Probably such questions are quite uninteresting for most people. But I find it very exciting how such a piece of jewellery is constructed. It says so much about the artist, the taste of the time, the cost and therefore the economic, even the political contexts. It tells the story of a piece of jewellery through time and therefore the story of the people it is associated with.
If the Sapphire Parure is at least partly gold, which I have no doubt about in principle, then why cover the back completely with silver? That makes no sense. It brings no visual advantage because it is not visible. Whether it can lead to discolouration on the jewellery or on the skin is a question for a professional to answer. It probably also has to do with the alloy.
As a hypothesis, I continue to assume that the parure is made of gold as well as silver, as this seems to apply to most sets with diamonds and coloured stones from the beginning of the 19th century.
I have tried to find good pictures of the reverse of the Norwegian emerald tiara, as it may be of the same provenance and/or by the same jeweller. Also information about the composition of the ruby set of the Empress Marie Louise, to which there are similarities, although somewhat "downsized", could be helpful, as well as pictures of the backs of other jewels from Nitot's environment. Perhaps we can deduce regularities from them. Unfortunately, I have not yet found anything useful.
348
Responses
« Back to index | View thread »