Invented in the early 20th century, Bakelite was the first completely synthetic plastic. Cheap and pliable, this material could take on almost any color and shape (molded or carved), allowing a new creative freedom that revolutionized costume jewelry. Bakelite jewelry first caught on in the 1920s and remained popular through the Depression and WWII, evolving constantly with fashions of the day. Pieces like these serve as a time capsule, an example of affordable elegance and the spirit of fun that carried our ancestors through some dark days. Here are a few highlights from the sale:

(Photos courtesy of Bonhams)

Top to bottom:

Bakelite “bowtie” bangle, est. $1,000-1,500

Two Bakelite elephant brooches one with googly eye, one with metal enhancement, est. $500-700

Bakelite gazelle brooch, est. $500-700

Three Bakelite terrier brooches, est. $900-1,200

Two stretch Bakelite bracelets with diagonal rectangles, est. $600-900

Two striped laminate Bakelite bangle bracelets with two similar rings, est. $500-700

Preview will be held May 18-19, 2012, at Bonhams Los Angeles. Look for the online catalog in the weeks before the sale.

Related posts:

Flights of fancy: Bakelite bangles

Women who paved the way: Elsa Schiaparelli

Bicycle mania: Victorian style

                          

6.01-carat (left) and 8.01-carat fancy vivid blue diamonds (Sotheby’s Hong Kong)

Both are lovely jewels – and I’m sure much lovelier in real life, the magic of diamonds being impossible to capture in still photos – but they don’t hold a candle to the most famous blues, most notably the Hope Diamond. What makes natural blue diamonds so rare and so… blue? Something very unglamorous: boron, the stuff you find in flares and nuclear reactors, not so much in diamonds.

Hope Diamond, 45.52 carats, in 1910 Cartier setting (Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History)

Happily for all of us, a couple of the rarest and most dazzling blue diamonds can be seen, free of charge, whenever you happen to be in Washington, D.C. And, when we’re not looking at them in the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, scientists can access them, in an endless effort to explain the phenomenon of blue diamonds.

They just performed another test on the Smithsonian’s blue treasures, including the Hope Diamond and the Blue Heart, to find out exactly why blue diamonds are blue. They knew it had something to do with the presence of boron, which is extremely rare in natural diamonds. Their question this time: Does the amount of boron in a blue diamond account for its color?

Every now and then, the Hope is removed from its display case and its 1910 Cartier setting, then inserted into various high-tech apparatuses, poked, prodded, and irradiated. But somehow it always defies analysis and ends up back in its showcase, mystery intact.

Hope Diamond glows vivid red under ultraviolet light (Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History))

In 2010, for example, when the Hope shared the spotlight with the Wittelsbach-Graff, both historic gems were put under the microscope and exposed to infrared light. Both glowed brilliant red under ultraviolet light – though not in quite the same way. This bizarre ability of natural blue diamonds to emit a phosphorescent, glow-in-the-dark red, even after the light is turned off, is a tool gemologists use to separate real blue diamonds from fakes. Due to its particular boron mix, the Hope turns fiery red, as you can see in the photo at left.

Other tests were performed as well. Everyone, especially Laurence Graff who had just dropped $23.4 mil on the Wittelsbach, was hoping to discover they’d been cut from the same stone. Alas, while it was clear they’d been found around the same time (mid-17th century) and in close proximity in the Golconda mines of India, the famous diamonds were not, in fact, separated at birth.

Last month, after visiting hours were over and doors carefully locked, a local jeweler removed the Hope from its setting once again and four experts – Eloise Gaillou and Jeffrey Post of the Smithsonian, Detlef Rost of the University of Manchester, and James Butler of the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington DC – brought the Hope, the Blue Heart, and 76 other natural diamonds to the lab. One by one, they were inserted into an ion mass spectrometer which shaved off millions of atoms from tiny patches of each. These atoms were then sorted by weight. The goal: to discover how many of those atoms were boron.

Once again, the Hope glowed brilliant red under infrared light and proved to have an extremely high concentration of boron. While type Ia diamonds showed no detectable boron, natural type IIb blue diamonds such as the Hope and Blue Heart, revealed significantly higher amounts than previously reported. Not surprisingly, the Hope had the most by far: as much as 8.4 ppm in spots, compared to as little as .08 in other natural blue diamonds. And yet, the boron content of the blue diamonds did not, in the end, entirely explain the variety or depth of their color.

