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.
Mary Curzon’s pearl necklaces
Posted by mauriz on October 28, 2020, 9:42 am
Pearl necklaces are notoriously difficult to identify, but when Dave asked in the thread below if the pearls worn by George Curzon’s second wife Grace in a portrait from 1924 could have been part of the wedding gifts which Curzon’s first wife Mary Leiter had received in 1895, I thought it’s maybe worth to give it a try.
Beth has found a couple of reports on Mary Leiter’s wedding gifts. One mentions that Mary had received "three rows of magnificent pearls" from her father. In her will from 1898 Mary wrote of "four rows of white pearls". From Nicola Thomas’ paper, quoted by 992234177, we know that Mary Curzon owned "an imitation collar of pearls" she had bought in Paris and planned to combine it with – again – "4 rows of pearls". (Mary in a letter to her family)
There are a couple of photos, paintings and etchings which show Mary Curzon wearing pearls, occasionally one single short row, more often two long rows, or one short and one very long strand, but never three or four. Since we don’t know how long the (three or four) rows of Mr. Leiter’s wedding gift have been, it’s impossible to say whether she was wearing all of them in any of the photos. In all pictures the pearls seem relatively small and of roughly the same size.
1903
1899
1903
1902
She has probably worn the largest number of pearls for the Devonshire House Fancy Dress Ball in 1897, when she dressed up as Valentina Visconti of Milan.
When she died in 1906, her daughters were 10, 7 and 2 years old. When Irene, the eldest, was 20 in 1916, she was pictured in a newspaper article wearing a single row of pearls.
When her younger sister Cynthia married Sir Oswald Mosley in 1920, she was wearing a long row of pearls. Several newspapers reported that these were part of her late mother’s estate and a wedding present of her father (well, sort of). This photo shows all three sisters, Irene and Cynthia wearing their pearls. For the rest of her short life, Cynthia was often photographed wearing her necklace as a double row.
1929
In 2013, Bonhams auctioned a Van Cleef & Arpels ruby set which was once owned by Irene Curzon, Baroness Ravensdale. The jewels had been inherited by Michael Mosley (1932–2012), Cynthia’s youngest son and Irene’s nephew. Beth posted about it in May. In the same auction Bonhams offered a short pearl necklace which was advertised as probably stemming from the long necklace Cynthia had received as a wedding gift.
But another image of Irene in the newspaper article from 1916 captured her from a different angle. The clasp of her pearl necklace is visible, and I think it matches the ruby clasp of the necklace sold at Bonhams. Also the slightly oval pearls next to the clasp are identifiable in the picture. I therefore believe that Michael Mosley had inherited not only his aunt’s ruby set, but also her pearl necklace in 1966, and it was Irene’s, not (a part of) Cynthia’s necklace, which was sold at Bonhams in 2013.
Mary’s youngest daughter Alexandra married Major Edward Metcalfe in 1925, only four months after her father’s death. Like her sister Cynthia she was wearing a long pearl necklace for her wedding, and was often photographed wearing (these or very similar) pearls during the following years. It’s impossible to say if these pearls were – as her sister’s – part of her mother’s estate, but the size and length of both necklaces seem to match.
1928
1928
Now the two rows of pearls worn by Grace, Marchioness Curzon of Kedleston in 1924 seem to be different: larger and graduated. She has worn one or both of them on various occasions, also after her husband’s death and her youngest step-daughter’s wedding in 1925.
1922
1923
1927
Grace’s portrait above is a cropped copy. The original shows an additional long strand of pearls in her lap.
She might have worn this (not graduated) strand of pearls at Cynthia’s wedding to Oswald Mosley. She’s pictured here curtsying to King Albert I and Queen Elisabeth of the Belgians who were wedding guests in 1920. When Grace Curzon was photographed wearing pearls after 1925, it seems to have always been one or two – occasionally short – graduated rows, so maybe this was (the last) one of Mary Curzon’s rows of pearls and given to Alexandra as a wedding gift in 1925.
I appreciate just how much research and analytic skills are involved in such a post.
