So I've realized that while I love love love opulent jewelry, the special place in my heart is filled with wearable pieces. I think this previously unrealized fact led me to choke where the infamous Victorian brooch is concerned. I could have traded it, which is what I fully intended to do, but I couldn't wear it. So, why the hell did it matter? It mattered because I was confusing my collecting needs with my trading needs.
I still haven't truly sorted my collecting and trading needs. When there's a piece I'm in love with, it can definitely be worn to work or during a night out (pic of one of my favorites to follow). I'm the kind of collector who wants to truly enjoy her pieces-using more than one sense (see and feel). I want to feel pretty and well put together, and I want to share my great finds with my friends. That's kind of hard to do when your jewelry is locked up in a case. Perhaps the jewelry undergoes more wear, but the life of a piece is determined by its owner. Bad owner=destroyed jewelry.
It's possible to wear these wonderful pieces and take just as good care of them. Experts advise that you should carefully inspect a piece for any loose stones, significant chips or cracks, or fraying string. There's also jewelry that's susceptible to specific kinds of damage such as closed back jewelry; water exposure can lead to the deterioration of the foil. In the end, wearing my jewelry carries with it an added benefit-getting other people interested in collecting. After all, we need younger people to be willing to spend money for the upkeep of our jewelry history.
It would seem easy to buy jewelry that you're not interested in. You wouldn't get attached, and after all the antiques business is a business. The problem with that is that you're less likely to make a worthwhile sale if you make a sale at all. If you're not excited by your pieces you won't put as much effort into finding a top notch buyer. Top notch buyers=fair value for your piece. Loving your pieces also means that you'll take better care of them. If you don't love it please leave the piece to someone who will maintain its integrity.
I don't ever buy jewelry to trade that I hate. That's my rule. I have to love it and be excited by it before I'll spend money on it. And so I've developed a serious problem. I'm having a problem trading a lot of pieces I've recently acquired. I wonder about the buyer. Are they responsible? Will they gently clean the piece? Will they have a place to store it? Will they let their kids play dress up with it? Will they sell it for scrap?!! And finally, I love it so much!
Of course I can't go on like this. These pieces have to be sold or I'll wind up with a bigger problem on my hands. So, what's the solution? Maybe I can trade the opulent jewelry I love and keep the wearables. How long do you think it will be before I convince myself that everything I buy is wearable?
Monday, June 8, 2009
Saturday, June 6, 2009
How Do I Love Thee?
My great friend Kim has been blessed. She is engaged to, by all female accounts, an amazing man named Ian. I just got back from her wedding shower where her mother, other family members, and her friends were gathered to help her celebrate.
When Kim first told me she was engaged we were meeting for our monthly catch up lunch. I was walking to the counter to order when she flashed the back of her hand. I responded with a P Diddy peace sign. When I returned she said "You didn't see what I was showing you!" There it was in all its glory. Five diamonds set in a white gold band. I was stunned and then I screamed. The ring is a family heirloom passed on by his mother. The original band was in yellow gold and given it's history I'm sure it's a true mid-century piece (unfortunately I haven't seen it). Kim's band is a smartly updated replica (Sorry. Good pics are hard when you're excited).
Kim's ring is a testament to the enduring styles of bygone eras. Multistone engagement rings certainly have their place in history. Examples from the Victorian, Edwardian (Beaux Arts), Art Deco, and Mid Century eras abound (this list is by no means exclusive). Of Edwardian rings in general, I love the perfect marriage of opulence, good sense, and energy. Gemstones are usually a decent size. Colors are vivid, certainly never loud, and are chosen in such a way as to animize the subject (e.g., portrait rings). With larger rings, the size of the stone is always offset by a thoughtful setting: a winding snake in rose gold for a turquoise cabochon or a smiple band for a portrait ring depicting an angelic maiden. Victorian rings always strike me as distinctly regal and genuinely sentimental. Rings display a variety of mid sized stones to beautiful effect making this jewelry some of the most wearable. Rings could include a receptacle for your sweetheart's hair or the band could be made entirely of it (aka hair jewelry). Stones could also be chosen to spell out a word (acrostic jewelry) or convey meaning (rubies for love).
Perhaps it's the genuine sentiment inherent in Victorian jewelry that I love best. Looking through Answers to Questions About Old Jewelry, I came across an example of an acrostic ring which has a mounting set with ruby, emerald, garnet, amethyst and diamond. It spells "regards". The author writes "The word regard had a much deeper, more sincere meaning than it does today. The giver is not only sending his heart, but also his highest sentiments." Today we would call that RESPECT.
Compare the "regards" ring with J Lo's famous canary diamond or the late Lady Diana's 18 carat blue oval sapphire encircled by fourteen diamonds. What's the meaning of such a display? Granted you could argue that since both these women's marriages were different (I picked them for that very reason) that's no proof that your engagment ring foreshadows your married life. I will say, however, that I'd rather a ring where its distinctness originates from its history of love and togetherness than its rarity and size. Of course, if you can get both like Kim that's great! I'll bet that if we compared all the people with flashy emotionally empty rings with those owning sentimental jewelry, the latter will probably present as much happier- especially where hollywood is concerned. One of the best engagment rings was presented by Prince Albert to Queen Victoria. A serpent engagment ring (a symbol of eternal love). They not only ruled happily together for 20 years, but also truly loved each other.
