Chalice Used for the Coronation of Napoleon I

I have what I believe is the chalice that was used for the coronation of Napoleon I. It bears hallmarks that indicates it was made by Jean-Charles Cahier between 1801 and 1809. The experts at Christies dismissed my claim, saying Jean-Charles Cahier didn't make any of the liturgical items for the coronation ceremony, but according to the French Ministry of Culture and Communication:

Jean Charles Cahier (1772-1849) fut orfèvre de 1801 à 1849 et son successeur fut Poussielgue-Rusand. Les deux pièces exécutées pour Sélestat sont donc des oeuvres de jeunesse de l'orfèvre qui établira sa réputation lors du sacre de Napoléon Ier, qui lui commanda plusieurs pièces pour la cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris. Par la suite, il fournit de nombreuses pièces pour la cathédrale et pour la chapelle des Tuileries. A la Restauration, il sera un des principaux orfèvres de la famille royale. Ses oeuvres classées au titre des Monuments Historiques (19) sont essentiellement religieuses (calices, ostensoirs, baiser de paix, croix de procession).

The original design for the chalice was drafted by Charles Percier and can be seen in the Metropolitan Museum. When you compare my chalice to Percier's blueprint, there is no question that there is a relationship.

 

It is a chalice. You'd need some convincing provenance to suggest it was any particular chalice.

 

Yeah, but to say it was used in the coronation is something else. If I'm reading that correctly, it says Napoleon commissioned Cahier to produce silverware for the cathedral. There's a difference between that and saying it was used in the coronation.

The drawing you've shown of the chalice is far more elaborate than the photos, which show a chalice that I don't think is near Imperial standards.

 

I'm hoping someone on here can support my claim that the liturgical items for the coronation were made by Cahier. The agacanthus leaves match the scale in Percier's sketch exactly, only in lower relief. The ribbon-like border near the bases are identical. The palmette blooms are identical. Napoleon really disliked Percier and while Percier worked for him Napoleon infamously would not speak to him, speaking only to Fontaine. If this wasn't THE coronation chalice, then at the very least it was made by Cahier based at least in part on Percier's design, and he made it for some other occasion between 1801 and 1809.

 

Another thing to take into consideration: there are items of both the crown and of the cross that were part of the coronation ceremony. This was the ceremony where Napoleon crown himself, trivializing the church's authority. In the non secular coronation ceremonies of the past, the last thing the emperor would have done is sip from the chalice, and upon receiving the sacrament is the moment he would have become emperor. It makes sense that the same person who crowned himself would have chosen a more subdued design for the chalice. It's role would have been little more than an afterthought.

 

Correction: I meant "king", not "emperor", when referring to coronations of the past.

 

well i would unfortunately say that it does not ''match the percier sketch exactly''. your piece is engraved and the sketch shows relief, and also, the quality of the engraving is not really what i would call royal standards :/ sorry to say. and the same with the shape, the sketch is extremely elaborate, just as expected from a piece to be at the french royal court, but yours is more... ordinary :/

 

Another question I have is related to its hallmarks. According to 925 1000, the perfectly round hallmark with a face, ending at the neck, was the medium guarantee for gold through 1809. I tested the chalice but very gently in an unnoticeable area, and it tests as solid at least 18ct gold. I brought it in to 2 pawnshops. One shop said the gun was reading almost pure silver, another shop said it was reading as 33 percent gold 66 percent silver, but probably just played. However, neither one of these businesses were about to cash me out on 20 ounces of gold, even if it were solid gold. does anyone have an expert knowledge of French hallmarks?

 

Just to clarify: your opinion is that there is no relationship between Cahier's chalice and Percier's sketch? The similar elements of design are coincidental and not based on one or the other in any way?

 

This is the kind of thing that would have to be authenticated through a major museum and some serious experts. It doesn't look close enough to be worth the effort. If it's gold yours is still worth quite a lot.

 

And to discredit all 3 of the following arguments: 1) that Jean-Charles Cahier didn't make the Coronation liturgical objects 2) that his skills were too inferior for Royal standards 3) that there is an expectation that he would have followed Percier's design more faithfully, I also located the monstrance for the Coronation ceremony. I'm in the process of negotiating to obtain it also

 

I'd have it authenticated.....before you buy it !

 

Guessing by the first 2 words of his original post, I would say he already owns it.

 

Id say its gilded silver.

 

"Hey, Jean-Paul, how are you getting on with that monstrance?"

"Almost ready, patron, just a bit more wear to put on........."

Have a care. Given the French premium on anything associated with Napoleon that has to be an expensive item.

 

my opinion is, that never mind the similarities of the design is vague in my opinoin, as popular design of superior items tend to be copied and i honestly dont think they have been copied that well on the photographed example compared to the sketch. also, your piece is engraved, the sketch is either cast in parts to make those relief parts, or the decorations are carefully soldered on, or both. i see no resemblence between the 2 pieces apart from both being chalices. im sorry but i just cant see where you got the idea that these 2 are related in quality

 

If, as I read the article you posted, Cahier was the jeweler to Napoleon, then the firm was entirely competent to produce the most lavish and sumptuous pieces in the most current fashion. That doesn't necessarily apply to every article they produced. And I can't imagine a person of Napoleon's ego shying away from conspicuous display on an occasion so momentous as his self-elevation to the rank of Emperor.

 

Sorry to say, I am with the others here. Not enough similarity to draw the kind of conclusions you are trying to make.

 

I do own the chalice, not yet for the monstrance. But that is clearly the arms of Napoleon I.

 

I respect all your opinions. I'm hoping I can find someone who can run this from speculation to authoritatively proving me right or wrong. Because if this isn't it, where is the chalice of Napoleon's Coronation? I have it narrowed down to:
1) it was looted by the British after defeating Napoleon in 1815
2). LouisXVIII melted it down in 1819
3) It was stolen from the Bibliotheque National de France in 1831
4) it was auctioned off by Christies when they auctioned off the French Crown Jewels.
In any event, I'm hoping someone can find some documentation as to what became of it, perhaps a recording of it by his antiques expert son, Charles Cahier, or an entry in the Christies catalogue, an inventory from the Bibliotheque National de France...