometric—the best gem turquoise sells for hundreds of times the price of the stabilized stone.”
— Chambless & Ryan (2021), p. 193 ^[1]

According to Chambless & Ryan (2021, p. 180), cheaper mass-produced pieces and handmade work can coexist as long as the mass-produced items are not represented as handmade by individual Native American artisans, leaving the choice to an informed consumer; they add that some sellers do misrepresent them, and call that fraud an ongoing challenge. ^[1]

According to Lowry (2010, p. 164), Native American (and Tibetan) artists generally do not mine the turquoise they set, so most of the cabochons in their jewelry are a "trade stone" bought from miners, lapidaries or supply houses, and beads are often bought already drilled and polished. ^[2]

Writing in 2010, Lowry noted how sourcing had shifted:

“Since the 1960s, some Persian artists have purchased American turquoise, and many American artists and dealers have used high-grade Chinese and Mexican turquoise as an alternative to more expensive American turquoise.”
— Lowry (2010), p. 164 ^[2]

As of 2010, Lowry described what set natural turquoise prices:

“The fact is that natural turquoise is still being actively mined all over the world, and the prices of natural turquoise range from inexpensive to expensive, depending on the rarity of each individual turquoise cabochon and the rarity of the mine it came from.”
— Lowry (2010), p. 210 ^[2]

According to Lowry (2010, p. 212), a dealer's years in business do not guarantee that a stone is natural, and a buyer who wants to know a seller's reputation should get the purchase in writing. ^[2]

According to Lowry (2010, p. 215), one online seller claimed a necklace had been bought directly from the miner in 1970, but that mine did not exist until several years later. The piece was an imitation sold for several thousand dollars, which shows why a provenance story must be checked. ^[2]

Lowry (2010) also noted that some imitations have become collectible in their own right:

“Hubbell Trading Post glass beads or the so-called "pueblo necklaces" from the 1930s through the 1950s would be some examples of past material that might be considered uses of imitations that have become collectibles.”
— Lowry (2010), p. 215 ^[2]

Lowry (2010) dated the boom:

“It was during the early 1970s that The Wall Street Journal, Harper's Bazaar, Vogue magazine, and other literature marketed turquoise as an investment and pictured it in fashion.”
— Lowry (2010), p. 94 ^[2]

On price, Lowry (2010) wrote:

“A turquoise stone with no identifying source should never be purchased for the same price as a Classic look of color and/or matrix from the same mine.”
— Lowry (2010), p. 231 ^[2]

Lowry (2010) gives a simple dating rule:

“If a piece of jewelry predates the discovery of a specific mine, then that jewelry or art would not be inset with that mine's turquoise.”
— Lowry (2010), p. 231 ^[2]

According to Frank (1990, p. 81, Fig. 90), a finely twisted-wire bracelet of about 1910 was set with five crudely cut greenish stones, the center square one a pierced earbob; a bracelet of about 1915 on the same page (Fig. 91) also held an old pierced earbob in a crude bezel. ^[3]

According to Frank (1990, p. 116, Fig. 138), the seven old turquoise stones on a bracelet of about 1920, the center one pierced, did not fit their bezels, and he read that as a sign they were replacements for the originals. ^[3]

Frank (1990, Fig. 194, p. 159) dated glass as a stand-in for turquoise:

“The use of glass to replace stones in jewelrymaking was a common custom in the Southwest, particularly between 1890 and 1900.”
— Frank (1990), p. 159 ^[3]

Frank (1990, Fig. 241, p. 192) offered a rule of thumb for stones:

“For the most part bracelets with irregular and unmatched turquoise stones indicate a relatively late date of manufacture.”
— Frank (1990), p. 192 ^[3]

According to Frank (1990, p. 163, Fig. 199), the Pueblo peoples were an exception before their exposure to the trading posts: they often used turquoise that was flawed, carried matrix or was chipped, and did not necessarily match their stones, valuing simplicity and natural qualities over perfect symmetry. ^[3]

