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.
Which came first?
Posted by Beth on July 17, 2021, 7:08 pm
I recently saw the image below of some jewels displayed at the 1862 exhibition in Paris.
Two jewels caught my eye.
The first is the diamond, pearl and ruby necklace.
Detail
I wonder which came first? The Cromartie necklace or the one in the exhibition?
The Cromartie necklace (below) was offered for sale by Christie's in 2007.
According to Christie's the Cromartie necklace was made in 1849.
If Christie's information is correct then the one displayed in Paris in 1862 is a copy (but not identical) of the Cromartie necklace.
Re: Which came first?
Posted by Dmitry on July 17, 2021, 9:33 pm, in reply to "Which came first?"
Looking at the illustration, it seems just a tad different. The "over and under" patterns of the lines of diamonds are different. In the actual necklace, for instance, both of the ribbons on either side of the central one go under the line of rubies. In the illustration there is one over and one under, as there is in the central element while the necklace shows the line of diamonds over the ruby line. The illustration doesn't have pearls mounted along the line of rubies, either.
The illustration may not be accurate, of course, or there were simply two necklaces of a slightly different style.
D
Previous Message
I recently saw the image below of some jewels displayed at the 1862 exhibition in Paris.
Two jewels caught my eye.
The first is the diamond, pearl and ruby necklace.
Detail
I wonder which came first? The Cromartie necklace or the one in the exhibition?
The Cromartie necklace (below) was offered for sale by Christie's in 2007.
According to Christie's the Cromartie necklace was made in 1849.
So far I haven't seen any proof that the necklace worn by the Queen of Hanover or Thyra, Duchess of Cumberland is the one exhibited in the 1862 Exhibition. Ursula does not provide any proof of that, nor, as far as I can see, does she say that.
Ursula is to be congratulated on finding the images of the Queen of Hanover and Thyra, Duchess of Cumberland and noting the similarity of their necklace to the one exhibited in 1862. But is the Hanover necklace the one exhibited in 1862?
When did Marie, Queen of Hanover acquire her necklace? That might help solve the mystery. Ursula does not have a date for her photo of Queen Marie wearing the jewel. Of course a date for the photo does not prove when the Queen acquired the necklace, but it would help in putting together a time line.
When Princess Thyra of Denmark married in 1879 among her gifts were a necklace and bracelet from the Queen of Hanover described as being of rubies, diamonds and pearls. Perhaps the necklace was the one under discussion.
The Cromartie necklace proves that the design was not unique and that, at least two, if not three, such necklaces existed.
The Christie's site gives a date of 1849 for the creation of the Cromartie necklace/tiara. I wonder if they had access to papers proving that, or if that,like the legend that Marie Antoinette gave the pearls to the Countess of Sutherland is based on family belief? If the date of 1849 for the creation of the Cromartie necklace is correct, then the 1862 necklace is a copy of an existing design.
Re: Hanover (edited)
Posted by 992234177 on July 20, 2021, 6:33 am, in reply to "Re: Hanover (edited)"
You are right I misread the article . I took the ‘it’ to refer to Queen Marie’s not Beaugrants.
Slightly off topic but is there any evidence that the pearls were indeed owned by Marie-Antoinette. It’s odd that the Sutherlands were so open about how they gained them, after all, she did have a daughter and a Brother-in-law. I’ve not heard that they were given as gifts.
The earliest reference in the UK press that I have recorded of Marie Antoinette having given the pearls to the Countess of Sutherland (later Duchess) is 1907. (That is based on the initial research I did on the necklace when I identified who owned the necklace)
But, I am sure that, if I searched, I would find earlier references. I think that the family's version is of very long standing.
As I see it, the issue is that no one can prove or disprove the reference to Marie Antoinette having given the pearls to her friend, the Countess of Sutherland.
If there was definite proof, I am sure that the necklace would have sold at the Christie's auction, but it didn't. If people are to pay a premium based on the provenance of a jewel, most want tangible proof. Without documentation or a clear chain of inheritance back to an original jewel, purchasers are wary. I am sure that the Earl of Cromartie would have been able to prove the length of time his family had owned the necklace etc, but the link to Marie Antoinette is the weak link in establishing a value for the jewel.
Some people have said to me privately that they do not credit the story because of the nature of the black pearls, meaning that the pearls are marked and not of uniform quality and shape. I do not subscribe to that opinion. At the time of Marie Antoinette, black pearls were a rarity and any, of any description, were very valuable. Even today with the cultured pearl industry in black pearls, it is extremely rare to find an unmarked black pearl, and the price of necklaces made of black pearls with minimal marks is astronomical (although colour is also a factor)
I totally agree Dmitry. These are two similar but different necklaces.
Previous Message
Looking at the illustration, it seems just a tad different. The "over and under" patterns of the lines of diamonds are different. In the actual necklace, for instance, both of the ribbons on either side of the central one go under the line of rubies. In the illustration there is one over and one under, as there is in the central element while the necklace shows the line of diamonds over the ruby line. The illustration doesn't have pearls mounted along the line of rubies, either.
The illustration may not be accurate, of course, or there were simply two necklaces of a slightly different style.
D
Previous Message
I recently saw the image below of some jewels displayed at the 1862 exhibition in Paris.
Two jewels caught my eye.
The first is the diamond, pearl and ruby necklace.
Detail
I wonder which came first? The Cromartie necklace or the one in the exhibition?
The Cromartie necklace (below) was offered for sale by Christie's in 2007.
According to Christie's the Cromartie necklace was made in 1849.
on July 17, 2021, 7:08 pm
.JPG?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds)
Previous Message