Posters of original research, analyses, insights etc retain all rights to their work. Such research etc cannot be used in any format without the written consent of the author.

Empress Eugenie's diamond bow by Kramer. More information on transmission Posted by Beth on March 31, 2020, 7:12 pm By chance, when I was looking for information on the Peridot parure of the Archduchess Isobella, I found that the diamond bow brooch by Kramer which was worn by Empress Eugenie was auctioned in London by Sotheby's in June 2001. This particular auction does not appear to have been discussed on forums previously. See https://sothebys.gcs-web.com/static-files/5f0cd61b-8fde-4616-922e-d6c2341ae2ce The brooch was sold for the then outstanding sum of 1,433,500 GBP See http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2001/antique-and-20th-century-contemporary-jewels-l01751/lot.251.html What is of significance is that the Sotheby's press release (first link) notes that the brooch to be auctioned had been in the Astor family until the early 1990s. For Sotheby's to make such an announcement suggests that there was documentation attesting to the provenance of the jewel -- as does the price it fetched at auction. I very much doubt if this jewel would have reached such a price based only on a supposition or claim that the bow brooch had belonged to the French Crown Jewels. There seems to be considerable evidence that this is the brooch which Christie's advertised for auction in 2008, which was subsequently purchased privately by the Friends of the Louvre. Christie's original catalogue for 15 April 2008 https://www.christies.com/lotfinder/Lot/the-empress-eugenie-broochan-antique-diamond-bow-5059392-details.aspx A Christie's press release https://www.christies.com/presscenter/pdf/04222008/13443.pdf The Friends of the Louvre is not a naive organisation. For it to purchase this jewel, it would have vetted the provenance with great care. Because of this, I feel that the jewel was, when privately owned by a family, it was by members of the US Astor family, until, as the Sotheby's site notes, the 1990s. To me the trail seems clear --- even though, I admit, I have not seen the papers proving this.

Re: Empress Eugenie's diamond bow by Kramer. More information on transmission Posted by J-F on April 1, 2020, 12:37 pm, in reply to "Empress Eugenie's diamond bow by Kramer. More information on transmission" Wow, thanks Beth. I've never heard about the Astor provenance (US branch). It seemed the 2008 retained the provenance as it is also mentioned in the PDF sale. I just found an article dated December 18th 1909 from the Chicago Examiner, at the time of Caroline Astor's jewelry appraisal after her death. It mentioned among them a "Large diamond bow knot brooch (crown jewels)" : I think it confirms the provenance. It's also very interesting to read that 3 items from the Crown sapphire suite belonged to Lady Astor (necklace, corsage ornament and tiara) !!! J-F

Re: Empress Eugenie's diamond bow by Kramer. More information on transmission Posted by Beth on April 1, 2020, 6:09 pm, in reply to "Re: Empress Eugenie's diamond bow by Kramer. More information on transmission" That is very interesting J-F. I wonder which of the daughters got the bow brooch? And which got the sapphires? If one of the daughters got the bow, then it is possible that it was sold to one of the brothers, but of course that is just a supposition based on the press releases which stated it had been owned by the Astor family. If the bow brooch was sold back to the mainline of the Astors, then it is possible that Charlotte Astor (Drayton) Haig inherited it. As she is said to have been disinherited by her father, she is the one most likely to have done a trade with her brother. But who knows? When she died in Paris on 30 July 1920 her estate (for England at least) was valued at only 62,429/4/4 pounds sterling. Re the sapphires: I wonder if these could have included the smaller tiara from the parure belonging to the French Crown Jewels? But how to explain the necklace and brooch? In his book on Christie's, Vincent Meylan states that the main sections of the parure were given to Aline de Rothschild as a wedding present when she married Edward Sassoon in 1887. And the photographs of her daughter, Sybil, Marchioness of Cholmondeley, at the 1937 coronation prove this is the French parure. So what The Mrs Astor had were either other parts of the parure or a copy. I wonder which?

