I stay sillayyyyy >:3

Because I think. I THINK.

This faux ivory belt buckle was featured in the 2015 Gothic cinema masterpiece, crimson Peak:

Designer Kate Holly based it on a pair of ivory earrings shaped like single hands that the production was given as inspiration, and on the general prevalence of hand motif in Victorian/Edwardian jewelry, especially but not exclusively for mourning. She said it was intended to represent the character's late mother's hands clasped protectively around her waist

… Which unfortunately led to the labeling of any and all belts featuring a clasped hand motif as "Victorian" or "Victorian style." The most common of these being Italian surrealist belts manufactured in the 1970s:

(thankfully these are seldom sold as actual antique pieces, but rather as being inspired by something earlier)

But the earliest example I have ever seen of a similar motif used in a belt is this piece by Schiaparelli in the 1930s:

Which obviously lens its exact hand positioning to the piece from Crimson Peak

However. The thing is, a clasped hand motif in jewelry dates back to the middle ages, with a symbol commonly called a fede. This was generally representative of a handshake between two parties, indicating friendship and loyalty, rather than a both hands belong to a single individual. But the look was very similar

(Fede Ring, 14th century, British Museum)

And known motifs show up in all kinds of places throughout historical decorative arts, clothing, and jewelry, even if they're not commonplace or necessarily fashionable. Meaning that a belt with a clasped hand buckle was entirely plausible for the 19th century – it's just that no one had ever found one to my knowledge

Until about a month ago, when this popped up for sale online:

I wasn't really sure what to make of it. It was being sold as Victorian, but anyone can say something is Victorian, and people have now been conditioned to see the clasped hand motif is something from that era despite no known examples ever having been found. I looked through the photos and sent messages to the seller, and spent probably longer than I should have flipping through silver Hallmarks online, trying to make sense of somewhat grainy photographs of the markings on this belt. I was skeptical, because you don't usually see that single solid piece look Until the 1970s or 1980s. But a friend found an advertisement for something similar from 1869, although with a different design, and I also found at least one portrait of Lola Montez wearing something similar in the 1850s. Again, a different design, but a single piece silver belt

Finally away, I found some Hallmarks that seemed to match: markings used on silver produced for export in the Ottoman empire between 1844 and 1923. I also found a few other pieces with western-style hand motifs, although none exactly like this, that seemed to have similar workmanship and decorative elements

So… I think it might actually be real. If not definitively Victorian, at least pre-dating the previous earliest known example 

It took me a while to be willing to pull the trigger, because it was rather expensive for a belt and I know that there are a lot of frauds out there (even though the seller clearly thought it was legit, so I didn't suspect HER of any funny business). But another belt with a hand design of similar quality made me decide to take the leap

If it gets here and shows signs of having been faked (the one I'm most worried about is that it will end up being a modern center element soldered onto an antique belt, even though the element does share a style with some legit pieces I found online), I will definitely let you guys know. But for now… I think I might have actually found the first real pre-Schiaparelli hand belt I've ever seen

And it's silver. And it's Goth as hell- if you look carefully, one of the hands is that of a skeleton