“The samples in this study are all gem-quality diamonds, including some Intense to Fancy-Deep blue diamonds; color intensity, however, only loosely correlates with the boron content,” reads the abstract published in American Mineralogist last month. “The exact nature of the phosphorescence processes is still not fully understood.”

When museum visitors arrived the next morning,  the scientists were back in their offices scratching their heads, while the Hope spun slowly on her carousel, as though she’d never left. Someone probably trotted around the case like I always do, following it like a nail to a magnet and emitting mews of delight. If you’ve ever seen the real thing, you know it’s nothing like looking at the photos.

The Hope Diamond in a setting designed by Harry Winston in 2010. This necklace now holds a different stone and is being offered for sale.

When I saw it last, it was out of its glitzy white-diamond Cartier setting. If you ask me, they should leave it in its unadorned, naked glory, but I guess we’re all accustomed to seeing it in that white diamond halo its been wearing for a century. They replaced that 1910 Cartier setting with a sleek Harry Winston design in 2010, but after a year on display, it’s back in its familiar setting and the Winston piece is being sold off with a different center stone, proceeds to benefit the Smithsonian.

I swear, looking at the Hope makes you feel drunk. What causes this giddy reaction? The color? The phosphorescent emissions? Scientists are pretty sure the boron content causes the phosphorescent emissions, but frankly, they just don’t know what causes that particular shade of blue. It’s officially described as “dark grayish blue” – same designation given to the Wittelsbach-Graff before Graff had it recut to “fancy deep blue.”

But while these terms mean something to gemologists, they don’t come close to capturing the reality. The Hope Diamond is the color of the ocean when you’re out really far, looking into miles and miles of water, Titanic deep. And from that dizzying blue come those full-spectrum rainbow sparkles of a really fine diamond. That is one giddy combination.

Scientific explanation? Frankly, they haven’t entirely figured it out, but you can be pretty sure they’ll keep trying. In the meantime, we all get to admire it and catch a free buzz. No admission or cocktails required.

Related posts:

Wittelsbach-Graff diamond debuts

Smithsonian jewels for the masses, courtesy QVC

Elizabeth Taylor auction and Elizabeth Taylor auction’s 12 world records

Beware of glass composite rubies

A celebration of really expensive tiaras

Related products:

                          

Bracelet (left) of amethysts and emeralds, c. 1937, by René Boivin, and two by Suzanne Belperron of amethysts, tourmalines and kunzite (center) and tourmalines, emeralds and peridot (Christie's Images)

[Update 11/27/11: René Boivin bracelet on the left sold for $245,756, more than expected, but Suzanne Belperron's design with green stones, far right, sold for $330,980, a record price for a Belperron bracelet and more than double the estimate. Further proof that Belperron's reputation is continuing to grow, along with the value of her jewelry.]

Bracelet on the left was designed by Juliette Moutard of Boivin around the time Suzanne Belperron created the two on the right. Moutard took over as chief designer at Boivin in 1931, the  year Belperron went out on her own, having working for Boivin since 1921. The bracelets have the characteristic bold, geometric style and unconventional materials for which the house of René Boivin became famous under Jeanne Boivin.

Suzanne Belperron and Juliette Moutard of the René Boivin were both rising design stars in the decade before World War II, after which gold and lavish gems became difficult, if not impossible, to come by – especially in occupied Paris.

Their bracelets show how similarly the two women were designing at the time, even though Belperron had left Boivin several years before. Like Moutard, Belperron’s career was launched by Jeanne Boivin, who took over the firm after her husband’s death in 1917 and continued his legacy for bold innovation. Even though the Boivin jewels created in the following decades carry his name, what you’re really seeing, for the most part, is the collective, creative genius of a small group of women.

One of the bracelets by Belperron (center) is made with amethysts, tourmalines and kunzite; the other (right) has tourmalines, emeralds, and peridot. Each is estimated to sell at Christie’s Paris on November 24 for $110,000 to $165,000. (For more about upcoming jewelry auctions, visit our auction calendar.) The Boivin bracelet is expected to bring a bit more ($137,600 to $206,400). Here’s a closer look at that one:

Gold bracelet with amethysts and emeralds by René Boivin, late 1930s (Christie's Images)

Soon after designing this piece, Juliette Moutard would abandon bold, geometric work for a more naturalistic style. Unlike Belperron, who went out on her own, Moutard stayed with Boivin for the rest of her career, well into the 1970s. Boivin’s daughter Germaine joined the firm as a designer in 1938 and took over running the company after her mother retired.

