Posy rings remained popular through the nineteenth century, the earliest examples of which bear inscriptions on the exterior, often in Latin or French, and later posies appearing on the interior of the ring, in English.  Once inscriptions on the interior became the norm, the exterior was vacant for decoration, and posy rings of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in particular bear colourful enamelling.  However, because of its highly delicate nature, most enamel work does not survive, making the present ring a prize, museum-quality example.

Elements of the decoration of this ring date back before medieval times, to the custom of Roman wedding rings.  In ancient Rome the joining of hands (known as the dextrarum iunctio, in Latin) marked the consecration of the marriage ceremony, and in turn some examples of betrothal rings appear from the second century AD onward which feature a handshake.  Eventually love rings featuring two clasped hands came to be known as fede rings, ‘fede’ meaning ‘faith’ in Italian.  Hearts became a popular decorative motif in the middle ages, and were perhaps a natural addition to the design scheme, combining the symbolism of faith and love.

Regarding the date, the inscription, the style of script, and the design of the enamelled decoration, all suggest that this ring was made in the late seventeenth. The central ornament of intertwined hearts flanked by hands is highly similar to the enamelled pictogram on the interior of a seventeenth century posy ring in the collection of the British Museum (Figure 1, AF.1409).   Though it is on the interior of the ring, the British Museum example also bears cuffed hands in white enamel and overlapping red hearts.  Not a posy but with the same motif, a ring in the Victoria and Albert museum (Figure 2, 302.1867) with a bezel composed of two similarly gloved hands flanking a crowned heart shaped diamond is inscribed with a date of 1706.

Further to the date, the motto is also the same to that on the British Museum posy ring, though pictographic, demonstrating the popularity of this particular poem at the time.  The same poem, but in written form, as on the Berganza ring, also appears on a ring cited in Dame Joan Evans’ seminal book on posy rings, English Posies and Posy Rings; she lists a ring which, engraved with the same poem, with identical spelling, dated circa 1659.

Until now this ring has remained in the same family for over two hundred and fifty years.  According to the owners it was given as a wedding ring, but never worn, which helps to explain the immaculate condition of the enamelling.  A comparison with the condition of the enamelling on the British Museum and Victorian and Albert Museum comparables further underlines the rarity of such pristine enamelling, and in turn—being of like design and vastly better condition—the importance of such a ring.

REFERENCES

Charles Oman, British Rings:  800-1914, London:  B.T. Batsford Ltd., 1974.

Diana Scarisbrick, Rings:  Jewelry of Power, Love and Loyalty, London:  Thames and Hudson, 2007.

Joan Evans, English Posies and Posy Rings, London:  Oxford University Press, 1931.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Elizabeth Rosemond Taylor was born in Hampstead, London in 1932, the daughter of two Americans of artistic disposition, her father an art dealer, her mother an actress.  She is quoted as saying, ‘My mother says I didn’t open my eyes for eight days after I was born, but when I did, the first thing I saw was an engagement ring.  I was hooked.”  And so she was, on both jewellery and matrimony.

‘Liz’, as she apparently did not like to be called, vies for the title of greatest jewellery collector of her day, a testament to which is the fact that two important diamonds bear her name.  She received rare and important jewels from her string of famous husbands (of which there were seven), as well as purchasing on her own account, being the utmost connoisseuse.   The first diamond named for the star will be sold by Christie’s—the Elizabeth Taylor diamond.  Originally known as the Krupp diamond, it was given to her by once-and-again husband, the famed actor Richard Burton, in 1968. It is a 33.19 carat Asscher cut diamond set in a platinum ring, flanked by tapered baguettes, and is conservatively estimated to fetch between 2.5 to 3.5 million US dollars.

Though most would assume that a diamond of that magnitude could not be topped, in the very next year Burton gifted his wife with what is now known as the Taylor-Burton diamond.  The pear shaped diamond was cut by the premier American jeweller, Harry Winston, with a final weight of 69.42 carats, and was set into a necklace by Cartier.  It is said that Ms Taylor would casually toss the diamond necklace into her jewel box, which resulted in a chip—proving that diamonds are not indestructible, despite the common misconception.  Not a part of the sale, today the Taylor-Burton diamond is now owned by Robert Mouawad, and after being recut to remove the chip, weighs and even 68.00 carats.

Another famous diamond in the exhibition, yet another gift from Burton, is the ‘Taj Mahal’ diamond, set in a Mughal style necklace.  This historic diamond, believed to have been cut circa 1628, was once owned by Shah Jahan, who commissioned the famed building—itself a temple to love—for which it bears the name.   Not only of rare provenance, its cut and decoration are unusual—a flat, heart-shaped diamond inscribed with the words ‘Love is Everlasting’ in Arabic script.

