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.

The destruction of jewels Posted by kat max on February 12, 2021, 12:45 pm I was browsing through my copy of Hidden Gems by Sarah Hue-Williams last night and on page 117 I noticed a lovely necklace that looked familiar from an old auction catalogue I had seen in the past. I was subsequently horrified to read that when this was sold in May 1996 the buyer straight after paying for the piece (875,000 pounds) and while still in the auction room took out a penknife. With this he started prying out the rubies in front of the horrified Christie's staff. He'd only purchased the necklace for those stones despite its surpub quality. His only comment on this when asked why he was doing this: "But you must know. It was only ever about the rubies" How many other stories like this do board members know?

Re: The destruction of jewels Posted by Beth on February 12, 2021, 7:53 pm, in reply to "The destruction of jewels" I think it is highly likely at many significant jewels have been mined for their stones, particularly those with very fine rubies. I know that Vincent Meylan has published on how some of the rubies of the Duchess of Edinburgh (Grand Duchess Marie) parure were dismantled and substitutes inserted. Queen Mary, as we know dismantled a number of jewels and created new ones with the gemstones. For example the tiara given to her by Queen Victoria and the Ladies of England tiara. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother had Queen Victoria's Regal circlet dismantled to create her 1937 coronation crown. In more recent times QEII repurposed the rubies in the necklace the people of Burma gave her (plus the diamonds in the Nizam tiara) in order to create her modern ruby tiara.

Re: The destruction of jewels Posted by kat max on February 13, 2021, 7:58 am, in reply to "Re: The destruction of jewels" Previous Message I know that Vincent Meylan has published on how some of the rubies of the Duchess of Edinburgh (Grand Duchess Marie) parure were dismantled and substitutes inserted. I have read that this ruby tiara Bolin is no longer intact. Such a pity that historical pieces like this with great provenance can be destroyed so easily. Barbarians can be found everywhere....

Re: The destruction of jewels Posted by Beth on February 13, 2021, 8:11 pm, in reply to "Re: The destruction of jewels" The tiara seems to have been dismantled after it was initially sold and the faceted rubies originally in the tiara were replaced by cabochon rubies -- so the rubies were mined. Vincent Meylan has done the most work on this. Parts of the tiara were later auctioned (with the cabochon rubies). For photos of that see Christie's at https://www.christies.com/lot/lot-an-important-suite-of-ruby-and-diamond-4734739/? and click on the Lot Essay section to see Vincent Meylan's item. Another way of viewing his work on this item is to see his Instagram post of 3 May 2019. See https://www.instagram.com/p/Bw_eBM5BvWn/ Oops!! I should have said that there is information in a couple of Vincent Meylan's books - for example the one of the jewels of Queens and the one on Christie's. I hope I haven't overlooked any others.

Re: Bolin Tiara of GD Marie Alexandrovna Posted by Juscha on February 13, 2021, 11:23 pm, in reply to "Re: The destruction of jewels" The end of this tiara is a sad example but not surprising. I suppose the tiara was not wearable any more. It was unusual from the first place. What happened to the necklace? Previous Message The tiara seems to have been dismantled after it was initially sold and the faceted rubies originally in the tiara were replaced by cabochon rubies -- so the rubies were mined. Vincent Meylan has done the most work on this. Parts of the tiara were later auctioned (with the cabochon rubies). For photos of that see Christie's at https://www.christies.com/lot/lot-an-important-suite-of-ruby-and-diamond-4734739/? and click on the Lot Essay section to see Vincent Meylan's item. Another way of viewing his work on this item is to see his Instagram post of 3 May 2019. See https://www.instagram.com/p/Bw_eBM5BvWn/ Oops!! I should have said that there is information in a couple of Vincent Meylan's books - for example the one of the jewels of Queens and the one on Christie's. I hope I haven't overlooked any others.

It was remarkably modern I think and not really suited to MA at all Posted by Janet on February 13, 2021, 11:29 pm, in reply to "Re: Bolin Tiara of GD Marie Alexandrovna" The disappearance of MA's sapphire parure is a true tragedy.