Related posts:

Women who paved the way: Jeanne Poiret Boivin

Women who paved the way: Suzanne Belperron

Women who paved the way: Jeanne Toussaint of Cartier

Jewelry & watch auctions 2011

Related products: (Buying from links on this site doesn’t cost you extra but does add a few pennies to the maintenance of this blog.)

                          

Ralph Esmerian arrested in November

Manhattan federal Judge Denise Cote also ordered Esmerian to perform 1,800 hours of community service and forfeit $20 million. Esmerian is 71.

Accused of defrauding creditors while seeking bankruptcy protection for Fred Leighton, Esmerian pleaded guilty in April to wire and bankruptcy fraud and concealing assets.

“Ralph Esmerian tried to game the financial system and the bankruptcy process for years to finance his businesses,” Manhattan District Attorney Preet Bharara said. “As a result of his frauds, the lenders who trusted him have lost tens of millions of dollars.”

The sentence puts the final disgrace on a respected family legacy. Esmerian and his forefathers were among the world’s most famous gem and jewelry experts, relied on by top-tier jewelry houses like Cartier. For the fascinating back story on Esmerian and a look at some of the treasures that made his fortune and reputation, check out these posts:

Bankruptcy sale of Ralph Esmerian’s historic jewelry

Ralph Esmerian: rise and fall of a jewelry connoisseur

Ralph Esmerian: lost legacy of jewels

Christie’s sells Fred Leighton jewels

                          

Bicycle brooch by Streeter & Co., probably English, c. 1896, of gold, enamel, old brilliant-cut diamonds and ruby (Museum of Fine Arts, Boston)

This jewel was created at the height of the bicycle craze that overtook Europe and the U.S. in the 1890s. It replicates the short-reach bicycles designed for women, with the mudguards and coiled brake part found on English bikes of the era. It has working gold wheels, pedals that rotate the chain and spin the rear wheel, an oil lamp set with a ruby, and a brown enamel seat made to look like leather.

You’ll find it at Jewels, Gems, and Treasures: Ancient to Modern opening July 19, the inaugural exhibit of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts’ new Kaplan jewelry gallery.

Like many pieces in the exhibit, the brooch is a time capsule – in this case, of a new-found freedom for women. Yet it’s amazing how little bicycles have changed in 115 years. Take off the diamonds and tweak a few details and you’d have your basic mountain bike.

Now imagine getting on that bike wearing a corset and floor-length skirt. That is precisely what most women did in the early days of the bicycle. But after countless spills and awkward adjustments, this new mode of transportation caused its own fashion revolution.

Shirts got shorter and led to knickerbockers and bloomers. As Ida Trafford Bell wrote in Harper’s Bazaar back in the day: “The question of dress has become so serious and so divided a one that bicycling clubs and associations, as a general thing, have laid down no rules regarding dress, but allow each and every woman to use her own best judgment in clothing herself according to the laws of health, comfort and commonsense…”

“Many, through custom and force of habit, prefer the conventional skirt, while others again object to it for the reason it requires a wheel some twelve to thirteen pounds heavier than that required for the bloomer or knickerbocker.”

Woman cycling in bloomers in 1895 from The Cosmopolitan

Cycling in a long skirt was something of an extreme sport. “When riding against the wind it expands into a balloon,” Bell wrote, “and by so doing offers great resistance to the rider, calling forth an unusual degree of physical exertion, and frequently compelling the rider to dismount from sheer exhaustion.”

I would imagine it was also a little embarrassing having your skirt blow up, exposing your bloomers to the world. This was a good 60 years before Marilyn Monroe caused a scandal doing that on a subway grate.

So what was the Victorian solution? Bloomers you could wear in public. “I think, of all the different costumes, the Turkish bloomer is the most popular, for the reasons that it answers every purpose and is less conspicuous,” Bell concluded, “for it can be worn where the knickerbocker or short drop skirt cannot without attracting to itself undue attention and criticism.”