As ever Mauriz's keen eye helps us to solve puzzles, and acquire new knowledge.
I agree that the necklace sold by Bonhams with the ruby clasp is more than probably the one worn by Irene, Baroness Ravensdale. (I agree with Mauriz that it is. I think that, unless others can prove the necklace is definitely one owned by Lady Cynthia Mosley that a mistake has occurred.) The egg shaped pearls are distinctive. Irene Curzon, Baroness Ravensdale's, heirs were her Mosley nephews and, as we have seen, some of Lady Ravensdale's other jewels were sold in the same time frame, so it is not unexpected that this necklace might have belonged to her, and not her sister, Cynthia.
I have never seen any reports of Lady Alexandra Curzon receiving family pearls when she married, but her long pearl necklace rivals that of her sister, Lady Cynthia Mosley. By the time Lady Alexandra married, her father, the Marquess of Curzon, had died and so any "supposed gift" from him was not mentioned, as she would have inherited her share of her mother's jewels as a result of his death.
Apart from the pearls worn on her wedding day, she also had a necklace very similar to that of her sister, Irene, Baroness Ravensdale.
Lady Alexandra Metcalfe and Lady Ravensdale photographed wearing similar pearls necklaces as they went to a Royal Garden party in 1928.
Because of Lady Cynthia Mosley's involvement in her husband's political campaigns, the disparity between her privileged background and her political campaigns often attracted criticism. One such involved her wearing of the famous pearls.
A report from The Sphere in April 1926
From a twentieth first century perspective, I think the above report is hilarious.
All very factual points mauriz, thank you. I wonder if the pearls gifted to the 1st Baroness Curzon may have been taken apart and made into longer sets of ropes of pearls, and it is quite possible the Baroness received other sets of pearls which may have not been documented.
These pictures as supplied by mauriz means that their must have been jewels of the 1st Baroness being passed on to her daughters by her husband.
It just baffles why we cant get anything on the other two grand diamond head pieces mentioned and worn by the Baroness. Could they have been quietly sold; 'and then aren't they are just too significant to not have made a mark somewhere especially if they went into the hands of another family or jewel house.
I note the 2nd Baroness's bracelets at picture 15 which do look significant and at picture 14 a colored ring on her right pinky finger, possibly the ruby and diamond ring mentioned in the wedding gifts from Baron Scarsdale to the 1st Baroness?
At picture six, the Baron's daughter Irene looks resplendent and I just wanted to ask, 'are those embellishments on her dress, namely at the shoulders and bosom or are those brooches affixed to her dress?
Regards,
Dave.
Previous Message
Pearl necklaces are notoriously difficult to identify, but when Dave asked in the thread below if the pearls worn by George Curzon’s second wife Grace in a portrait from 1924 could have been part of the wedding gifts which Curzon’s first wife Mary Leiter had received in 1895, I thought it’s maybe worth to give it a try.
Beth has found a couple of reports on Mary Leiter’s wedding gifts. One mentions that Mary had received "three rows of magnificent pearls" from her father. In her will from 1898 Mary wrote of "four rows of white pearls". From Nicola Thomas’ paper, quoted by 992234177, we know that Mary Curzon owned "an imitation collar of pearls" she had bought in Paris and planned to combine it with – again – "4 rows of pearls". (Mary in a letter to her family)
There are a couple of photos, paintings and etchings which show Mary Curzon wearing pearls, occasionally one single short row, more often two long rows, or one short and one very long strand, but never three or four. Since we don’t know how long the (three or four) rows of Mr. Leiter’s wedding gift have been, it’s impossible to say whether she was wearing all of them in any of the photos. In all pictures the pearls seem relatively small and of roughly the same size.
1903
1899
1903
1902
She has probably worn the largest number of pearls for the Devonshire House Fancy Dress Ball in 1897, when she dressed up as Valentina Visconti of Milan.
When she died in 1906, her daughters were 10, 7 and 2 years old. When Irene, the eldest, was 20 in 1916, she was pictured in a newspaper article wearing a single row of pearls.