Fascinating Posted by Janet on February 12, 2021, 10:56 pm, in reply to "The destruction of jewels" There was an interesting post about this issue on Instagram this week. https://www.instagram.com/p/CK92YX_FLFq/ "A pre-war Cartier London bracelet described by Sotheby’s as "A Highly Important Ruby and Baguette Diamond Bracelet" bought by Jacques Arpels of Van Cleef & Arpels in 1964 for $70,000 (Seventy Thousand US Dollars 1964 Currency). To-day that would be around $600,000 cash equivalent but around $70,000,000 in S&P return. The bracelet is a wonderful example of how Van Cleef & Arpels was able to assemble superb modern jewels by acquiring excellent old jewels set with perfectly matched ranges of colored stones, as in this ruby bracelet. Certainly, the stones were removed for a new creation. Without the rubies the bracelet was worth at 1964 trade value around $15,000. When I started my jewelry career in 1969, I saw many signed jewels broken up and was guilty in 1974 of breaking up a pair of impressive Cartier London baguette diamond formalized ribbon bow clips belonging to Princess Joan Aly Khan. Each stone weighed exactly 30 points and the same size therefore yielded a pair of significant baguette diamond platinum line bracelets, which sold to a Greek shipowner. The clips had 50 carats of diamonds with a then trade value of $300 per carat. Fortunately, I was introduced to Jacques Arpels during a Sotheby’s sale in 1977- they don’t make them like that any longer. Unassuming, charming and discreet."

Re: The necklace Posted by Juscha on February 13, 2021, 11:17 pm, in reply to "The destruction of jewels" Horrid! We all are aware about the fact of reusing the stones of out-of-fashion jewellery, but an example of vandalism (sorry, vandals!) like that is shocking. But I get an impulse to take the rest with a "you don´t need that anymore, don´t you, dear" at the children´s birthday party to safe the paper and the ribbons for better use... May I ask for some information about the beautiful necklace? I am a lay person but to me it looks like something 1910 and maybe Chaumet? The price in 1996 indicates a well-known jeweller and an interesting provenance. Previous Message I was browsing through my copy of Hidden Gems by Sarah Hue-Williams last night and on page 117 I noticed a lovely necklace that looked familiar from an old auction catalogue I had seen in the past. I was subsequently horrified to read that when this was sold in May 1996 the buyer straight after paying for the piece (875,000 pounds) and while still in the auction room took out a penknife. With this he started prying out the rubies in front of the horrified Christie's staff. He'd only purchased the necklace for those stones despite its surpub quality. His only comment on this when asked why he was doing this: "But you must know. It was only ever about the rubies" How many other stories like this do board members know?

I think slightly differently Posted by Janet on February 13, 2021, 11:28 pm, in reply to "Re: The necklace" I have no issue with people adapting or even breaking up jewels (realistically most grandiose jewellery held in private collections are very rarely worn these days and languish in vaults so it doesn't make a great deal of difference) provided the items are properly documented and photographed for posterity so that future generations can appreciate them. If you think for example of the Cambridge sapphire parure, what is most frustrating thing about that whole episode is that good quality pictures and a historical narrative regarding a beautiful and important collection of jewellery do not exist in the public domain. The Duke of Kent was perfectly entitled to sell it but I do think he owed it to history to share details of the piece. If you look at the Vanderbilt Marlborough tiara for example, which was broken up because styles changed and the owner sold it and the purchaser bought it specifically to break it up (see link below), at least we have good quality pictures to appreciate its style and beauty. http://www.thecourtjeweller.com/2015/10/saturday-sparkler-marlborough-boucheron.html

Re: The necklace Posted by kat max on February 14, 2021, 4:27 pm, in reply to "Re: The necklace" Previous Message May I ask for some information about the beautiful necklace? I am a lay person but to me it looks like something 1910 and maybe Chaumet? The price in 1996 indicates a well-known jeweller and an interesting provenance. The book said there was no makers mark on the necklace which was dated c1905 belle epoque with the stones set in platinum. The rubies were assessed as being the finest Burmese. These types of rubies are not easily found any more which is probably what sealed the fate of this necklace. The necklace was a real work of art and the work of a master. Its horrible to see such skill destroyed so easily.

Re: The destruction of jewels Posted by Juscha on February 13, 2021, 11:46 pm, in reply to "The destruction of jewels" It was not someone with a penknife - but the recut of the Wittelsbach Blue, a stone with a history of several hundert years hurts. The Beau Sancy worn for at least 200 years by prussian Queen had gone a similar way, I guess. We will not recognised it again. On the other hand: It never was the function of high jewellery to not be used. They were destroyed and "renewed" by all times. As Philippe d´Orleans offered as a special favour to Sophie of Hannover when she was visiting her niece, his wife Elisabeth Charlotte. Or the King of Prussia when in need of money for war by breaking some parts of jewels not needed by his own hands. Previous Message I was browsing through my copy of Hidden Gems by Sarah Hue-Williams last night and on page 117 I noticed a lovely necklace that looked familiar from an old auction catalogue I had seen in the past. I was subsequently horrified to read that when this was sold in May 1996 the buyer straight after paying for the piece (875,000 pounds) and while still in the auction room took out a penknife. With this he started prying out the rubies in front of the horrified Christie's staff. He'd only purchased the necklace for those stones despite its surpub quality. His only comment on this when asked why he was doing this: "But you must know. It was only ever about the rubies" How many other stories like this do board members know?

« Back to index