Posted 9 years ago
Bluboi
(103 items)
An absolutely glorious, beautifully crafted necklace! An amethyst, enamel and fourteen karat gold necklace set with rectangular-cut amethysts interposed with green and black enamel Celtic knot links, terminating in a briolette-cut amethyst drop. Length: 16.5 in.; Drop L: 1.5 in. No marks other than 14K on the clasp.
Now the questions:
- It was listed as Arts & Crafts, but I don't think so. What do the CW experts say.
- More interestingly, here is a Tiffany bracelet with the same Celtic enamel links and a clasp that looks exactly the same as my necklace.
http://www.bidsquare.com/l/7/art-deco-jadeite-and-enamel-bracelet-tiffany
I attended a lecture by an expert in Tiffany and she said the jewelry was always marked Tiffany. Soooo, given the findings and similar clasp, should I just assume that these were available to a variety of jewelers for use?
Regardless, it is a splendid necklace!
Gorgeous - I would say fine jewellery rather than Arts & Crafts. I would be wary of a dogmatic statement like "ALL Tiffany is marked". There are any number of reasons something could slip through.
The quality of design and manufacture is outstanding, so if you apply the duck test (If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck), then this probably is a Tiffany necklace.
Agree with Paul! The duck saying is one of my favorite :-)
The jade like green enamel, too, is absolutely same!
The Oural amethysts (think they are as they seem to have this blue hue...) are outstanding !
Does Tiffany make authentifications from their archives as Cartier?
OAS, I'm not sure high end jewelers commissioned finished pieces from Asia, They rather mounted carved stones from there (as the jade panels on the link) in asian or art deco inspired designs.
I have reached out to the Tiffany expert, who initially responded but then has gone silent. BTW, Tiffany bought the bracelet... The bracelet is listed as Art Deco, and it clearly has an Asian influence given the jadeite stones. I have reviewed as many Tiffany books as I can and no similar examples. It would be lovely to find the source of the enameled knots. I wonder if Tiffany bought parts from jewelry manufacturers who were able to sell the same parts to others. I would think Tiffany would want to keep control of design elements in its lines. Given the enamel panels, the chain and the clasp are all the same as the bracelet, it bends me towards a Tiffany piece. The expert, on the other hand, was emphatic that all ?Tiffany was marked.... Perhaps I will try to email her again.
Its a Duck, and it ain't no Peking Duck. A rare American green and purple duck!
It has to be from the same period as the bracelet, and I can't see that Tiffany would've bought in findings, they had a major factory and foundry, and were famous for their glass and enamels.
This will be from the same period as the bracelet, and considering what that sold for with its damaged enamels, this is a major find.
I'm sure it will be just a matter of time before it is positively identified, hopefully from the Tiffany archives.
absolutly lovely
One difference is the Tiffany bracelet clasp is marked 18 ct and my necklace clasp is marked 14 ct.
Hi Bluboi, I wouldn't be concerned by that, 30 seconds on Google confirms LCT was using 14k gold:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/89931323780984548/
https://www.1stdibs.com/id-j_133546/
Demented garnets! Gorgeous brooch!
Perhaps the "Correct" terminology would be to say "Attributed to Louis Comfort Tiffany", because this is very likely to be from LCT's workshop, which would explain why Tiffany paid so much for the bracelet.
Here's a few more notable unsigned attributions:
http://www.tademagallery.com/ArtNouveau/LOUIS%20C.TIFFANY.htm
http://www.bonhams.com/auctions/21632/lot/24/
http://www.bonhams.com/auctions/18382/lot/73/
https://www.skinnerinc.com/auctions/2471/lots/454
http://www.bonhams.com/auctions/21011/lot/259/
Interesting to see all of the unsigned pieces. At a minimum, the statement "Tiffany always signed its pieces" isn't correct (unless all of these attributions are incorrect!).
What a great posting its been extremely interesting, thanks to all who have parcipitated. I'm sure there'll be more to say, I just want to say how much I'm enjoying it.
Many thanks oldandsilly, I do like Bernard Instone, I try to collect his jewellery whenever I get the chance, in opinion he was a great designer/ maker, I have great respect for him, he led a very interesting life, it's a shame nobody as ever written a book about him.
EAT YOUR HEART OUT!
-----------------------------
I was researching something the other day in the 1995 Miller's Art Nouveau & Art Deco Buyer's Guide, (pg382) and came across the Tiffany cypriote glass necklace that I linked to above as an unsigned piece of Tiffany, here's the link again:
http://www.tademagallery.com/ArtNouveau/LOUIS%20C.TIFFANY.htm
The same necklace passed through Phillips back in the 90's, estimated at GBP£1000-1400, here's a link to that entry:
http://theholygrail.com/images/Tiffany.jpg
Now where did I put the key to my time machine?
Well, you know, it is just glass, no diamonds or anything.... Hah! It is well worth opening the photo on Tadema as you can see the glass and setting! Amazing!
Don't you hate those sellers who put little colored squares representing the price? Why can't they just tell you how much they want for it!
Thank you for the links!