According to Frank (1990, p. 196, Fig. 247), buttons set with turquoise generally came later than stamped and punched buttons. ^[3]

According to Frank (1990, p. 198, Fig. 250), the earliest silver earrings in one group were loops with silver balls (1870s-1880s), followed by loops with scalloped edges and no turquoise (1880s-1890s); triangular turquoise drops were common in the early 1900s, and elaborate Zuni earrings with nine stones each were the latest, circa 1930. ^[3]

According to Frank (1990, p. 187, Fig. 236), a sandcast bracelet of circa 1885 with serrated bezels around a diamond-shaped green stone and two round stones was one of the early examples set with turquoise. ^[3]

Ryan & Chambless (2020) on the 1970s boom:

“These efforts were largely ignored and the boom followed the trajectory of all manias from boom to bust.”
— Ryan & Chambless (2020), p. 170 ^[4]

Marty Colbaugh recalled, in an interview published by Ryan & Chambless (2020, p. 185), that once Chinese producers learned stabilizing in the late 1980s, a normal 5 by 7 mm cabochon that had sold for $1.50 to $2 a carat in Albuquerque or Gallup dropped to about ten cents a carat within six months, and that by 1992 ninety-eight percent of his roughly five thousand small cutter customers were gone. ^[4]

According to Ryan & Chambless (2020, p. 234), the turquoise boom of the 1970s did not last as long as the 1890-1910 rush, but its few peak years produced more turquoise than any other period in American history, and a contraction in the market followed in the early 1980s. ^[4]

John Chaney, a wholesaler through the boom, recalled in an interview published by Ryan & Chambless (2020):

“By 1977 demand was falling off.”
— Ryan & Chambless (2020), p. 224 ^[4]

Ernie Montoya, an Albuquerque manufacturer, dated the end of the boom in an interview published by Ryan & Chambless (2020):

“The end came in 1979 when the Hunt Brothers cornered the silver market and it went to fifty dollars an ounce.”
— Ryan & Chambless (2020), p. 229 ^[4]

According to Ryan & Chambless (2020, p. 237), the Hunt brothers' 1979 attempt to corner the world silver market drove silver from $6.08 per troy ounce on January 1, 1979 to a record $49.45 on January 18, 1980, a devastating blow to the jewelry market that came just as high-grade natural turquoise was growing scarcer and dearer. ^[4]

According to Ryan & Chambless (2020, p. 268), gem-grade dark spiderweb Chinese turquoise first arrived in the late 1980s at very low cost compared with equivalent Nevada or Arizona stone; as more Chinese turquoise, much of it stabilized, entered the market, prices dropped dramatically, and many cutters who charged one to three dollars per carat for cut stone were forced out by Chinese stone at twenty to fifty cents per carat. ^[4]

According to Ryan & Chambless (2020, p. 268), fraud had always been a challenge in the Southwest jewelry market, especially from wholesalers and retailers who presented jewelry as Native American handmade when it had been mass-produced overseas by non-Native workers, using stabilized or block turquoise often promoted as natural. ^[4]

Ryan & Chambless (2020) close their account of the Chinese arrival:

“The excesses of Chinese turquoise entering the U.S. market created a challenge to both the integrity of the turquoise market and the underlying price structure and became a dominant factor during the next period in the history of turquoise in America.”
— Ryan & Chambless (2020), p. 269 ^[4]

According to Ryan & Chambless (2020, p. 272), high-grade turquoise is only about 5% of all turquoise and gem grade about 0.1%, while over 80% must be treated; this makes a two-tier market in which treated stone can sell for as much as ten times less than natural, and gem grade for several hundred times more. ^[4]

According to Ryan & Chambless (2020, p. 273), weak enforcement of consumer-protection rules lets treated turquoise be sold as natural, which confuses buyers and undercuts their reason to pay more for the genuine natural stone. ^[4]

Ryan & Chambless (2020) on provenance:

“With regard to very high-grade turquoise, with determined provenance, the amount available for purchase at any time is miniscule.”
— Ryan & Chambless (2020), p. 275 ^[4]