Re: Empress Eugenie's diamond bow by Kramer. More information on transmission Posted by Ursula on April 1, 2020, 9:11 pm, in reply to "Re: Empress Eugenie's diamond bow by Kramer. More information on transmission" The Astors didn't owned the bow brooch, it was a fairy tale. I believe it was a marketing gag for the auction - not to proof. The bow, soon to be known as 'Mrs. Astor's diamond stomacher' became one of the most famous jewels. Because the brooch was the wedding gift from the Duke of Westminster in 1902 - to his sister and that is proofed.William Lygon 7th Earl of Beauchamp married Lady Lettice Grosvenor in 1902. She was the sister of the Duke of Westminster In 1938 the stomacher is worne by the Countess of Beauchamp | Grand noeud de corsage de l'impératrice Eugénie Histoire des diamants de la Couronne de France daughter-in-law of Lady Lettice Grosvenor wife of the 7th Earl of Beauchamp, which was a wedding gift of her brother the Duke of Westminster in 1902. Empress Eugenie's Tassel Bow Brooch

Re: Empress Eugenie's diamond bow by Kramer. More information on transmission Posted by Alejandro E. on April 2, 2020, 3:11 am, in reply to "Re: Empress Eugenie's diamond bow by Kramer. More information on transmission" Dear Ursula: Thank you so much for the entry about this jewel. Examining the pictures of your web, I have realised that the tassels of the Westminster's brooch are longer than the ones of the brooch today exhibited in the Louvre. What do you think about this? Best wishes, Alejandro E. Previous Message The Astors didn't owned the bow brooch, it was a fairy tale. I believe it was a marketing gag for the auction - not to proof. The bow, soon to be known as 'Mrs. Astor's diamond stomacher' became one of the most famous jewels. Because the brooch was the wedding gift from the Duke of Westminster in 1902 - to his sister and that is proofed.William Lygon 7th Earl of Beauchamp married Lady Lettice Grosvenor in 1902. She was the sister of the Duke of Westminster In 1938 the stomacher is worne by the Countess of Beauchamp | Grand noeud de corsage de l'impératrice Eugénie Histoire des diamants de la Couronne de France daughter-in-law of Lady Lettice Grosvenor wife of the 7th Earl of Beauchamp, which was a wedding gift of her brother the Duke of Westminster in 1902. Empress Eugenie's Tassel Bow Brooch

Re: Empress Eugenie's diamond bow by Kramer. More information on transmission Posted by Beth on April 2, 2020, 7:06 am, in reply to "Re: Empress Eugenie's diamond bow by Kramer. More information on transmission" I agree with Alejandro E: the tassels in the Beauchamp jewel are longer. Not only that, the tips of the tassels in the Beauchamp jewel lack the distinctive bell shape in the original jewel. In the Beauchamp jewel the diamonds hang flat. Below is the original brooch as photographed at the time of the sale of the French Crown jewels. The jewel sold in 2008 and now in the Louvre. I have found it impossible to find sharp, high definition photos of either of the Countesses of Beauchamp who were photographed wearing the brooch, but it is clear in all the available photos that the end of the two tassels lack the distinctive bell shape. It also seems to me that the shape of the bow is different and lacks the fluid shape of the original Kramer jewel. This photo has been heavily retouched so the shape of the bow is probably somewhat changed. In this photo the bottom of the bow brooch can be seen. Again it lacks the distinctive bell shape. 1939 Similarly in this portrait the bottom of the tassels lack the distinctive bell shape. I have never seen any claim by the Lygon/Beauchamp family that their jewel was formerly part of the French Crown jewels. When Sotheby's auctioned the jewel in 2001 and again when Christie's prepared their catalogue and press releases in 2008, the auction houses would have had definite proof of the provenance. It would have been something which the Friends of the Louvre and the hierarchy at the Louvre would have studied very carefully before handing over so much money. The monetary value of the jewel rests on proving, irrefutably, the provenance of the piece.