When her younger sister Cynthia married Sir Oswald Mosley in 1920, she was wearing a long row of pearls. Several newspapers reported that these were part of her late mother’s estate and a wedding present of her father (well, sort of). This photo shows all three sisters, Irene and Cynthia wearing their pearls. For the rest of her short life, Cynthia was often photographed wearing her necklace as a double row.
1929
In 2013, Bonhams auctioned a Van Cleef & Arpels ruby set which was once owned by Irene Curzon, Baroness Ravensdale. The jewels had been inherited by Michael Mosley (1932–2012), Cynthia’s youngest son and Irene’s nephew. Beth posted about it in May. In the same auction Bonhams offered a short pearl necklace which was advertised as probably stemming from the long necklace Cynthia had received as a wedding gift.
But another image of Irene in the newspaper article from 1916 captured her from a different angle. The clasp of her pearl necklace is visible, and I think it matches the ruby clasp of the necklace sold at Bonhams. Also the slightly oval pearls next to the clasp are identifiable in the picture. I therefore believe that Michael Mosley had inherited not only his aunt’s ruby set, but also her pearl necklace in 1966, and it was Irene’s, not (a part of) Cynthia’s necklace, which was sold at Bonhams in 2013.
Mary’s youngest daughter Alexandra married Major Edward Metcalfe in 1925, only four months after her father’s death. Like her sister Cynthia she was wearing a long pearl necklace for her wedding, and was often photographed wearing (these or very similar) pearls during the following years. It’s impossible to say if these pearls were – as her sister’s – part of her mother’s estate, but the size and length of both necklaces seem to match.
1928
1928
Now the two rows of pearls worn by Grace, Marchioness Curzon of Kedleston in 1924 seem to be different: larger and graduated. She has worn one or both of them on various occasions, also after her husband’s death and her youngest step-daughter’s wedding in 1925.
1922
1923
1927
Grace’s portrait above is a cropped copy. The original shows an additional long strand of pearls in her lap.
She might have worn this (not graduated) strand of pearls at Cynthia’s wedding to Oswald Mosley. She’s pictured here curtsying to King Albert I and Queen Elisabeth of the Belgians who were wedding guests in 1920. When Grace Curzon was photographed wearing pearls after 1925, it seems to have always been one or two – occasionally short – graduated rows, so maybe this was (the last) one of Mary Curzon’s rows of pearls and given to Alexandra as a wedding gift in 1925.
It has been really fun to follow the discussion the past few days!
It has got me wondering about the Tiaras worn by the daughters of Lord Curzon, as the Tiaras of their mother more or less disappeared. Beth has shared pictures of Irene Curzon, the 2nd Baroness Ravensdale, wearing a Tiara, but I don't think I've ever seen pictures of the other two daughters wearing tiaras. However, I do remember reading somewhere (I think it was an article written by Deborah, Duchess of Devonshire in the Sunday Telegraph in 2002 but am not sure) that Lady Alexandra Curzon and her friends used to walk through the streets of London in the early hours of the morning in the interwar years, with their tiaras catching the light of the sun.
I'd love to know if anyone has anymore information about their jewels!
I have never seen any images of Lady Cynthia wearing a tiara. I haven't done a comprehensive check in the newspapers to see if she was ever reported to have worn a tiara.
Some how, I suspect given her husband's politics that, if she did wear one, she would have avoided being photographed with it. She received sufficient criticism for wearing her pearls and for having a privileged background etc.
Once again, I confess that I haven't done a comprehensive search in the newspapers to see if Lady Alexandra Curzon every wore a jewelled tiara.
There are two occasions for which I have images of Lady Alexandra Metcalfe wearing a "tiara". The question is whether the item seen in the photos below is actually a jewel -- or a costume jewel piece? I strongly suspect that the item is a costume jewel and probably what at the time was called a "talc tiara".
1934
Detail
July 1934
Detail
In both of the cases above, it is obvious that the same headdress (tiara) is worn. To my eye it does not look like a jewel.
I have found other references to Lady Alexandra wearing hair jewels.
From the report below, we can see that she had a turquoise and diamond hair jewel -- but what was it?