Not without variety, perhaps the world’s most famous pearl—La Peregrina—is also part of this epic sale.  Meaning ‘The Wanderer’ in Spanish, this pear-shaped 55.95 carat pearl is believed to have been found in the Gulf of Panama in the mid-sixteenth century, and as a part of the Spanish colonies at the time, was given to then king, Phillip II of Spain.  It is said to have been worn my Queen Mary I of England, his wife, and appears in various European royal portraits, including one by Velasquez.  It was subsequently in the possession of other illustrious persons, including Napoleon III, before finally ending up in the collection of Elizabeth Taylor.

This is just a small selection of the fabulous jewellery of Ms Taylor.  The exhibition will continue at various locations around the world, before being sold in New York City on the thirteenth of December.

Image:  The Elizabeth Taylor Diamond, copyright Christies Images

The successive generations carried on this excellence in quality and design. Alphonse’s son Georges (1862-1957) took over management of the firm in 1895, and maintained its high standards and cutting-edge designs.  He is particularly known for his Art Nouveau works which are considered to be on par with Lalique, and for which the House of Fouquet won praise at the 1900 Paris Exhibition with their jewels designed by Czech painter Alphonse Mucha.  One such collaboration was made for the famed turn-of-the-century actress Sarah Bernhardt.

The firm next took up with great mastery the Art Deco style, with the help of Georges’ son Jean, who contributed to their display at the famed 1925 Exposition, from which the movement acquired its name. Georges himself was the President of the Bijouterie-Joaillerie class at the Exhibition.  Shortly thereafter he retired from the firm, ceding full control to Jean.

The present bracelet was most likely created under Georges’ tenure of management, based on its early Art Deco style, placing its manufacture date between 1920 and 1925.  The delicacy of weight, monochrome palette, and use of fine millegraining act together to suggest this timeframe.  The graceful design harks back to Georges’ Art Nouveau jewels, yet the austerity of line and colour render the design timeless.

The house of Fabergé was founded in 1842 in St Petersburg by Gustav Fabergé (1814-1893).  Of Huguenot heritage, the family fled the Picardy region of France in the late seventeenth century due to religious persecution, eventually settling in Russia.  Though earning commissions to the court of Tsar Alexander II in 1866, the firm did not reach its status as the preeminent Russian goldsmith until after Gustav’s son Carl (born Peter Carl Fabergé, 1846-1920) undertook management of the firm.  Carl joined the firm in 1864, but due to a lengthy apprenticeship it was not until 1872 that he assumed management of the business.  In 1885 Fabergé was named Supplier to the Court of His Imperial Majesty Tsar Alexander III.

The firm’s rise to prominence within the Russian court also acted to expand its international clientele, in particular with relation to the royal courts of Europe.  More specifically, the Russian and British royal families were closely linked, being that the queen of England at the time, Queen Alexandra, consort of King Edward V, and the Tsarina of Russia, Maria Feodorovna, consort of Tsar Alexander III, were sisters, both daughters of the King and Queen of Denmark.  The two families commissioned seemingly countless gifts from Fabergé to be exchanged amongst one another, as well as distributed to prominent friends and diplomats.  Queen Alexandra and, subsequently, Queen Mary were avid admirers of the firm, and the establishment of a London branch of Fabergé in 1903 was in large part to cater to the British royal family’s commissions.

Meanwhile, the Russian collection was further enhanced (and the link with the British royal family further solidified) with the continuation of collecting by Alexander III’s successor, Tsar Nicholas II and his wife, Tsarina Alexandra Feodorovna, née Alix of Hess, granddaughter of Queen Victoria.  The most famous of the Fabergé commissions are tied to these two Tsarinas—the Imperial Easter eggs.  Fifty were ordered in all and were given by the Tsars to the Tsarinas between the years 1885 to 1917, a tradition brought to an abrupt end by the Russian Revolution.  Of these fifty, forty-two are of known whereabouts, three of which are in the British Royal Collection;  the other eight, lost during the Revolution, have yet to be recovered. Though re-established in Paris in 1925 by two of Carl’s sons, the firm never regained its former production.  The British Royal family, however, have continued to collect pre-Revolutionary Fabergé objects until the present day, which has resulted in the amassing of the largest collection of such objects in the world—over six hundred pieces.

