A comparison of two Cartier jewels
While we have finished the topic of Wallace Simpson, Duchess of Windsor for the moment, her collection of jewelry was too important and groundbreaking to be ignored.
Not every innovation is more fabulous than what came before. But you will be the judge.
I have chosen two items that drew my attention in recent days.
I didn't tell you, but I just got back from a whirlwind trip to Paris. While there, I managed to squeeze in a visit to the jaw-dropping exhibition called "Islam and Cartier", which you really should know more about and if possible, see for yourselves. One of the most striking features of the jewelry on display was the quality of the workmanship. I actually took 'photos of some pieces, showing both front and back.
Here is a stomacher made by Cartier circa 1910. If you remember a while back, we wrote about these enormous jewels that covered a ladie's bodice, down to below her belly-button.
I apologise for the quality of pictures taken by my 'phone in a dark museum. I hope they will nevertheless convey how superb this jewel is. A true masterpiece.
There was quite a throng gathered around this item, so I walked around to the back of the display, equally lit as the front and was astonished to see how truly beautiful it was from that angle too. The gems were perfectly set in a perfect mount. Not a speck of metal or stone out of place, lacking or superfluous. As someone who sees the back of a lot of jewelry, I know how messy it can be, but this Cartier jewel was immaculate. Furthermore, as was popular at the time, the diamonds were pave set - like one continuous sea of gems. Again, the masterful technique and care lavished on this work is something that we simply do not dream of in today's hurried, profit-focused world. These makers cared a lot about the end-product and it's quality.
Finally, as was the custom in antique jewelry of the Belle Epoque era (pre World War I), diamonds were set in platinum. In this metal, they were deemed to show up better in the gas or candle lighting illluminating grand dinners and balls at night.
Now, take a look at another great jewel, also made by Cartier, but almost half a century later, in 1945. This was directly after the Second World War. Perhaps materials were still scarce and the catalogue of Wallace Simpson's jewelry tells us that it was made by cannibalising two brooches, two pairs of earrings and a ring. Wouldn't it be great if we had pictures of those too?
Just for fun, I will mention that in 1987, this necklace, lot 51 in the Duchess of Windsor jewelry auction, sold for US$403 333.00. The estimate was in Swiss Francs: SF25000-35000.00 and in Swiss Francs it sold for Six hundred and five thousand...Today, it would be well in the millions, mainly because of the provenance, but also because of who made it.
Can we imagine that both this bib necklace and the stomacher above came from the same company?
Firstly, while the diamonds of the stomacher seem to melt into the white platinum, the gems of the bib necklace stand out in stark contrast to the yellow gold. Wallace was known to favour yellow gold and was instrumental in reviving it in fashion.
The contrast between the white and yellow gold is stark. The color difference continues. The earlier stomacher is a continuum of diamonds set with a tastefully placed blue sapphire - the gems of a homogenous deep blue. The Simpson bib contains many gems - bright red rubies, emeralds and diamonds. Some larger than others. Each gemstone is set alone in a kite-shaped reserve with well-defined borders. Each gemstone is alone and far removed from any of its neighbours. In fact, the eye somewhat loses track of the pattern as it hops the distance from gem to gem. This makes the difference in gem sizes all the more jarring and puts an end to the eye seeing any sort of continuity or pattern in the item.
This might have been groundbreaking at the time, but to my eye, it simply does not work in the same obvious way of the stomacher.
We are soon approaching the time when Retro jewelry will celebrate its 100th birthday and be considered antique. What will future generations say about it?
What do you think?
POSTSCRIPT: This blog post was written a while back. In retrospect, I should have compared those Cartier jewels to what is being produced by the same company today. Ubiquitous, cookie-cuttter, so-called 'love'. What we see is production-line, mass-produced and far from individual or unique. How low can you go?
Questions and comments: Please email antiques@brendaginsberg.com
Find jewelry on www.brendaginsberg.com