Kim's engagment ring is more than just a timeless classic. It's a ring that carries with it a history of love, tenderness and support. It's a true symbol of a strong future together. That one thing so many people are chasing, but no canary diamonds can buy.
Best wishes Kim. He loves you so.
When Kim first told me she was engaged we were meeting for our monthly catch up lunch. I was walking to the counter to order when she flashed the back of her hand. I responded with a P Diddy peace sign. When I returned she said "You didn't see what I was showing you!" There it was in all its glory. Five diamonds set in a white gold band. I was stunned and then I screamed. The ring is a family heirloom passed on by his mother. The original band was in yellow gold and given it's history I'm sure it's a true mid-century piece (unfortunately I haven't seen it). Kim's band is a smartly updated replica (Sorry. Good pics are hard when you're excited).
Kim's ring is a testament to the enduring styles of bygone eras. Multistone engagement rings certainly have their place in history. Examples from the Victorian, Edwardian (Beaux Arts), Art Deco, and Mid Century eras abound (this list is by no means exclusive). Of Edwardian rings in general, I love the perfect marriage of opulence, good sense, and energy. Gemstones are usually a decent size. Colors are vivid, certainly never loud, and are chosen in such a way as to animize the subject (e.g., portrait rings). With larger rings, the size of the stone is always offset by a thoughtful setting: a winding snake in rose gold for a turquoise cabochon or a smiple band for a portrait ring depicting an angelic maiden. Victorian rings always strike me as distinctly regal and genuinely sentimental. Rings display a variety of mid sized stones to beautiful effect making this jewelry some of the most wearable. Rings could include a receptacle for your sweetheart's hair or the band could be made entirely of it (aka hair jewelry). Stones could also be chosen to spell out a word (acrostic jewelry) or convey meaning (rubies for love).
Perhaps it's the genuine sentiment inherent in Victorian jewelry that I love best. Looking through Answers to Questions About Old Jewelry, I came across an example of an acrostic ring which has a mounting set with ruby, emerald, garnet, amethyst and diamond. It spells "regards". The author writes "The word regard had a much deeper, more sincere meaning than it does today. The giver is not only sending his heart, but also his highest sentiments." Today we would call that RESPECT.
Compare the "regards" ring with J Lo's famous canary diamond or the late Lady Diana's 18 carat blue oval sapphire encircled by fourteen diamonds. What's the meaning of such a display? Granted you could argue that since both these women's marriages were different (I picked them for that very reason) that's no proof that your engagment ring foreshadows your married life. I will say, however, that I'd rather a ring where its distinctness originates from its history of love and togetherness than its rarity and size. Of course, if you can get both like Kim that's great! I'll bet that if we compared all the people with flashy emotionally empty rings with those owning sentimental jewelry, the latter will probably present as much happier- especially where hollywood is concerned. One of the best engagment rings was presented by Prince Albert to Queen Victoria. A serpent engagment ring (a symbol of eternal love). They not only ruled happily together for 20 years, but also truly loved each other.
Kim's engagment ring is more than just a timeless classic. It's a ring that carries with it a history of love, tenderness and support. It's a true symbol of a strong future together. That one thing so many people are chasing, but no canary diamonds can buy.
Best wishes Kim. He loves you so.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
I Screwed Up
I drove to Memphis for the day and roamed estate sales and auctions. The best estate sale of the day was a few blocks from the Brooks.I'll skip to the jewelry because I'm bursting to confess my foolishness. The selection ranged from the mundane to the delicious. There were a number of antique Victorian brooches and bracelets. Toward the front of the case there was a large oval enamel brooch in easter colors ($200). Screaming my name was a bracelt of frosted amethyst glass panels bordered in brass with a warm patina. There were emeralds and sapphires, gold and silver, but I couldn't seem to spring for the pieces I knew were well worth their asking price. I was panicking. I stared at the pieces waiting like an idiot for something to happen and pretending to mull over my decisions (I had already set aside a few substandard rings ).
Fifteen or twenty minutes later- it's all a sad blur now- I took a break and walked through the rest of the house. It's amazing how much stuff people can accumulate in their lifetime. The short list: crystal glasses, silver service, rare books, vintage clothing, headboards, figurines, paintings. Scores of strangers tore through this family's home. The tour didn't make me feel any better.
Back at the jewelry one guy snagged an amazing chess set made of approximately five inch ebony and ivory pieces. Ahh that sick feeling. What's wrong with me? Why am I afraid? I know exactly what I'm looking at. The one that got away is burned into my brain (an absolutely exquisite snake brooch-asking $200, value~$1100).
The picture is for your amusement. Maybe it's a little masochistic, too? This is a pic I found that's exactly like the piece I didn't buy-right down to the enamel colors. I did gather up the courage to purchase a really nice carved natural coral pendant (pic to follow). What can I say? It's the cost of learning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