Re: Empress Eugenie's diamond bow by Kramer. More information on transmission Posted by mauriz on April 3, 2020, 1:47 am, in reply to "Re: Empress Eugenie's diamond bow by Kramer. More information on transmission" I vaguely remember a lengthy discussion on that topic on the RJWMB many years ago, but haven't been able to find it in the somewhat incomplete archives. Some of us came to the same conclusion back then, but the photographic evidence you've been able to provide this time, leaves no doubt that the Beauchamp jewel is a copy lacking some of the original brooch's distinctive features.

Re: Empress Eugenie's diamond bow by Kramer. More information on transmission Posted by Ursula on April 3, 2020, 1:01 am, in reply to "Re: Empress Eugenie's diamond bow by Kramer. More information on transmission" I had often seen old family jewels which was shorted , because it was not also very comfortable, in length. Some ladies had a shorter body...so nobody knows it.

Nonsense! Posted by mauriz on April 3, 2020, 1:39 am, in reply to "Re: Empress Eugenie's diamond bow by Kramer. More information on transmission" Previous Message I had often seen old family jewels which was shorted , because it was not also very comfortable, in length. Some ladies had a shorter body...so nobody knows it. What are you suggesting? That the tassels were not only elongated but remodeled to lose their distinctive bell shape, and then remodeled again back to their original shape before the jewel was sold in 2001? Without any evidence? You can't be serious?!

Re: Nonsense! Posted by Ursula on April 3, 2020, 11:43 pm, in reply to "Nonsense!" Parton .... I had seen some important jewels - in person - altered, when it was broken and altered, while the owner are a small lady. After her - the next was tall. Badly repaired with tin, brutally scratched, fragments of once a unique piece. Shorted when it was missed stones and so on - in bad times, chanced gems and stones, instead of glass. AND shorted while it was too long and added when it was too short....anyway. Well, I miss a good discussion board without any aggressive members. With a polite mood and culture. Beth started with a nice way, but it changed. We have no dictatorship. I believe there are a lot of problems at the moment, for all, but this is our passion, not war. That's the way I feel, not everybody has to agree, but the opinion can deviate, then you can also let it stand, politely.

Re: Nonsense! Posted by mauriz on April 4, 2020, 2:17 am, in reply to "Re: Nonsense!" Previous Message Parton .... I had seen some important jewels - in person - altered, when it was broken and altered, while the owner are a small lady. After her - the next was tall. Badly repaired with tin, brutally scratched, fragments of once a unique piece. Since there's photographic evidence that the brooch in question is not "badly repaired with tin, brutally scratched" and since a comparison of the photos from 1887 and 2001 doesn't give any clue that something was altered at all, your observation regarding other important jewels would only be relevant, if you had come across some sort of evidence that the bow brooch was indeed altered twice between 1887 and 2001. If you have, then you should state so, if you haven't, your statement above is not only irrelevant, but ignoring the fact that someone else has, unlike you, taken time and effort to produce convincing evidence. Previous Message Well, I miss a good discussion board without any aggressive members. With a polite mood and culture. Well, the first and foremost condition for a good discussion board is, that members are actually willing to read and consider what other members have written. I can't remember a single instance over the last years, when someone challenged your assumptions, that you bothered to answer or provide evidence for what you're usually quite assertive to claim. This very thread is a typical example: You boldly stated: "The Astors didn't owned the bow brooch, it was a fairy tale", Beth took the time to provide a rather long list of evidence that you're mistaken, whereupon you avoided to answer directly, but instead launched some sort of cryptic "nobody knows" elsewhere. Sorry, but this is impolite and renders any discussion fruitless! Previous Message That's the way I feel, not everybody has to agree, but the opinion can deviate, then you can also let it stand, politely. As long as you're bold enough to phrase an unfounded assumption as a matter of fact – "the brooch was the wedding gift from the Duke of Westminster in 1902 - to his sister and that is proofed" – I'm afraid you have to live with the fact that someone is bold enough to call it, what it is: nonsense.

no culture Posted by Ursula on April 4, 2020, 11:39 pm, in reply to "Re: Nonsense!" what a nice answer.... no discussion with culture at all, is possible.

