Posts: 1265
Registered: May 99

posted 07-18-2008 01:34 PM            

---

Another Friday in July and the curator is boooooooored. So here are three pieces of silver jewelry which I hope dearly I've not shown here. The first is a ca. 1740 aigrette ornament of Indian (Golconda) diamonds mounted in silver--the original white metal, used until ca. 1890 when platinum took over. I just bought that for the museum.

The second is a silver and moonstone choker necklace by Georg Jensen, that the Museum bought new in 1929 from the Jensen store in NYC.

And the last is a 1995 necklace and earrings by studio jeweler Louis Mueller, who taught at RISD in Providence for many years. This of oxidized silver.

It was Jensen who made silver jewelry "art" and began to charge real jewelry prices. Silver jewelry was seen as "almost costume" at the turn of the century--it took "art" to make it glamorous again.

IP: Logged

Posts: 1970
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 07-18-2008 01:48 PM            

---

Thanks for showing those, Ulysses. I've always adored those Jensen moonstone pieces.

I don't quite understand the timing of this. If silver was the precious white metal until the 1890s, why was it considered almost costume only a decade later? Because platinum had taken over as the precious white metal? Because white gold had been invented in the meantime?

Also, just curious--what was the curatorial thinking behind purchasing that lovely brooch? Is it Newarky somehow? Is it filling a gap in a collection?

(And if you're really bored, would you mind popping over to my bracelet thread in Ephemera and making a guess about its age? Not if you have actual better things to do, of course.)

IP: Logged

Posts: 1265
Registered: May 99

posted 07-18-2008 04:37 PM            

---

It's a mystery that silver, used to mount diamonds (but ONLY backed with gold in the 19th century) dropped to costume status by 1900. Silver, although still technically precious, was worth 20 cents an ounce by 1900. And I may be exaggerating that "costume" status. But the Jensen necklace was far more expensive than its metal would warrant, showing that art had trumped materials by the 1910s. White gold wasn't invented until after platinum was pretty well established--as a cheaper alternative to platinum. Don't take me too literally!

The aigrette was purchased because we had nothing that represented either full rococo style of the 18th century, OR significant diamonds representing the "beginning" of white jewelry as an aesthetic...Our jewelry collection covers the entire world from antiquity to the present--so there are a lot of gaps to fill.

IP: Logged

Posts: 1970
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 07-18-2008 05:12 PM            

---

Interesting, Ulysses, thank you. Is silver the only precious metal that tarnishes? Could that have to do with it?

Funny, you could say the same thing about MY jewelry collection--with heavy emphasis on the gaps.

IP: Logged

Posts: 993
Registered: Dec 2002

posted 07-19-2008 12:22 AM            

---

Nice range of pieces - and I like them all.

~Cheryl

IP: Logged

Posts: 2334
Registered: Mar 2003

posted 07-20-2008 11:13 PM            

---

While not museum pieces, the jewelry below both have a silver face and a gold back. For some reason my camera does not see the white silver color and both items appear gold on the front and back - in real life the metal is clearly white on the front. The turquoise brooch and earrings have a gold back that is surrounded by a thin layer of silver. The other brooch also has a gold back and while not clearly shown in the last photo the gold part makes up about three fourths of the metal used.

For both pieces it was clearly the intent to provide the client with white metal, but I think the client also wanted the insurance that she had real gold in her jewelry. That may have been the reason why both items seem to have more gold than silver. The gold is just not visible when wearing the objects.

The second item also has a detachable pin and can be detached when worn as a necklace.

These items are not marked and it is just my guess that they are gold and silver.

IP: Logged

Posts: 1265
Registered: May 99

posted 07-25-2008 09:11 AM            

---

Don't underestimate what might be in a museum! Your turquoise pieces are lovely, and I'd assume that the faces were set in silver for aesthetic reasons. I think of turquoise as being set in gold, but apparently the designer (1860s?) wanted a blue and white color scheme. Very nice suite, particularly the brooch, with its naturalistic look.

The amethyst and diamond pendant brooch is probably platinum topped gold, which was typically done in the 1890s until the early 1900s, when people finally decided (as you suggest) that gold isn't necessary. Platinum displaced silver pretty quickly, but it didn't shove gold out for another decade or so. Platinum wasn't really "believed" at first, and gold backings were always present to assure the consumer that it was "real" jewelry. By 1910 the gold backing is gone.

IP: Logged

Posts: 1326
Registered: Apr 93

posted 07-25-2008 07:39 PM            

---

I love the Mueller set.

IP: Logged

Posts: 2334
Registered: Mar 2003

posted 07-27-2008 05:06 PM            

---

Ulysses, Thanks for the insight on the use of platinum vs. silver. That is very interesting.

IP: Logged

All times are ET