1935
Re: Curzon Daughters' Tiaras. Lady Irene, Baroness Ravensdale
When I did research on the jewels of Lady Irene Curzon, Baroness Ravensdale some time ago I posted only a small amount about her her jewels.
Now I have forgotten a great deal of the information which was in my mind at the time -- but I'll try to reconstruct it all. (Perhaps I will fail, so I ask for caution in using my comments)
I think that the tiara worn by Lady Ravensdale for the 1937 coronation, and later in the social season that year, is/was a jewel. But whether Baroness Ravensdale owned that jewel or hired it is something I don't have information on.
1937 Coronation photo
Later in the "Season" in 1937
Other head jewels worn by Irene, Baroness Ravensdale.
I suspect that most of these are costume jewels, but it will take me time to go back over my notes and cuttings to work it all out. Can I say that, I am not guaranteeing to do this soon, as my current schedule is busy.
The Baroness was noted for wearing so called "talc tiaras" and some costume jewellery. I think that the items seen below might fit into that category, but I have not double checked.
With Charlie Chaplin in 1926, wearing what appears to be a large necklace of semi-precious stones – but who knows, it might be bakelite or some other fashion jewellery.
In a photo from »Vogue«, dated 1928, with some rather spectacular looking pearls and a substantial bracelet.
And then of course her Cartier ruby necklace which Beth has already posted about – a truly marvellous and very versatile piece, as the photos Beth found prove!
A brooch/pendant and earrings which probably Beth has already posted about, though I can’t find it at the moment. The photo is dated 1948.
The pendant "designed as a carved openwork jadeite plaque of foliate motif to the circular-cut diamond surmount and demi-surround" was adapted from a clip brooch made around 1930, signed Cartier and sold at Christies in 2011. The pearl necklace was a later adaption.
The unsigned Art Deco jade and diamond earrings with "old brilliant-cut diamond scroll surmount suspending a jade plaque finely carved with floral motifs" were made in the 1920s and surprisingly not sold at Christies together with the pendant, but a year later.
Large girandole earrings, the first photo is undated, the second was published in »Tatler« in July 1928.
As Catherine the Great in a theatre performance in May 1927. The appliqués on her dress all fake of course. Her pearl necklaces could be the ones worn for the »Vogue« photo shooting in 1928. The earrings might not be costume jewellery as well.
Re: Lady Irene, Baroness Ravensdale. Other jewellery
Apologies but I am unable to do anything at all with my Photobucket account this morning. If I can access it later, I will post some images.
Very interesting Mauriz! I hadn't seen the jade earrings before.
The large girandoles are quite possibly eighteenth-century paste.
The earrings which Baroness Ravensdale was wearing when dressed as Catherine the Great were worn on numerous occasions over the years, so I think that Mauriz is correct and that these are real gem set items.
Lady Ravensdale also had a pair of long earrings set with twin drops. These also feature over a number of years.
Re: Lady Irene, Baroness Ravensdale. Other jewellery
First I have to confess that I cannot see some of the images which Mauriz posted. There are 2 images under the Girandole section which I cannot see, no matter what technique I use.
I find the girandole earrings worn by Irene, Lady Ravensdale interesting. According to the press reports from the late 1920s, she favoured large earrings.
In 1927 one report stated
Then in 1929 came this report
I wonder if that report referred to the earrings in the photo Mauriz posted?
Photo posted by Mauriz.
If so, it is possible that these were fine quality eighteenth-century paste.
1932 report on Lady Ravensdale wearing paste earrings.
I think it is also possible that the earrings seen in the photo below (which was published in 1933) are also eighteenth-century paste.
The earrings which Lady Ravensdale wore when dressed as Catherine the Great (which Mauriz posted) are, as Mauriz said most likely to be set with genuine gemstones. She wore them over a long period.
There is another set of earrings which were seen frequently. They had a set of double drops. I have no idea what gemstones they contained.
I think that the earrings seen in the images below are different from the Van Cleef and Aprels ruby earrings which were auctioned.
Another set??