For more on the history of women and bicycles, visit the Online Bicycle Museum.

Related posts:

Jewelry exhibits in North America

Jewelry exhibits in Europe

Melanie Bilenker: Victorian-inspired hair jewelry

                          

Serious buyers are putting in their bids on four lots, 56 objects altogether, to be sold on June 27.

Gone are the fancy auction catalogs touting Esmerian as having the “eye of a connoisseur” (title of the famously-canceled 2008 Christie’s auction). This one has the decidedly unglamorous taint of a bankruptcy sale. But these items are far from the glitzy status symbols auctioned off when Bernie Madoff went to prison.

While many of Esmerian’s most valuable treasures have already sold, there is enough here to fill a museum gallery – and I’m sure a few museums are putting in their bids.

Items include the Zucker collection of Islamic rings and prayer stones, ancient bronze sculpture and Roman glass, and a watercolor album commissioned by Marie Antoinette.

Here’s a look at the jewelry up for grabs. It ranges from rare antiquities and 19th-century revival (Castellani and Giuliano) to 20th-century designs by Marcus & Co., Raymond Yard, Boucheron and Carvin French. Esmerian worked with all of them over the decades but was probably best known for his Art Nouveau collection. Plenty of that to ogle, including signed pieces by Fabergé, René Lalique, Lucien Gautrait, Gabriel Falguieres, and Georges Fouquet.

Above, top to bottom:

Orpheus gold and diamond pendant by Gabriel Falguieres, Paris

Peacock necklace by Lucien Gautrait of gold, turquoise, enamel and pearl

Gold and enameled Byzantine dagger by Castellani

Necklace comprised of approximately 36 carats of diamonds and 20 carats of emeralds

Enamel necklace by Philippe Wolfers with pink tourmaline, carved white hardstone and pearl

Sappho pendant of opal, hardstone and enamel by Gabriel Falguires

Gold and enamel cigarette case with diamond “Jean Nicot,” Russian

Hellenistic gold and garnet earrings, c. 350 B.C.

Micro-mosaic of a swan by Marcus & Co. with green and white enamel

Bird of Paradise brooch by Mellerio of enamel, gold and diamonds

For more on the sale, email Edward Lewand at ealcas @ msn.com.

Related products:

                          

Silver cloak pin by Margret Craver set with rock crystal she faceted herself, c. 1939, for sale at Skinner June 14

Boston is shining the spotlight this summer on a pioneer of American studio jewelry: Margret Craver. If you’re a collector of Modernist jewelry, you may have heard some important pieces by her are coming up for auction at Skinner on June 14.

Having lived to the age of 103 – she passed away only recently – Craver was able to watch the complete evolution of the studio jewelry movement she helped launch.

Before World War II, she was a devoted and experimental jewelry artist. After the war, she threw herself just as passionately into helping other jewelry artists take fine metalsmithing to a new level.

You’ll have a couple chances to see Craver’s own handiwork this summer, including this charming coat clip with a quartz centerpiece she carved by hand, one of two Craver works for sale at Skinner in June. A month later, another of her silver-and-quartz brooches (below) will appear in the exhibition Jewels, Gems and Treasures: Ancient to Modern, opening July 19 at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts.

“Margret and those who followed her got this notion from the Arts & Crafts movement that you’re an artist first and that your skills in design and responsiveness to the world of art were at the core of your identity as a jewelry artist, as opposed to the old European school of jewelers trained to execute the designs of others,” says Yvonne Markowitz, jewelry curator at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts.

Brooch of silver and quartz, c. 1945, by Margret Craver (Boston MFA)

Craver was among the first modernist jewelers in the U.S. to learn and apply sophisticated jewelry-making techniques. During the 1930s, she studied with Arthur Neville Clark at Cranbrook Academy of Art and, in Sweden, with Baron Erik Fleming, silversmith to the Swedish king.

Necklace by Margret Craver from the Daphne Farago Collection at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts

By wartime, she was working for the jewelry manufacturer Handy & Harman and convinced her employer to let her teach workshops to recovering vets. In 1947, she founded an annual series of silversmithing conferences.

