Da mystery of da big bling bling

[jerin]

La Regente

La Regente

Hi Zeide and Caitlin,

I have seen La Regente in several books. It strikes me just now that famous pearls are natural pearls but are they natural salt water pearls or could they be natural freshwater pearls as well? There seem to be a lot of famous pearls that are actually freshwater and not saltwater naturals.

Is there a certain way to determ which pearl is of the one or the other kind if You don?t go by luster and orient alone?

I think the Boucheron necklace is too big. Instead of being able to admire every part of the different jewels, I get just overwhelmed. I do not think that the Cartier necklace is beautiful either. Too much.....

But often the very rich who can afford that kind of jewelry do not necessary have the good taste such a piece of jewelry deserves!
Inge

 

[Zeide Erskine]

Hi Inge,

In case of the named individual pearls, there is usually a certain story of their discovery (often untrue) that identifies them either as freshwater or saltwater. In natural pearls that makes no difference, though with a slight bias in value for freshwater pearls. All this freshwater/saltwater distinction is a rather new phenomenon that only dates back to the first Chinese pearl wave where the pearl plating companies had to defend their turf against the first cultured solid pearls offered at dumping prices. Biwa pearls were also (mostly) solid nacre, but they did not try to compete price-wise. Actually Biwas cost more than akoyas. So all kinds of misinformation was disseminated to discredit the Chinese pearls. Throughout history, freshwater pearls were held in higher esteem than saltwater pearls which one can already tell from their scientific names. The Latin word "margarita" means saltwater or ordinary pearl because typically pearl-bearing shells yielded several pearls at a time and the word "unio" means freshwater pearl and describes their uniqueness for being typically more symmetrical and occurring only one at a time. Of course that only goes for natural pearls, I do realize that it is the other way around in cultured pearls.

Zeide

 

[Caitlin]

Hi Inge
I saw that necklace in my dreams last night. In just thinking about the fact it is a brand new assemblage- read the links in this thread- I surmised that all the parts seem to have come from that Christie?s auction last November- at least looking at the descriptions of the lots- it looks like it, even if there were 3 buyers-

It really makes me speculate about who could buy the parts at such over-inflated prices -compared to auction expectations- and then assemble them into this - piece.


"Ostentatious-marked by, or fond of, conspicuous or vainglorious and sometimes pretentious display"- Merriam Webster online http://www.m-w.com/

The thesaurus in Word says:
Pretentious, affected, showy, brazen, flamboyant, grandiose, the opposite of modest.

Now who in 2006 would commission the semi-destruction of so many well-known , oldish, and expensive pieces to construct it? Or did the integrity of each piece remain as it was incorporated into this?

For what reason was this piece commissioned? Who would feel appropriate wearing it for what occasion? Who would admit to buying it or owning it? What does this say about the person would wear it?

Who could wear it? It is a very large piece- about good for standing for a portrait- I think it would be hard to wear to the opera- maybe a court if you don?t sit. It would roll into your face if you bowed and disappear between your legs if you curtsey with it on- and if you are the one wearing it- presumably on a throne, and sitting, much of it will be bunched in your lap and La Regente will be on your navel.

Boucheron is perfection as designed. What kind of ego thinks it can do better? Did this piece succeed? Is it better than the components? It seems loud even by the royal European standards 150 years ago. And yet someone just decided to create it this year. And a portrait of the finished piece is out.

How in the world did Jennifer get ahold of that picture and who is she? Do we have a mystery on the Pearl-Guide Forum? Or a scoop? Copy this thread onto your personal , if the subject interests you, because the whole thing may have to come down

 

[Zeide Erskine]

Hi Caitlin,

I like the "semi-destruction of famous jewels" imagery. That hits the nail on the head and leaves still the mystery of the fourth piece that looks like a sister to the sapphire corsage ornament/stomacher only with a center pearl that fits the description of La Reine de Perles a named round from the French crown jewels that went missing, I think, under Napoleon III and is rumoured to have surfaced when the Youssupoff jewels were found in the silver swans and then immediately disappeared again with some recent gossip about somebody in Russia having it. Intriguing indeed. Good taste? No.

With this thread being back up I may add that La Reine des Perles (The Queen Pearl) is an American freshwater pearl from New Jersey.

Zeide

 

[Caitlin]

After all my changes, I decided to put this back up with all the caveats. It is too good to miss

 

[Slraep]

What a way for historical jewels to end up!
Sad, sad, sad. Done recently??? Why, for the love of JEWELS?

Depending on who commissioned this thing, take your pick of the
two names I have given it.

1. The Maximus in Minimus Taste , necklace
2. The "Yo, Blind Yo Eyes Owt Wif Dis". necklace


Slraep

 

[effisk]

After all my changes, I decided to put this back up with all the caveats. It is too good to miss

Hi there

I just discovered that thread. fascinating.
What was jenifer saying in her first post? It looks like you edited the text.

Was the picture originally "hotlinked" from a different website?

