Log in or Sign up
Antiques Board
Home
Forums
>
Antique Forums
>
Jewelry
>
Apologies, it’s costume but
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="lizjewel, post: 2845370, member: 13874"][USER=5833]@Bronwen[/USER] I believe you may reading too quickly as you refer to details I have not mentioned. </p><p><br /></p><p>I did not address <i>precious cameos</i> as unworthy of attention. They have always been valuable and sought after, and many degrees of fineness exist. </p><p><br /></p><p>I mentioned <i>Tassies</i> were molded, not carved. They are in a different category, considered costume jewelry. That they are collectible today is a different subject which I am not addressing here. The Tassie I bought for 10 pence in 1958 was considered costume junk by the Portobello Road vendor who accepted my money.</p><p><br /></p><p>The "land lady" was not<i> a land lady</i>. She was the head of the household where I worked as <i>au pair</i> during my study years in London. </p><p><br /></p><p>She was also a university professor of history and I was inclined to believe that she knew something about that of which she spoke when she shared an intimate moment of English history with me. For my protection, as it were. I was grateful.</p><p><br /></p><p>You point out that the cameos of the <i>Grand Tour of Europe, Italy</i>, with its fine carved cameos were brought back as souvenirs by those who could afford these tours. </p><p><br /></p><p>Again, I don't dispute that slice of history, I am quite aware of it. But I was not talking about them, it's another chapter. </p><p><br /></p><p>The earliest real <i>hey day </i>of <i>fine carved cameo</i>s to buy from jewelers in Europe for the fine ladies of the aristocracy was in the late 18th (eighteenth) and early 19th (nineteenth) century. </p><p><br /></p><p>By the time Victoria ascended to the throne in the mid-19th century, the fine cameos were largely forgotten and all Europe that ruled fashion was in a <i>diamond trance</i>. </p><p><br /></p><p>Queen Victoria considered diamonds <i>gaudy</i> so brought fine cameos back into fashion by wearing her mother's. The cameo thus achieved a renewed status as fashionable and respectable.</p><p><br /></p><p>I have never claimed that "costume was for the poor...". I wrote that it was <i>perceived</i>, looked upon if you will, as a poor people's fashion by <i>those who embraced</i> the <i>snob factor</i>.</p><p><br /></p><p>As with everything else in the world, there are ultimate degrees to everything. </p><p><br /></p><p>To claim that <i>European jewelry is finer than American jewelry</i> is a <i>broad sweep</i> claim that cannot be justified.</p><p><br /></p><p>What degree of design, material, workmanship, and ultimate price of anything are we talking about? </p><p><br /></p><p>We don't compare a <i>Rolls Royce</i> with a <i>Ford</i>, do we? Because we know that they are of different qualities.</p><p><br /></p><p>Thus, should we compare the finest <i>Trifari</i> or <i>Eisenberg</i> top of the line costume jewelry, some examples of which have sold for astronomical sums as <i>vintage</i>, with a simple line of European jewelry, such as the MADE IN WEST GERMANY-stamped jewelry so ubiquitous after WW II, we are being unfair. </p><p><br /></p><p>There is no comparison between them so it can't be made. I have seen exquisite pieces of European and American costume jewelry and I have seen junk from both sides of the Atlantic. </p><p><br /></p><p>Let's therefore not generalize that <i>one country's production if </i>finer <i>than another's</i>, it's not right and unfair to both.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="lizjewel, post: 2845370, member: 13874"][USER=5833]@Bronwen[/USER] I believe you may reading too quickly as you refer to details I have not mentioned. I did not address [I]precious cameos[/I] as unworthy of attention. They have always been valuable and sought after, and many degrees of fineness exist. I mentioned [I]Tassies[/I] were molded, not carved. They are in a different category, considered costume jewelry. That they are collectible today is a different subject which I am not addressing here. The Tassie I bought for 10 pence in 1958 was considered costume junk by the Portobello Road vendor who accepted my money. The "land lady" was not[I] a land lady[/I]. She was the head of the household where I worked as [I]au pair[/I] during my study years in London. She was also a university professor of history and I was inclined to believe that she knew something about that of which she spoke when she shared an intimate moment of English history with me. For my protection, as it were. I was grateful. You point out that the cameos of the [I]Grand Tour of Europe, Italy[/I], with its fine carved cameos were brought back as souvenirs by those who could afford these tours. Again, I don't dispute that slice of history, I am quite aware of it. But I was not talking about them, it's another chapter. The earliest real [I]hey day [/I]of [I]fine carved cameo[/I]s to buy from jewelers in Europe for the fine ladies of the aristocracy was in the late 18th (eighteenth) and early 19th (nineteenth) century. By the time Victoria ascended to the throne in the mid-19th century, the fine cameos were largely forgotten and all Europe that ruled fashion was in a [I]diamond trance[/I]. Queen Victoria considered diamonds [I]gaudy[/I] so brought fine cameos back into fashion by wearing her mother's. The cameo thus achieved a renewed status as fashionable and respectable. I have never claimed that "costume was for the poor...". I wrote that it was [I]perceived[/I], looked upon if you will, as a poor people's fashion by [I]those who embraced[/I] the [I]snob factor[/I]. As with everything else in the world, there are ultimate degrees to everything. To claim that [I]European jewelry is finer than American jewelry[/I] is a [I]broad sweep[/I] claim that cannot be justified. What degree of design, material, workmanship, and ultimate price of anything are we talking about? We don't compare a [I]Rolls Royce[/I] with a [I]Ford[/I], do we? Because we know that they are of different qualities. Thus, should we compare the finest [I]Trifari[/I] or [I]Eisenberg[/I] top of the line costume jewelry, some examples of which have sold for astronomical sums as [I]vintage[/I], with a simple line of European jewelry, such as the MADE IN WEST GERMANY-stamped jewelry so ubiquitous after WW II, we are being unfair. There is no comparison between them so it can't be made. I have seen exquisite pieces of European and American costume jewelry and I have seen junk from both sides of the Atlantic. Let's therefore not generalize that [I]one country's production if [/I]finer [I]than another's[/I], it's not right and unfair to both.[/QUOTE]
Your name or email address:
Do you already have an account?
No, create an account now.
Yes, my password is:
Forgot your password?
Stay logged in
Antiques Board
Home
Forums
>
Antique Forums
>
Jewelry
>
Apologies, it’s costume but
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Registered Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...