I very much doubt if this set of earrings were fine jewels.
Re: Lady Irene, Baroness Ravensdale. Other jewellery
Thank you for letting me know that two of the photos were not visible. That can happen when a website doesn't allow a hotlink to its images (i.e. posting not only a link to the respective photo, but embedding the link so that the photo appears in a post). The poster often won't notice because the photo usually is in his or her browser's cache and therefore seems to appear properly in the post. I've edited mine and replaced the hotlinks with another copy of the image which I was able to upload to my image service account.
The newspaper reports are telling! (And by now I might have developed a serious crush on Irene Curzon, Baroness Ravensdale). I think you're probably right about the first pair of girandole earrings being 18th century paste – why didn't she chose to wear them with her Catherine the Great costume? – but I'm not sure if the second pair was not a rather modern 1920's or 30's (paste) re-creation. In any case, its design is surprisingly similar to Hemmerle's recent interpretations of 18th century girandole earrings (not paste, but coral, patinated copper and white gold on the left, rough tourmalines, sapphires, patinated copper and white gold on the right).
I might be mistaken of course, but the two photos you associated with the earrings worn when dressed as Catherine the Great might in fact show the double drop earrings – in both, the image from Getty, but particularly in the newspaper cutting with Captain John Jay Ide the diamond studded hoop from which the drops are suspended seems visible, as do the two drops (my first association was aquamarines).
It is a delight reading everything and seeing all the wonderful images! All the ladies had quite substantial jewellery collections and it is amazing how you have identified so many of the big pieces worn over the years.
I guess one reason why Mary Curzon’s tiaras did not reappear after her death is that they had become decidedly unfashionable by the time her daughters were grown-up and her husband married his second wife, whereas all four of them – daughters and second wife – were highly fashionable ladies.
The design of the large Boucheron tiara probably qualified for the description "high crown", which was sometimes used in contemporary newspaper reports of jewels worn to a function – a no-go for a head jewel in the 1920’s! Whoever inherited the tiara – if Lord Curzon followed the wishes of his first wife, it would have been one of his daughters, if Anne de Courcy has it right, he gave all of Mary’s tiaras to Grace – had it possibly dismantled and commissioned to use the stones for a new piece. I’m sure this would have been done discreetly. What should be noted is that by all accounts the three daughters were very generously provided for by their late mother’s family, and Grace Elvina Duggan was a wealthy woman when she married George Curzon in 1917. The New York Times reported in 1943 that she had inherited an estate of more than $18,000,000 after her first husband’s death in 1915.
Anne de Courcy writes in her book on George and Mary’s daughters that Grace Curzon had received all three of Mary’s tiaras and thus Alexandra "bought herself the tiara deemed necessary by all married women of her social standing" when she got married to Major Metcalfe in 1925. Her tiara in Beth’s post above looks very fashionable. I wonder if it could have been made of blackened steel with accentuations in diamonds?
Grace Elvina’s first husband Alfred Duggan was appointed to the Argentine Legation in London in 1905. She was presented at court and certainly attended official functions as his wife. We can therefore assume she owned at least one tiara before her second marriage to George Curzon. The shape of the tiara she was wearing in the photo below from 1922 looks though as if this piece might have been acquired or commissioned after she became Curzon’s wife.
It’s a mere speculation, particularly since the only photo I found of Mary Curzon wearing what she called in her will "a diamond tiara made by the Goldsmiths’ Company" shows only five pearls, but the size and shape of these pearls seem to match the ones in Grace’s tiara. But that is, as I said, a mere speculation.
The star tiara mentioned by Mary Curzon in her will might have been inherited by Lord Curzon’s nephew Richard together with the Viscountcy and Barony Scarsdale. The only photo *possibly* showing this piece which I’ve found so far is the one from the wedding of Richard Curzon’s step-son in 1958. *If* this is the star tiara in question, it would have been quite unfashionable in the period between the wars as well, so it was not too surprising that it didn’t reappear earlier.
I think we can relatively safely assume though that the bandeau worn by Grace Curzon in 1924 was a jewel that had belonged to Mary Curzon, although there seems to be no photo of Mary wearing it.