Before the war, studio jewelry was typified by the raw quality of work by Art Smith and Sam Kramer, partly the result of a lack of available training. Kramer took a jewelry-making course in southern California taught by a ceramicist and Smith apprenticed with a jeweler. Other jewelry artists of their day learned casting from dentists and forging by hanging out at dockyards.

After the war, vets were eligible to study free on the GI bill and encouraged to take up jewelry-making as a form of physical rehabilitation. It was considered helpful for developing hand-eye coordination and strengthening arms and hands.

Brooch by John Paul Miller made with ancient granulation technique Craver helped him perfect

Many jewelry careers were launched at the War Veterans Art Center at the Museum of Modern Art and the Handy and Harman workshops taught by Craver. Among the studio jewelers she helped train were Robert Ebendorf, John Tripp and John Paul Miller. After serving in the Army during WWII, Miller took studio jewelry to a new level by applying ancient granulation and enameling techniques to modern design.

Once she became invested in a fellow artist, Craver was tireless in her efforts to help him advance. Knowing, for example, that Miller was trying to figure out the ancient art of granulation, Craver kept sending him bits of research until she came across a paper written by an archeologist  in the American Academy in Rome. It was this analysis that led Miller to create exquisite pieces like this.

                          

Renaissance Revival pendant of gold, enamel, opal, sapphire, diamond and pearl, est. $25-35k, at Sotheby's New York on April 14, 2011

Some stunning Renaissance Revival jewelry is coming up for sale this month, renewing interest – yet again – in that 19th-century style, one of jewelry history’s most beautiful revisitations. Hollywood jeweler Neil Lane probably  has his eye on these sales – and one piece in particular.

“I know it sounds silly, but I actually like Renaissance Revival better than the original stuff,” Neil Lane told me once.

While Lane is most famous for bejeweling stars for the red carpet, he also has a world-class personal collection of antique jewelry, including works by Jules Wièse, a French jeweler who specialized in 19th-century revivals.

The piece Lane is probably watching is the Renaissance Revival pendant by Wièse (below) that’s coming up for sale at Sotheby’s New York next week.

Not surprisingly, the most spectacular examples of original Renaissance jewelry are usually in museums or private family collections – if they weren’t broken down and made into other jewelry. But Renaissance rings or earrings do appear at auction at fairly accessible prices – usually small gold and enamel pieces made in Spain, Portugal or Germany and usually at Christies or Sotheby’s London.

For dealers and collectors with $10,000 to spend on a bauble, however, age and provenance are not always enough.

Renaissance Revival necklace of gold, diamond and enamel with carnelian intaglio of a Roman Emperor Laureate, signed Wièse, Paris, c. 1850, est. $10-15k, at Sotheby's NY April 14, 2011

“I appreciate the age of Renaissance jewelry and the difficulty in finding it,” Lane says, “but I prefer revival jewelry because it’s technically pretty. Revival styles are much more sophisticated, more mannered and defined. There’s a schematic to them – especially on the level that Wièse produced.

“When you look at enough of it, you begin to appreciate the technical superiority, the heft of it, the piercing of gold, the enameling and stone-setting – all very sophisticated.”

“A lot of Renaissance jewelry looks a little crude,” Lane explains. “They didn’t have the technical skills or the lapidary tools they had in the 19th century. A lot of stones are native-cut in Renaissance jewelry – cut by locals where they were found in India or Burma. In Paris during the 1880s, the stones were faceted in cutting centers which were more technically advanced. A lot of the jewelry from the Renaissance has little holes in the emeralds.”

Renaissance Revival gold and enamel necklace by Carlo Giuliano with green zircon, diamonds and pearls, c. 1860, est. $18-24k, at Christie's London on April 20, 2011

Renaissance Revival necklace of gold, diamonds, ruby and pearl by Carlos & Arthur Giuliano, London, c. 1890, at Wartski, London (wartski.com)

With many revivals, jewelers were looking back not just at jewelry of a particular era but decorative styles and motifs in general, then updating them into wearable jewelry.

Renaissance Revival limoges enamel cherub in gold and pearls by Carlo Guiliano, 1884, sold at Sotheby’s NY in February for $74,500

“Most pieces that are clearly Renaissance Revival were obviously done by modern hand, using modern cut stones consistent with the period — more in the inspiration than duplication of actual Renaissance jewelry,” explains Peter Shemonsky, a San Francisco-based jewelry appraiser who frequently appears on the Antiques Road Show.

