circa 1877...natural, right?

B

Bogus

Guest
Hi, All...

I've recently fallen in love with an antique piece, varifiably circa 1870 that features and 9x7mm baroque pearl.

Just double checking: because of its age, I can assume the pearl is natural, right?

Thanks, everybody...and btw, how are you all?:)

Bogus
 
Thanks, Jeremy!

Shame on me...haven't been around for a while.:rolleyes:

If I bite the bullet on this goodie, I'll be sure to come back and post a picture...I'm totally psyched...

Bogus
 
Oh yes, please let us see if you're able to snatch it! Pics would be lovely (to tease about a natural pearl and not show it is mean :p).
 
Would love to see a photo Bogus! Also, is there a way to verify that the pearl is original to the piece, or is the design such that it would be almost impossible to have been replaced at some point?
 
Bogus said:
Well, I decided not to go for it...might have if it had it been less expensive!

Interesting provenance, though...Valeria...have you ever heard of the Zichy family?


No... but this doesn't mean there wasn't one. The spelling could be a problem too.

For some reason, I cannot see the page at Skinner (working on it, a problem with the firewall here). Let me see what they are saying about the provenance, and maybe this will give a clue or two.
 
Hmm...worked for me... anyway it's on page 20 of the jewelry sale at www.skinnerinc.com , lot 484. Very simple bracelet...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gotcha!

So... it was a button pearl:

699483_view_01.jpg


"Sale 2370 Lot 484
Antique Pearl and Diamond Bracelet, Austria Hungary, centering a semi-baroque pearl measuring approx. 9.90 x 6.90 mm, flanked by bezel-set old European-cut diamonds, approx. total wt. 3.20 cts., completed by geometric links, millegrain accents, lg. 7 1/8 in., Vienna hallmarks for 1866-1872. Provenance: See lot 480.
Estimate $4,000-6,000"

And the provenance story reads:

"Sale 2370 Lot 480
Antique Pearl and Diamond Collar/Slide, c. 1880, centering a baroque pearl measuring approx. 17.30 x 13.10 x 11.90 mm, framed by rose-cut diamond foliate motifs, further set with thirty-six old mine-cut diamonds, approx. total wt. 10.00 cts., silver-topped gold mount, completed by a detachable strand of seed pearls, 1/34 and 14 in., (pearls require restringing). Provenance: By direct descent through the great grand daughter of Maria Klara, Marquise de Ville, Graefin Demblin (1814-1868), wife of Count Zichy, a member of the Hungarian upper house. The Zichys were a noble Hungarian family of 14th century origins who were elevated to courtly rank in the 17th century. In the 19th century the members of Zichy family distinguished themselves as diplomats, historians, musicians, painters, polar explorers and collectors of Asian Art. Estimate $15,000-20,000"

As to what this other auction is for... Yay!

699482_view_01.jpg



The family and the story sure does exist (whether these pearls belonged to them, no idea - it would take a very astute Hungarian historian, or at lest someone more versed in Hungarian history, which most Romanians pass on ;) ). The style of the settings and fine diamond cut fit Vienese jewelry - a serious jewelry making hub, as rather obvious for an imperial capital. Would not pretend to know these thins better than Skinner's experts, sure that. :eek: ...
 
Yep...that's the bracelet. LOL...since it hasn't been getting oohs and aahs, maybe I'm the only one who likes it. Oh well different strokes...:p

Skinner did send me other pictures of it, with a fuller description and condition report...but I didn't know if I was "allowed" to post them.

Hee hee....different forums, different rules...hard to keep track!:D

Bogus

PS: Valeria...Rumanian? I forgot!! I'm so ashamed! Ignorant California Girl does know Bucharest from Budapest....
 
Bogus said:
Yep...that's the bracelet. LOL...since it hasn't been getting oohs and aahs, maybe I'm the only one who likes it.
....

Count one more vote - would have loved to wear such a thing as a colarbone-length necklace as well. It is so elegant :cool: Even on a cold judgement, the bracellet seems to be a better deal, definitely more mainstream wearable... etc.

The pin is obviously stryking...all in all. It would be a sample of diamond cutting and setting techniques for the place and time - which should meke it 'collectable'... which the folks who set the price estimate seem to have taken into account already :eek:

Just IMO, as usual.

There is so much 'WOW' material posted here, I just skipped any expression of it this time (silly).


Bogus said:
Ignorant California Girl does know Bucharest from Budapest....

No way! Even travel agents can't tell the difference all the time... got tickets booked wrong twice, as yet ;)
 
Nice finds! Both are beautiful pieces - the bracelet is very delicate, and the pearl and diamond collar/slide would look lovely with several strands of small pearls (from the description, it appears that there is a strand of detachable seed pearls not pictured), or on a velvet choker band.