Lord Curzon’s mother Blanche Senhouse died in 1875. Even if the jewel was heavily reworked at a later stage, it seems unlikely to stem from the period before 1875. Curzon’s father didn’t remarry, and the only jewels he might have acquired after 1875 would have been for his daughters and daughters-in-law. He apparently gave Mary a diamond brooch and a pendant as a wedding gift. On the other hand, if the jewel had been a gift to Grace, she certainly would have kept it after her husband’s death in 1925, but Beth found photos proving that the jewel went with the Scarsdale titles and was worn by the 2nd Viscount’s wives.
Mauriz, I do think you have made another discovery in that you have connected the two above pictured tiaras which indicates one could have been redesigned to make the other, quite plausible.
The 1st Viscountess jewels could not have just disappeared, they must have been utilized whether to boast up the finances of the family or redesigned, 'they were just too statement pieces to just go unnoticed.
I wonder if another will was made by the Countess basically dislodging the first, thus allowing certain decisions to be made in her absence. But then I'm sure I read that in those times, a wife's dowry or legacies on her passing became the property of her husband.
Regards,
Dave.
Previous Message
I guess one reason why Mary Curzon’s tiaras did not reappear after her death is that they had become decidedly unfashionable by the time her daughters were grown-up and her husband married his second wife, whereas all four of them – daughters and second wife – were highly fashionable ladies.
The design of the large Boucheron tiara probably qualified for the description "high crown", which was sometimes used in contemporary newspaper reports of jewels worn to a function – a no-go for a head jewel in the 1920’s! Whoever inherited the tiara – if Lord Curzon followed the wishes of his first wife, it would have been one of his daughters, if Anne de Courcy has it right, he gave all of Mary’s tiaras to Grace – had it possibly dismantled and commissioned to use the stones for a new piece. I’m sure this would have been done discreetly. What should be noted is that by all accounts the three daughters were very generously provided for by their late mother’s family, and Grace Elvina Duggan was a wealthy woman when she married George Curzon in 1917. The New York Times reported in 1943 that she had inherited an estate of more than $18,000,000 after her first husband’s death in 1915.
Anne de Courcy writes in her book on George and Mary’s daughters that Grace Curzon had received all three of Mary’s tiaras and thus Alexandra "bought herself the tiara deemed necessary by all married women of her social standing" when she got married to Major Metcalfe in 1925. Her tiara in Beth’s post above looks very fashionable. I wonder if it could have been made of blackened steel with accentuations in diamonds?
Grace Elvina’s first husband Alfred Duggan was appointed to the Argentine Legation in London in 1905. She was presented at court and certainly attended official functions as his wife. We can therefore assume she owned at least one tiara before her second marriage to George Curzon. The shape of the tiara she was wearing in the photo below from 1922 looks though as if this piece might have been acquired or commissioned after she became Curzon’s wife.
It’s a mere speculation, particularly since the only photo I found of Mary Curzon wearing what she called in her will "a diamond tiara made by the Goldsmiths’ Company" shows only five pearls, but the size and shape of these pearls seem to match the ones in Grace’s tiara. But that is, as I said, a mere speculation.
The star tiara mentioned by Mary Curzon in her will might have been inherited by Lord Curzon’s nephew Richard together with the Viscountcy and Barony Scarsdale. The only photo *possibly* showing this piece which I’ve found so far is the one from the wedding of Richard Curzon’s step-son in 1958. *If* this is the star tiara in question, it would have been quite unfashionable in the period between the wars as well, so it was not too surprising that it didn’t reappear earlier.
I think we can relatively safely assume though that the bandeau worn by Grace Curzon in 1924 was a jewel that had belonged to Mary Curzon, although there seems to be no photo of Mary wearing it.
