The immediate background of this case is that in 1894 Boucheron made a significant tiara for Mrs Massey Mainwaring, the wife of an English MP. In 1899 the firm had to initiate court proceedings to recover 343 pounds due for the construction of the tiara. The gemstones, including an emerald which some press reports stated was valued at one thousand pounds, were supplied by the clients.
Initially, when I saw this newspaper item, I was going to discuss, in a general way, the problems arising between jewellers and clients, and the use of paste jewels in an era before electric light was in general use and the use of paste might be spotted more easily.
But, even if what William Massey Mainwaring claimed was true, he owed the firm a substantial amount which, in the normal course of events, should have been paid with only a small sum withheld until the dispute was settled.
One media report of the court proceedings.
I hunted in vain for a photo of this tiara. In doing so I discovered that this was not the first (or the last) litigation William Massey Mainwaring, who was a qualified barrister as well as an MP and a noted art collector, was involved in.
One catalogue from a 1904 auction shows part of the extent of his collection. See https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044034196220&view=1up&seq=1
He was involved in a number of court cases which suggested he engaged in some sharp financial practices, but it was a dispute over his wife's will with his step son which revealed that his financial situation was often perilous. The money William Massey Mainwaring used originally came from his wife's family who, rather unusually for the times when the marriage occurred, did not place her money into a trust to ensure that the husband could not control or use it. Massey Mainwaring took full advantage of the then laws which allowed him to control his wife's money.
The dispute between him and his step son over his wife's will makes for very interesting reading. Some of the accounts are riveting. Below is one account which has a brief summary, and for our interests mentions the tiara.
Eventually, an undisclosed settlement was reached and almost immediately the rest of the still large art collection and his wife's jewellery was auctioned by Christie's. William Massey Mainwaring died on the first day of the sale. But the saga of Massey Mainwaring's financial misdemeanours (according to the step son) continued, and in a court case in 1910 it was revealed that Mrs Massey Mainwaring had at one time pawned her jewellery. The court case also highlighted the dire straits William Massey Mainwaring was in circa 1899 (the period when Boucheron had to sue for their fees).
1910 court case.
When Mrs Massey Mainwaring's jewels were sold in 1907 the press described the main jewels. I am presuming that the diamond, emerald and pearl tiara mentioned is the one made by Boucheron, although the jeweller's name was not mentioned. Nor did Boucheron mention any pearls in the 1899 trial -- it is the report of the large emerald which suggests that the tiara sold by Christie's was the one made by Boucheron in 1894.
This report gives a summary of the prices fetched by the main items of jewellery.
while this report indicates some of the theatre involved as dealers vied for their chosen lots.
Can any one think of a tiara with a large oblong emerald? The description of the emerald and pearl necklace suggests that it too could be recognised.
Of course all the jewels may have been dismantled.
1
Responses
« Back to index | View thread »