Perle
 
Bracelet and collar jewel at Skinners

Bracelet and collar jewel at Skinners

Bogus said:
Yep...that's the bracelet. LOL...since it hasn't been getting oohs and aahs, maybe I'm the only one who likes it. Oh well different strokes...:p

..

Hi Bogus,
the bracelet is very simple, does almost have the look of Art Deco/Nevau Style, which came first at the beginning of the 20th century though...and I think in its understatement of its worth it is very elegant. The pearl does give it the special extra touch in my opinion. Still, the price is quite high with regard to the old type of cut of the diamonds, which prevents them from showing the sparkle I like in diamonds.

The second piece does look very much like "costume jewelry" (because of its size alone) to those who do not know about real jewelry of that time. Being born in Austria I know quite a bit of its history and Austria-Hungary was one monarchy at that time so I think the history about the family mentioned is probably quite correct. It is in itself a work of art even though I think in this time and age it would be no easy thing to wear it so it is admired for what it represents - only the very rich are attending this kind of ceremonious, festive occasions.
 
jerin said:
... Still, the price is quite high with regard to the old type of cut of the diamonds, which prevents them from showing the sparkle I like in diamonds.

That, I'd be ready to dispute... not just because there are enough fine cut oldies, but because the 'old style' proportions don't seem to justify the statement, IMO. Anyway, Since it comes down to matter of preference, both of us can be right and have their diamonds too :)

Either pieces of jewelry seem to be at an arm's length above discounting for the 'old cut' details... Could be wrong... Would definitely LOVE to get a fakey pieces worked like that :eek: I'd find where to wear it, no prob. :cool:

Wonder how much it would cost to have such a thing reproduced credibly today?
 
I agree with Valeria on this...I'm one who actually prefers old cut diamonds over modern sparklies...broader flash, more fire. In fact it's the old mine cuts on that slide which makes the piece especially appealing to me.

I do have a pearl question...what exactly is a 'button pearl'? Is it a baroque that's shaped like a button, or is it like a mabe that grows on the shell?

For anyone who's interested, here's Skinner's description, and more pictures of the bracelet:

484: Antique Pearl Bracelet
diamonds with very nice sparkle, but are SI/I clarity stones
bezel-set diamonds with silver-topped gold bezels, the geometric links
platinum-topped gold
very minor evidence of old solder between bezels and geometric links
wear commensurate with age
later safety chain
central element with diamonds and pearl approx. 3 1/4 in.
 

Attachments

  • Uuty1h1.jpg
    Uuty1h1.jpg
    17.5 KB · Views: 175
Last edited by a moderator:
Bogus said:
I do have a pearl question...what exactly is a 'button pearl'? Is it a baroque that's shaped like a button, or is it like a mabe that grows on the shell?

I use the attribute 'button' to describe a pear that is roundish top-down, and has a flatter side that is also covered by nacre (unlike a mabe pearl). All in all, the shape of a fat acorn. The measurements in the Skinner catalog show that in one direction the pearl is 'thinner'... it looked round in the pictures, so that led me to conclude it should be a 'button' shape.

Some button shaped pearls do have the flat side with less lustre, some may have been attached to the shell there, so there is a scruffy patch... but they are not mabes.

THIS is a typical button shape (picture below), as I understand it.

That's about all I know about what's a 'buuton' and what isn't. IMO, this is the most wearable shape for largish pearl studs ;)

s14ssbu.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
While we're on the subject... Here's a picture of an old ring of mine that I always thought was a mabe pearl. Now I'm thinking it's a 'button'....do you agree? And while I'm at it...what's your guess? FW or SW? (C.1925)

Bogus
 

Attachments

  • Ubttn01.jpg
    Ubttn01.jpg
    19.2 KB · Views: 86
You can tell better than I: I cannot see the bottom of the pearl - if it is a flat bit of mother of pearl, it is a mabe... if it is smoothly rounded and the nacre layer is not interrupted... it would be a button.

If you can see at all around the metal rosette that covers the bottom of the pearl... that's about as much as I would know to look for, other than unsetting the pearl.


Btw. I had no idea that your pear looks like this (tall)! And colorful (with orient) :cool:

Hopefully someone else will pick up the ID bit... I don't quite know what it could be. As far as I know, mabe pearls were around then. I don't think other cultured pearls would have been that large yet. Basically, I am wondering myself what it is ... wishing I could see the thing in flesh, as usual...


[edited to add a possible caveat to the above: earlier still, some natural mabes or irregular button pearls were finished with rounded MOP base... like a dublet of sorts. So the back of a really OLD mabe could be roundish... but MOP nonetheless. 'Seen this only twice, on much smaller pearls, dated around 1900... but natural pearls are casually 'recycled' into updated settings, so 1925... is not that far]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top