What, one may ask, has attracted the most elite of connoisseurs to the work of Fabergé?  It is the combination of impeccable quality, ingenuity of design and—simply put—beauty.  First and foremost, every piece that came out of the Fabergé workshops was flawlessly finished, due to Carl’s exacting eye for detail and insistence on perfection;  the enamelling in particular is unparalleled, an art which has since been lost despite general advances in technology over the last century.  Second, the creativity with which the materials were approached—prizing subtle contrasts in colour and texture above intrinsic value, which was quite a revolutionary concept in the age of diamonds—, not to mention the inventiveness and intricacies of the more complex works, such as the Imperial Easter eggs, some containing complicated mechanical conceits.  Finally, the sheer prettiness of the objects, which was perhaps best expressed by art historian and critic Terence Mullaly:

‘The real key as to why Fabergé answers a widely felt need lies in the fact that [his jewels] are intensely pretty, a word of which, thanks to puritanical aesthetic theories and even what imagine to be a social conscience, we have become frightened.’

The present brooch is an ideal example of the prettiness consistently achieved by Fabergé.  This piece is typical of the firm’s jewellery, the majority of which took the form of small brooches decorated in guilloche enamelling, set with rose or old cut diamonds, and often with one central coloured stone.  In this example the translucent opalescent enamel is ingeniously laid over waved engine-turning, creating an effective illusion of moiré silk ribbon.  The diminutive size adds to its delicacy, one of the trademarks, as mentioned, of Fabergé jewels.  The asymmetrical yet balanced design imbibes the piece with a casual elegance, and the addition of rose cut diamonds highlighting the folds of the ribbon lend the perfect touch of decadence to an otherwise demure design.  Upon closely observing such sublimely beautiful objects, one can certainly understand why Fabergé pieces are such rare and enduring treasures.

The ‘Royal Fabergé’ Special Exhibition will be running at the Summer Opening of Buckingham Palace from 23 July through 3 October 2011.

http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/microsites/royalfaberge/

REFERENCES

A. Kenneth Snowman, ed., The Master Jewelers, London:  Thames & Hudson, 2002.

Caroline de Guitaut, Fabergé in the Royal Collection, London:  Royal Collection Enterprises Ltd., 2003.

Hermann Marcus, founder of Marcus & Co, was born in Germany in 1828. As a young man, before moving to New York City in 1850, he gained experience at Ellemeyer, the court jewellers in Dresden.  His first job in New York was at Tiffany & Co, though he soon moved to Black, Ball & Co.  In 1864 he started his own firm, a partnership with Theodore Starr, forming Starr and Marcus. Though highly successful the firm was dissolved in 1877, at which point Marcus returned to Tiffany.  In 1884 Marcus again left Tiffany to become a partner in the firm of Jacques and Marcus where his son William was already a partner, and in 1892, when Georges Jacques retired, the firm became known as Marcus & Co. They exhibited at the 1900 Exposition Universelle in Paris, where they showed beautiful examples of floral jewelry decorated with plique-à-jour enamel.  Their exhibit there was praised by the famed French goldsmith and jewellery historian Henri Vever, who was often a candid critic of foreign work.

The present piece is a fine example of the type of designs at which Marcus & Co excelled in producing—highly colourful jewels in the Art Nouveau style.  Marcus followed in the footsteps of his former employer, Tiffany & Co, whose designers were pioneers in using vibrant gemstones and enamelling to create beautiful and unusual color combinations.  Though often compared to the jewelry of the famous Louis Comfort Tiffany, who created a line of ‘art jewels’ for his father’s firm for which he became artistic director in 1902, Marcus’ work shows perhaps a stronger influence of Paulding Farnham, who preceded Louis in that post.  The lushness of both the gems and goldwork in combination with the impeccable enamelling is more reminiscent of the jewels Farnham displayed at the 1893 and 1900 Exhibitions, than of jewellery coming out of Louis Tiffany’s workshop, which operated independently of that of the larger firm.  Louis’ work was experimental in both technique and design, with a finish perhaps more akin to the Arts and Crafts jewelers of Great Britain, while both Farnham’s and Marcus’ jewels are marked by the precision of a long-established workshop, more in keeping with the French tradition of high jewelry-making.  Though both excellent in their own rights, Marcus’ jewelry seems to have been geared toward society elite, whereas Louis’ jewels appealed to the wealthy boheme.  But regardless of intended clientele, due to its attention to quality and design, Marcus & Co is firmly established as one of America’s most important jewelry firms, and this piece displays all for which it is renown, making it not only beautiful but a significant and important piece of jewelry history.

REFERENCES

Clare Phillips, Bejewelled by Tiffany:  1837-1987, London:  Yale University Press, 2006.

Joseph Sataloff, Art Nouveau Jewelry, Bryn Mawr, PA:  Dorrance & Company, 1984.

Vivienne Becker, Art Nouveau Jewelry, London:  Thames and Hudson, 1998.