Renaissance jewelry copying actually began while the originals were being made, due to the advent of the printing press. Jewelers began publishing detailed engravings of their designs in the mid-1500s, which were circulated throughout Europe and freely copied by other jewelers.

Many collectors of revival jewelry, like Lane, avoid the forgery trap by buying within a narrowly-defined category — Giuliano, Castellani, Wièse, French or British neo-Renaissance — with which they become intimately familiar.

Renaissance Revival pendant-brooch of gold, cat's-eye chrysoberyl, ruby, diamond and enamel by Carlo Giuliano, est. $20-30k, at Sotheby's NY April 14, 2011

How do you spot a Renaissance forgery? “I always say, style can be copied but craftsmanship can’t – unless someone’s really good,” says Shemonsky. “In today’s market, craftsmanship is so costly, it eclipses the value of a piece.

“If a piece costs $10,000 to reproduce and it only sells for $12,000, there’s no motive to copy it – which is why many pieces we see now that are period-style reproductions were made in Asia and fall part when you look at the back. The style may look right but not the craftsmanship.”

Of course, whenever you pick up a revival piece, there’s always that slim but intoxicating possibility that it could turn out to be an original. “I like the edge of collecting revival jewelry,” Lane says. “Sometimes you’re not sure: Is it ancient or is it 19th century? A lot of 19th-century pieces that we call Renaissance Revival were once bought as originals from the Renaissance.

“We revalue these pieces now in their own right, but there were a lot of forgeries around at one time that only came out later. A lot of the collection at the Met is valued now for being these great interpretations. We see them today and think, how could anyone have confused them for Renaissance? But the people that bought them wanted to believe. Famous workshops collected this stuff for wealthy patrons like the Rothschilds, and they were bought as originals.”

Fortunately for antique jewelry dealers, there is a lot more knowledge available about revival jewelry today. Buyers interested in this category would do well to arm themselves with this information before venturing into the marketplace.

Related posts:

Jewelry & watch auctions 2011

What you need to know about jewelry hallmarks

How to buy ancient jewelry for $3000 or less (Ask an Expert: G. Max Bernheimer)

What you need to know about collecting ancient jewels (Ask an Expert: Kenneth Lapatin)

                          

Elizabeth Taylor wearing a diadem of her own and VC&A-loaned jewels to the Proust Ball in Paris, 1972

Curator Sarah Coffin talks about the “Bejeweled Lives” section of Set in Style: The Jewelry of Van Cleef & Arpels, the exhibit opening this Friday at the Smithsonian Cooper-Hewitt Museum.

Van Cleef & Arpels decamped from Paris to New York City at the onset of WWII. Is that when Hollywood became a big influence?

SC: The move to the U.S. coincided with the growth of Hollywood, which certainly provided a new venue for very visible women to be seen wearing Van Cleef & Arpels and other famous jewelry makers’ designs.

But some of the famous collectors – Doris Duke, Marjorie Merriweather Post, Daisy Fellowes – were women of means, not necessarily movie stars. They were moving in fashionable circles and patronizing the firm.

That was before houses like Van Cleef began lending pieces for the red carpet, right? Stars were buying their own jewels.

Jarretière bracelet of diamonds, rubies and platinum by Van Cleef & Arpels, Paris, c. 1937, owned by Marlene Dietrich (photo Patrick Gries/VC&A)

SC: Yes, you had this wonderful situation of Marlene Dietrich buying that ruby bracelet and then wearing it in Stage Fright, the 1950 Hitchcock movie. Of course, that is hugely classy, connected to the persona of the character Dietrich was playing in the movie. But Marlene Dietrich did really own that; it isn’t something they put on her for the movie. Later, it was Catherine Deneuve wearing the Belle Hélène necklace in The Last Metro.

Princess Grace is another class act often photographed wearing Van Cleef & Arpels. Was that orchestrated?

SC: Then it was just a happy coincidence. Grace Kelly didn’t go out and buy Van Cleef & Arpels as Grace Kelly, the actress. It was when Prince Rainier started giving it to her that you begin to see her photographed in it. Upon their wedding, Van Cleef & Arpels were appointed the jewelers to the court of the Principality of Monaco, as they are to this day. They sill supply fair amount of jewelry to the Principality of Monaco.

