Maine Antique Digest April 2015

100 / 229

28-B Maine Antique Digest, April 2015
- FEATURE -
Two auction houses on the East Coast held moderately priced
sales in advance of Valentine’s Day. Sotheby’s Important Jew-
els auction, held in New York City on February 5, included
jewelry with lower estimates than its Magnificent Jewels or Noble
Jewels sales would contain. (The low end of Sotheby’s offerings is
$5000.) The 388-lot auction realized $9,677,501, which seems like a
lot but actually pales in comparison to the 414-lot Magnificent Jew-
els sale on December 9, 2014, that achieved $44,151,251.
Freeman’s held its 329-lot winter estate jewelry auction on Feb-
ruary 9 in Philadelphia, a sale with even more moderately estimated
pieces that saw results in the hundreds and thousands of dollars.
Antique and vintage examples from this sale of affordable jewelry
accompany this column.
Sotheby’s
Catharine Becket, vice president and specialist in the jewelry
department at Sotheby’s, New York City, offered her thoughts on
the state of the market, and how this sale in particular illustrates
the strengths and weaknesses contained within it. She said, “I
think what this sale proved to me is that the market is very strong
but increasingly selective, and I think that’s something that we’re
seeing across categories. It’s not just jewelry; you also see it in art,
in Impressionist paintings, for example.” Buyers are paying “more
than top dollar for the finest and the rarest,” and the results are stag-
gering. The tutti-frutti bracelet from the Lauder collection that sold
in the December Magnificent Jewels sale comes to mind as an exam-
ple—it sold for $2,165,000, more than twice the presale estimate of
$750,000/1,000,000.
Becket compared the current market strength to the boom market
of 2007/early 2008, saying that then “it was a boom market in a more
pervasive sense, and now it’s just so much more focused. When we
have a sale like we did in February, which had a mixture of property,
it was a good litmus test to see what’s performing well, and what’s
underperforming.”
What’s hot right now will not be a complete surprise to those with
daily dealings in the market, but if you are a consignor pondering this
question, Becket suggested, “If you have something from the 1960s
through ’70s by Van Cleef and Arpels, you’re golden. It’s just going
through the roof. Van Cleef is really the one, in my mind, that is tak-
ing off. It’s always performing incredibly well because the quality is
fantastic, the design is fantastic.” She noted that Cartier “is always a
consistent performer, as is David Webb. But in terms of the white-hot
point in the market— to me, it’s Van Cleef and Arpels.”
She noted how rare it is for fine jewelry over 100 years old to
remain intact. Becket said, “Jewelry gets reborn all the time. That’s
why we don’t see too much antique jewelry, because generally, some
great-, great-, great-granddaughter wants something more contem-
porary than Granny’s tiara…What’s the point of having something
that you’re not going to wear? If you’re not in tiara-wearing mode,
wouldn’t you much rather have an engagement ring for your son or a
pair of earrings for you?”
Jewelry needs “for the most part, to be wearable, at the end of the
day, to make sense. That’s the primary reason people come to see
us to consign their jewelry—because they’re not wearing something
anymore, or they’re simplifying.” They may not attend the same par-
ties or events that they once did and can sell that piece of jewelry and
“put a new kitchen in,” for example.
Sotheby’s next Magnificent Jewels sale will be held in New York
on April 21. See the auction catalog on the Web site .
com).
Freeman’s
Virginia Salem, vice president, international specialist of jewelry
and watches at Freeman’s, made brief comments about some of
the jewelry featured from the Freeman’s sale. She was working on
the higher-end jewelry and watches auction coming up on May 4,
and wrote in an e-mail that “it will include an over 9.00 carat mar-
quise-cut diamond, a large aquamarine cuff bracelet by Buccellati,
and an Art Deco diamond bracelet with marquise, square, and round-
cut diamonds.”
Visit Freeman’s Web site ) for more information.
Antique Jewelry & Gemology
February Auctions at Sotheby’s and Freeman’s
by Mary Ann Brown
Photos courtesy Sotheby’s and Freeman’s
“If you have something from
the 1960s through ’70s
by Van Cleef and Arpels,
you’re golden.”