Boucheron necklace Posted by Alejandro E. on April 2, 2020, 3:03 am, in reply to "Re: Empress Eugenie's diamond bow by Kramer. More information on transmission" Vincent Meylan tells in his book about Boucheron that Mrs. Astor purchased to this jeweler a copy of the sapphire necklace of the French Crown Jewels. Maybe the necklace and the brooch were also copies? I am intrigued with this jewel-mystery! Best wishes, Alejandro E. Previous Message That is very interesting J-F. I wonder which of the daughters got the bow brooch? And which got the sapphires? If one of the daughters got the bow, then it is possible that it was sold to one of the brothers, but of course that is just a supposition based on the press releases which stated it had been owned by the Astor family. If the bow brooch was sold back to the mainline of the Astors, then it is possible that Charlotte Astor (Drayton) Haig inherited it. As she is said to have been disinherited by her father, she is the one most likely to have done a trade with her brother. But who knows? When she died in Paris on 30 July 1920 her estate (for England at least) was valued at only 62,429/4/4 pounds sterling. Re the sapphires: I wonder if these could have included the smaller tiara from the parure belonging to the French Crown Jewels? But how to explain the necklace and brooch? In his book on Christie's, Vincent Meylan states that the main sections of the parure were given to Aline de Rothschild as a wedding present when she married Edward Sassoon in 1887. And the photographs of her daughter, Sybil, Marchioness of Cholmondeley, at the 1937 coronation prove this is the French parure. So what The Mrs Astor had were either other parts of the parure or a copy. I wonder which?

Astor provenance Posted by Vincent on April 3, 2020, 7:06 am, in reply to "Boucheron necklace" The news paper article detailing a precise list of Mrs Astor’s jewels with their valuation seems a good piece of evidence to me. These things are much more public in the USA than they are in Europe. And the list mentions the Provenance : Crown Jewels. It corroborates the pedigree mentioned by both Sotheby’s and christie’s when they sold the brooch. Incidentally, I don’t think the researchers working for those two houses would have mentioned the Astor provenance without évidences given to them by the seller. Now, that a copy of that brooch could have been created in 1902, 7 years before the Astor inventory was made public, is not a big surprise. Many copies of those jewels were created. The saphire parure necklace and tiara were copied by Boucheron. Actually I think the tiara was copied twice. There was also a copy of the necklace and bracelets from the ruby parure which was sold at auctions a few years ago. One lady who was the owner of the ruby and diamond big necklace ( there were two) even ordered a pair of earrings in “the same style) at Van Cleef & Arpels to wear them with the necklace. It is highly possible that a copy of the bow brooch was created at one point. That piece was a wonder but it did not used any big stone, so if could be copied easily. So I guess we have to stick with Astor provenance.

French Crown Jewels copies Posted by Alejandro E. on April 4, 2020, 2:38 am, in reply to "Astor provenance " Thank you so much Vincent for your interesting answer. So, if I am not wrong, at least two copies of the sapphire diadem of the French Crown Jewels collection were made by Boucheron: one for the Duchess of Roxburghe and another one for Mrs. Astor. The pair of diamond bow brooches were also replicated countless times! The Duchess of Newcastle was the owner of one of these copies, for example. Best wishes, Alejandro E.

Re: French Crown Jewels copies Posted by Vincent on April 4, 2020, 7:10 am, in reply to "French Crown Jewels copies" I have to check my notes ! I am sure about Mrs Astor. Not so sure about the duchess of Roxburgh ! Do I mention it in my book ?

« Back to index