Early on, Van Cleef & Arpels had a director of publicity who was very involved in promoting and presentations, taking jewelry to charity balls and putting it on people. Public relations directors and advertisers saw the benefit of this kind of thing early on and it developed as things became more about visibility and placement.

At the beginning, these were clearly pieces these actresses wanted to own, perhaps to place themselves as women of fashion, to be alongside royalty and the big-name wealthy collectors like Florence Gould and Barbara Hutton.

Manchette bracelet/necklace of platinum, emeralds and diamonds by VC&A, Paris, 1926, owned by Daisy Fellowes (photo Patrick Gries/VC&A)

Somewhere along the line, they traded places and it was the actresses everyone else wanted to emulate.

SC: That really happened in the 1950s, when the movie star business became more important. Before that, actresses bought their own jewels. Greta Garbo clearly paid for that 10-carat diamond ring in the exhibit. Marlene Dietrich really owned that fabulous ruby bracelet. Paulette Goddard was also a collector.

Tiara of gold, platinum and diamonds by VC&A, Paris, 1976, worn by Princess Grace of Monaco (photo Patrick Gries/VC&A)

You have some beautiful pieces from Elizabeth Taylor in the exhibit, Hollywood’s most famous jewelry horse.

SC: Yes, she was another true collector. Obviously, she had a great collection and Richard Burton was giving her fabulous things.

It couldn’t have hurt VC&A to have her photographed in that wild diamond headdress (top left).

SC: That was for the famous Proust Ball in Paris where she went with Richard Burton and the Duke and Duchess of Windsor – who were, of course, the biggest collectors of them all. Elizabeth Taylor wore a headdress, apparently a combination of her own jewelry and  jewelry that Van Cleef & Arpels lent her. That’s kind of where I see this shift starting to happen, maybe in the late sixties, to celebrity usage.

At the Smithsonian Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum, 2 E. 91st St., New York NY (Feb. 18-June 5, 2011). UPDATE: This exhibit has been extended to July 7.

Related posts:

Van Cleef & Arpels: glamour and invention

JAR: designer jewelry as calling card

Jewelry heist movies

Nature of Diamonds in Chicago

                          

But there are theories that the heart symbol sprang from more erotic sources, such as the seed of the silphium plant, used as an ancient herbal contraceptives, or various parts of a woman’s anatomy.

Whether you lean toward sappy or sexy, artsy or elegant, there are valentine-style jewels out there for every taste and wallet. As with all gifts of the heart, just make sure it captures her sense of style because she’s going to be wearing this particular valentine all year round.

Here are a few that caught my eye:

From the original Techno-Romantic, Thomas Mann (art jewelry pioneer turned QVC star) offers an artsy take on the heart charm bracelet of sterling, nickel, bronze and brass. You can find this one on Artfulhome.com for $260.

Designed by Randi Chervitz, this pendant was crocheted from sterling silver with a handmade toggle clasp ($175, Artfulhome.com).

A ruby and diamond heart pendant by Loree Rodkin, whose fans include Michelle Obama, Cher and Goth chicks everywhere. This fab reinvention of an old standby sells for $20,150.

Suzanne Belperron, whom I wrote about recently, designed this pendant of smoky quartz, diamond, platinum and gold in 1950. It sold at Christie’s Paris in December for $101,493.

Limoges enamel cherub in a heart of gold and pearls, made in Renaissance Revival style by Carlo Guiliano in 1884, sold at Sotheby’s New York on Feb. 2 for $74,500.

Sorry, you missed your chance on this 28.28-carat diamond that brought $3,778,500 at Christie’s New York last April. Darn, she would have been so thrilled.

Another one that passed you by: this 5-carat, vivid blue diamond sold at Christie’s Hong Kong in June for $4,686,600. QVC has one kind of like this in blue topaz by Judith Ripka for $530. If that doesn’t work, I know where you can find a ring like this only six times bigger and free of charge – well, to look at anyway. Sometimes looking is bliss in itself and there are enough colored diamonds at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History to get you both punch drunk.

That’s right, find her a nice budget-priced heart and take her to a museum to look at gems and jewelry. Hey, I’d go for that.