This circa 1939 Van Cleef & Arpels, France, silver, gold, col-
ored stone, and enamel minaudière, 6" x 4¾" x 7/8", signed
“La Minaudiere de Van Cleef & Arpels,” stamped “Metaux
Divers,” with French assay and workshop mark, had fitted
compartments for lipstick and powder and came with a
separate black enamel compact. Along with the original
signed and fitted box, it sold within estimate for $7500
(est. $6000/8000). Catharine Becket said, “We were
very surprised that it didn’t go for more, particularly
because it was Van Cleef.” Sotheby’s, New York.
“Van Cleef is the maker of the moment,”
Becket said of this signed Van Cleef & Arpels
18k gold, ruby, sapphire, and diamond “Eros” brooch
that brought $28,750 (est. $18,000/22,000); and these
signed Van Cleef & Arpels 18k gold, cultured pearl, and
diamond pendant ear clips, with two cultured pearls mea-
suring approximately 10.4 and 10.3 mm, suspending two
cultured pearls measuring approximately 13.5 and 13.3 mm,
accented by round diamonds weighing approximately 10.70 carats,
that sold for $46,875 (est. $25,000/35,000). Sotheby’s, New York.
This platinum, natural pearl,
and diamond ring with a pearl
measuring approximately 13.25 x
12.68 x 12.31 mm, accented by
single-cut and baguette diamonds,
was a “classic case of a natural
pearl performing incredibly well.
It was nice. It wasn’t perfectly
round, but round. It’s very hard
to get a symmetrical round natu-
ral pearl, particularly in this size.
The color was just gorgeous—
it was like a café au lait with a
touch of lavender—a really nice
luster,” all of which helped it sell
well above the high estimate for
$40,625 (est. $7000/9000). Sothe-
by’s, New York.
This circa 1930 Cartier, London, plat-
inum, peridot, and diamond brooch
was the cover lot of the Sotheby’s
sale. Becket noted that “for the
jewelry collector, Cartier Art
Deco is pretty much the crème
de la crème, top of the pops—
to me the pinnacle of the
jeweler’s art. It doesn’t get
much better than Cartier
Art Deco.” Centering a calf’s
head-shaped peridot measur-
ing approximately 21.0 x 14.2 x
7.5 mm, it also comprised baguette
and trapeze-cut diamonds weighing
approximately 5.25 carats. “You have
all these Indian motifs—along the
bottom, these paisley motifs, and
then the opposing birds, which are very reminiscent of Indo-Persian
miniatures. It’s one of those great examples of East meets West. You
have the high Deco design with all of its restraint and geometry and
superb craftsmanship, infused with the exoticism of the East.” The
brooch sold for $36,250 (est. $15,000/20,000). Sotheby’s, New York.
Two of the
top ten lots of
the Sotheby’s
Important Jew-
els auction were
contemporary
signed pieces
by JAR (Joel
Arthur Rosen-
thal), Paris. As I
reported in the
January 2014
column, there was a retrospective of JAR’s work at the Metropolitan
Museum of Art through March 9, 2014. In the number four spot was this
pair of platinum, rose gold, silver, demantoid garnet, and diamond ear
clips, set with round diamonds weighing approximately 5.00 carats on
a ground of numerous round demantoid garnets, that sold for $225,000
(est. $30,000/50,000). “Interestingly enough, the two pairs of JAR ear-
rings were purchased by someone who’s not typically a jewelry pur-
chaser, but rather a contemporary art buyer...We think of JAR as being
works of art, and it’s nice when our clients do, as well,” said Becket.
Becket said it was unusual to
see a circa 1880 rose gold, silver,
amethyst, diamond, and enamel
brooch “that’s this size with
carved amethyst petals—I’ve
actually never seen one like this
before, that’s part amethyst, part
enamel.” With French assay and
partial maker’s marks, it sold for
$13,750 (est. $8000/12,000). Sothe-
by’s, New York.