Lord Curzon’s mother Blanche Senhouse died in 1875. Even if the jewel was heavily reworked at a later stage, it seems unlikely to stem from the period before 1875. Curzon’s father didn’t remarry, and the only jewels he might have acquired after 1875 would have been for his daughters and daughters-in-law. He apparently gave Mary a diamond brooch and a pendant as a wedding gift. On the other hand, if the jewel had been a gift to Grace, she certainly would have kept it after her husband’s death in 1925, but Beth found photos proving that the jewel went with the Scarsdale titles and was worn by the 2nd Viscount’s wives.
Irene Curzon, Baroness Ravensdale. Other "tiaras".
Apart from the grand floral tiara Lady Ravensdale wore to the coronation in 1937 and throughout the Season that year, she was photographed wearing other tiaras. I suspect that two of these would be classified as costume pieces, although at least one of these might have contained real gemstones.
The tiaras in the images below perplexed me until I found several reports that Lady Ravensdale had ordered tiaras from Beatrice Dawson.
1933.
Beatrice Dawson created fashionable jewellery from non-traditional materials, which allowed fashionable ladies to accessorise their outfits in a playful way not possible with fine jewellery.
Ad for Beatrice Dawson jewellery in 1932.
One contemporary reaction to Beatrice Dawson's jewellery commented that it was made from "rubbish".
By late 1934 Lady Ravensdale was collaborating with Beatrice Dawson. I would love to see a photo of this "tiara"
Then in 1935 came these reports.
Throughout 1935 Lady Ravensdale was photographed wearing some very different tiaras. I have no definite proof as yet, but I suspect that these are possibly Beatrice Dawson creations. If so, then I suspect, based on the descriptions in the media, that the first one contains the topazes (or citrines according to some papers)
April 1935
1939
The second tiara, which might contain paste emeralds is this.
March 1935
There are several reasons why I think these emeralds are paste, not the least being this report from 1934.
It is possible that the emerald and diamond necklace which press reports stated provided the stones for the Dawson tiara might have been one Lady Ravensdale was reported to have worn in 1927.
Re: Irene Curzon, Baroness Ravensdale. Other "tiaras".
Love it! The best bit so far! Such a refreshing attitude! I wonder if the jewellery designer was the same Beatrice Dawson (1908–1976) who later became a renowned costume designer for stage and film.
Re: Irene Curzon, Baroness Ravensdale. Other "tiaras".
Beatrice "Bumble" Dawson, the prolific and versatile British costume designer, began her career in the theatre with a production of The Duchess of Malfi at the Haymarket Theatre in 1945. She started her film work with the 1948 postwar drama Night Beat for British Lion Film Corporation. Dawson continued working for both film and the stage throughout her career. With Trottie True (1949), the lavish costume musical about a Gaiety Girl who graduates from the stage to marriage with a peer, Dawson herself found the success that elevated her to the top rank of Britain's designers. Actress Jean Kent, a lovely redhead, was the first of the screen beauties to be showcased by Dawson's elegant costumes—the film itself is chiefly noted for its brilliant use of Technicolor.
Isn't it quite ironic the way in which we resurrect long past individuals and aspects of life, culture and jewels. If I were a descendant to any of the characters of which we highlight on here, I would be so proud to know that total strangers are indeed so fascinated over what my ancestors would have adorn themselves with. I am sure these items are monitored and may come to light in other areas without our knowledge.
Regards,
Dave.
Previous Message
Beatrice "Bumble" Dawson, the prolific and versatile British costume designer, began her career in the theatre with a production of The Duchess of Malfi at the Haymarket Theatre in 1945. She started her film work with the 1948 postwar drama Night Beat for British Lion Film Corporation. Dawson continued working for both film and the stage throughout her career. With Trottie True (1949), the lavish costume musical about a Gaiety Girl who graduates from the stage to marriage with a peer, Dawson herself found the success that elevated her to the top rank of Britain's designers. Actress Jean Kent, a lovely redhead, was the first of the screen beauties to be showcased by Dawson's elegant costumes—the film itself is chiefly noted for its brilliant use of Technicolor.
on October 28, 2020, 9:42 am
Previous Message
.JPG?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds)
.JPG?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds)
.JPG?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds)
.JPG?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds)
.JPG?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds)
.JPG?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds)