 

[Caitlin]

Hi Ef
Actually, jennifer's text is still there, en toto. I added the caveats in my edit. This picture was not properly referenced or linked. I was here all alone that weekend- everyone else was in China or something and it was literally my first week as a moderator. I did the conservative thing and took it down after jennifer didn't offer any sources. But it has haunted my dreams ever since. I sent it to all the other moderators and asked opinions and no one had an opinion on what should be done with it. I took that to mean I could proceed as I wished. I let it lie for months, then I decided to bring the thread back without the photo. That was pointless, so I put the photo back in.
I am hoping we can solve the mystery of where the photo came from. I would so happily give credit where credit is due. Meanwhile copy the photo into your computer, if this mystery intrigues you, because admin coud take it down anytime.

 

[effisk]

Hi Caitlin

So Jennifer is basically asking for background info about the necklace.
I am very impressed by Zeide's ability to find the origin of parts of the necklace, even with the poor resolution of the photo.

I'm very curious to know why these jewels have been arranged like that, and who did it (maybe Jennifer is just good at photoshop... )

 

[Caitlin]

Hi Ef
Join the speculation. I am hoping that the far reach of this forum will stir some recognition in some corner of the universe. If Zeide has not pieced together the correct story, with those auction references, then the real story must be equally interesting and superinflated.

I would really love to see it on someone for perspective. My imagination tells me it has to have been assembled for an occasion, yet I can't imagine what occasion woud merit such an assemblage.

If proper recognition is given to each gem and important pearl in this piece, it would tell the history of the human race. Maybe it is a piece destined for the world's most prestigious Museum? As a teaching piece? A burial piece? Well, I have had those thoughts and more. I could go on.

I am sure that its current assembled state is inherently unstable and it will not be that long before it is reduced back to components.

There is a little fiction book called, The Love of Stones by Tobias Hill - http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0312311311/sr=8-1/qid=1155138166/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-9147963-0719133?ie=UTF8 (used. $.03, new $.50) a great little summer read - that traces a much smaller assemblage over several centuries and continents.

Anyone else read it?

 

[Slraep]

I would really love to see it on someone for perspective. My imagination tells me it has to have been assembled for an occasion, yet I can't imagine what occasion woud merit such an assemblage.

I must admit that I am wondering just where the big rosettes will fall if the necklace is worn sans clothes.

Slraep

 

[Zeide Erskine]

Hi Slraep,

If the person wearing it is of medium stature (1.60m or 5'7") the metal bits will be a bra and the swag will go to the "bikini line." As such, it may have been designed for a modern Salome to deliver a very special dance. The natural pearls would make an Arab buyer a good guess.


Caitlin,

I read the love of stones. It was a nice read. The main impact it had on me, though, was that I now call all three-stone-diamond rings Mitsubishis.

Zeide

 

[Slraep]

Or perhaps a modern day Cleopatra dancing for her Marcus Antonius.

Slraep

 

[effisk]

Or perhaps a modern day Cleopatra dancing for her Marcus Antonius.

Slraep

Let's just hope she doesn't make any stupid bet...

 

[CLICLASP]

I happen to have in hands the Christies 'review of the season where the Regente was sold, I could not resist sharing with all of you!
Enjoy

 

[Caitlin]

From here on is another thread I combined over here for ease of reference.

I wish we could find out what it is and maybe even who owned it. I think this was an auction picture so it might have changed hands in the last couple of years, maybe. Maybe it is faux and made for a movie role like the mata hari.....

DA BIG BLING BLING!!

 

[Caitlin]

Actually the large pendent pearl is a well known pearl with a name, and if tis one is a copy, it is as perfect as the original, so I am tempted to think it is the original. Now let me think what the name was..........

 

[Caitlin]

Here it is. It is called La Regente

La Regente pearl, the fifth largest pearl known to exist, and a diamond crown are seen before their auction at a preview at Christie's auctioneers in London on Tuesday. The pearl, originally from the French crown jewels and a gift from Emperor Napoleon I to his second wife, Marie-Louise, in 1811, is expected to fetch ?300,000-480,000 while the crown is expected to fetch ?2.3-3.3 million at an auction in Geneva in November. — Reuters

Here is a link to some great famous pearl photos

 

[GemGeek]

I love the La Regente photo with the crown in the background. They both look spendid.

As for the "over the top" necklace, I picture it on a dowager. Remember Margaret Dumont who played the stuffy older lady to the silliness of Graucho Marx? I loved her. She would be perfect with that necklace spread over her bosom!

And thanks to everyone for the extra birthday wishes. I'm milking the birthday lunches and dinners. It will be weight watchers for me before too long.

Hugs to Everyone!
Blaire

 

[Valeria101]

Da big bling bling might belonged to the Romanian royal family.

No..... It is new. I believe it was composed by the latest buyer of the Regente as a concoction of a treasury-worth of antique jewels including other large pearls. None of those ever passed by this country as much as I know. The picture appeared in the press allot. And I sort of remember seeing it posted in color on this forum somewhere as well.

That thing looks like a belly dancer's bodice