According to Ryan & Chambless (2020, p. 278), quality mid- to high-grade natural cabochons may sell for four to five times or more the price of treated stone from the same mine, and at the highest gem grades from the most desirable mines the gap may be several hundred percent. ^[4]

According to Ryan & Chambless (2020, p. 283), Chinese production around 1990 brought some very high-grade spiderweb stone, but huge amounts of stabilized material pushed prices down through the following decade and left Chinese turquoise stigmatized in the U.S., which the authors say made very high-grade Chinese turquoise a true bargain. ^[4]

According to Ryan & Chambless (2020, p. 283), interest revived in the 2000s and by 2010 prices, especially from the leading mines, had recovered to levels not seen since the 1970s boom, much of it attributed to Japan's growing interest in turquoise and Southwest Native American jewelry. ^[4]

According to Lowry (2002, p. 10), all else being equal, a piece of Indian jewelry set with Chinese turquoise is worth a fraction of an identical piece set with turquoise from one of the premier Southwestern mines. ^[5]

The 1975 Turquoise Blue Book corrected a common idea about old pawn:

“Contrary to opinions of pseudo-experts, old pawn was not jewelry made only for pawn. Old pawn is not merely a piece of jewelry that an Indian has pawned because he has needed money.”
— Stacey (1975), p. 10 ^[6]

It explained what collectors were paying for, as of 1975:

“For us, the value and emotional attraction for old pawn Indian jewelry is that it has been owned, appreciated, worn and used by real living Indians.”
— Stacey (1975), p. 10 ^[6]

A 1975 caption on reading an old spider web necklace:

“Note that each stone is of a different size and form. The unknown silversmith made a singular bed of silver for each stone.”
— Stacey (1975), p. 15 ^[6]

The same caption in Stacey (1975, p. 15) contrasted this with the modern jewelsmiths of 1975, who ground stones to fit a pre-formed setting or made a setting to fit an already cut and polished stone. ^[6]

Joseph Stacey opened his 1975 essay with the spark of the boom:

“It was not too long ago that the Wall Street Journal printed something about diamonds and turquoise being the two best investments one might make.”
— Stacey (1975), p. 27 ^[6]

Stacey (1975) on what followed:

“Old mining claims were probed and new veins opened. On the reservations Indian silversmiths stepped up production and scores of non-Indians joined the arts and crafts renaissance.”
— Stacey (1975), p. 27 ^[6]

David L. Neumann, a Santa Fe dealer whose El Palacio article the 1975 Turquoise Blue Book reprinted, on how long the wider market had ignored turquoise:

“Indeed the period from 1900 until very recently found turquoise out of vogue in the big world.”
— Stacey (1975), p. 67 ^[6]

Neumann (in the 1975 Turquoise Blue Book) dated the turn:

“The Christmas season of 1972, for the first time ever, witnessed newspaper advertising, from New York (Saks Fifth Avenue) through Chicago (Marshall Field) to Los Angeles (May Company) of turquoise set in Indian-made jewelry.”
— Stacey (1975), p. 67 ^[6]

And on prices at the time he wrote, as reprinted in 1975:

“Because of the present extraordinary interest in and demand for American Indian handicrafts, the price of Indian jewelry has been rising and during the last three years has approximately tripled, with many Zuni items having increased in price by a multiple of four or even five.”
— Stacey (1975), p. 71 ^[6]

Joseph Stacey on the Gallup Inter-tribal Ceremonial, in 1975:

“To be eligible for an award each entry must be completely handmade, and authenticated as to origin and quality. No machine made beads, commercial findings or treated stones are considered for judging.”
— Stacey (1975), p. 87 ^[6]

Lois Essary Jacka, writing in 1995, on how the 1970s boom began:

“It has been rumored that the Wall Street Journal lit the first small flame by suggesting that turquoise and silver were good investments, but there seems to be no proof that the statement ever saw print.”
— Jacka (1995), p. 35 ^[7]

Jacka (1995) on the magazine issue that fed the boom:

“Arizona Highways magazine fueled the flames by devoting the entire January 1974 issue to Indian jewelry. According to Joseph Stacey, then editor of the magazine, "Single copies eventually sold for fifty dollars, and the magazine went into an unprecedented fourth printing."”
— Jacka (1995), p. 35 ^[7]

Lois Essary Jacka, writing in 1995:

“The wisest adage to keep in mind is "you get what you pay for." A fifty-dollar piece of jewelry is not going to be a masterpiece.”
— Jacka (1995), p. 84 ^[7]

Lois Essary Jacka closed her 1995 book with this advice:

“It is important that you not look upon Navajo jewelry as an investment, although it may well turn out to be a good one.”
— Jacka (1995), p. 123 ^[7]

Jacka (1995) on where to buy:

“Unless you are an expert in the field of Native American jewelry, depend upon reputable museum shops, galleries, and traders to guide you in making a purchase that is perfect for you.”
— Jacka (1995), p. 123 ^[7]

Writing in 1996, Schiffer gave buyers the opposite emphasis on marks:

“When purchasing jewelry styles of the type represented in this volume, the presence or lack of an artist’s mark should not significantly influence your decision. Many, many fantastic jewelry items are not marked in any way by their makers.”
— Schiffer (1996), p. 5 ^[8]

As of 1973, Welch told collectors that most of the silver they would meet was not very old:

“So, you see, a piece 100 years old is very old indeed. Most of what we see was made in the 1930's or 1940's.”
— Welch (1973), p. 50 ^[9]

Welch (1973) put quality ahead of age:

“It is quality and craftsmanship that count rather than age—unless we're speaking of museum pieces.”
— Welch (1973), p. 51 ^[9]

Welch (1973, p. 54) gave a buyer's checklist for quality: stamped, engraved or cast designs that are firm and sure, stones neatly and firmly set, fairly heavy silver, and turquoise that does not overpower the silver. ^[9]

Watching a batch of two dozen rings made for a trader in the late 1930s, Adair (1944) observed:

“The batch of rings that Charlie and his wife made were well done, but they were all alike, and there was no individuality in any one piece.”
— Adair (1944), p. 86 ^[10]

Adair (1944) on where that method was used:

“Mass production such as this is used in turning out silver which is to be sold for a cheap price.”
— Adair (1944), p. 86 ^[10]

Writing in 1944, Adair explained why fine handwork was the safer standard against factory imitations:

“Silver which is well designed and beautifully finished by hand can only be imitated at considerable expense by machinery. But a cheap, badly made piece may be imitated at a "dime a dozen."”
— Adair (1944), p. 154 ^[10]

Among the faults Adair (1944) found some traders of about 1940 willing to accept:

“They will sell rings with loose sets, bracelets with cracks on the inside (because of incorrect annealing), or badly soldered beads.”
— Adair (1944), p. 153 ^[10]

According to Adair (1944, p. 200), around 1940 two kinds of Navajo and Pueblo silver were sold to outside buyers: low-priced silver made as a curio, and a much smaller output of heavier silver with finer design and more careful workmanship. ^[10]

Of that heavier work, Adair (1944) wrote:

“This latter type is more than a souvenir.”
— Adair (1944), p. 201 ^[10]

Writing in 1976, Lund (1976, p. 4) said the craze for Southwest Indian jewelry had hit with no apparent warning in the early 1970s and had grown into a multi-million dollar fad that showed little sign of slowing down. ^[11]

According to Lund (1976, p. 4), experts of the day, including Joe Ben Wheat, then curator of anthropology at the University of Colorado Museum, agreed that the jewelry first became suddenly popular with a few prominent entertainers who wore it on television and in public, before fashion magazines took it up. ^[11]

Writing at the height of the 1970s boom, Lund (1976) separated the top collectors' pieces from the rest of the market:

“Only in this very selective echelon is there any real investment potential for the buyer. The mid-range of the Indian jewelry market is highly inflated now, and has been since the craze hit.”
— Lund (1976), p. 95 ^[11]