[Slraep]

Originally Posted by Valeria101

... the colors and model reminds me of a medieval clown's bells and patchy coat.

Hi Ana,

That's the description I was looking for. Except mine had a jester instead of a clown.

Maybe my not liking the necklace has nothing to do with its "heavy" stiff looking geometric and twisty body not really showing off the pearls to their best advantage. Maybe it is because clowns and jesters creep me out.

Slraep

[Valeria101]

Originally Posted by Slraep

Hi Ana,

That's the description I was looking for. Except mine had a jester instead of a clown.

[...] clowns and jesters creep me out.

Slraep

And they say 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. Bogus! I also feel an unsettling, morbid touch in the correct geometry plus organically stained and blemished pearls... A 'complicated' kind of beauty like a Dutch master's composition of fresh flowers and decayed fruit bringing mortality to the dinner table.

'Bet someone will meet the auction estimate for the sake of the fatalistic aesthetics. Much in line with the most famous owner's demise Phew!

Hate clowns too.

Originally Posted by Slraep

That is one of my favourite tiaras. It's stunning. Imagine prancing around in that thing and Boo's sandals.

Now, Slraep... be good. That was a heck of a laugh !

[Slraep]

Originally Posted by Kevin Canning

maybe its just me, my monitor or the picture - but am I the only one who finds grey pearls with a brown overtone, less then appealing? Yes the are natural, but that doesn't automatically make them beautiful to me.

Hi Kevin,

Would it help to know that the grey pearls with brown overtone are from the Pteria sterna? Natural Sea of Cortez pearls!! Puts them in a different light, doesn't it? Marie Antoinette did have impeccable taste regardless of what became of her head. The necklace the pearls are stuck on, on the other hand, still does not inspire any admiration from me.

A kind friend sent me an article about the provenance of the pearls written up in Modern Jeweler magazine. Fascinating.

Slraep

[Caitlin]

More than two hundred years after she was put to death, Marie Antoinette continues to fascinate us. Movies, biographies and now a much anticipated sale later this month of a necklace incorporating a handful of precious pearls once having belonged to the tragic queen captures our attention. Known as Madame Deficite for her lavish spending on fashion and jewels, Marie Antoinette's name is synonymous with extreme extravagance.
The historically important natural pearl, diamond and ruby necklace will be sold at auction on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 at Christie's in London. According to Christie's London, the sumptuous pearls which were incorporated into a necklace in 1849 were given by Marie Antoinette to Lady Sutherland (Elizabeth Leveson-Gower), the wife of the British ambassador (1790-92) Lord George Leveson-Gower, for safekeeping. Lady Elizabeth is believed to have aided King Louis XVI and his family’s failed flight from France on June 20, 1791, during the French Revolution (1789-1799). Prior to Lady Sutherland’s departure, as part of the embassy’s hurried withdrawal in August 1792, Marie Antoinette gave Lady Sutherland a bag of pearls and diamonds for safe keeping. As the wife of the British Ambassador, Lady Sutherland enjoyed diplomatic immunity and was one of the few who could be trusted to return the jewels when the Queen escaped, a plan which was never to be realised. The pearls have been in the same family for over two hundred years.
The necklace has a fringe of twenty one graduated drop-shaped grey natural pearls, each suspended from an old-cut diamond collet surmount to the diamond ribbon which intertwines the ruby collar. The collar is set with twelve button-shaped grey natural pearls which are mounted in gold. The exquisite necklace has never been offered at auction before and is therefore completely fresh to the market. It is estimated it will fetch between £350,000 GBP and £400,000 GBP

[/quote].</H3>

[Kevin Canning]

Natural Sea of Cortez pearls!!

well thats unfortunate since those are among my top 3 pearl types - but these specimens while rare are not beautiful, to me at least.

Rare doesn't equal beautiful to me, but to some it does I guess.

[Caitlin]

I just thought this necklace was interestingly similar

<H3>A 19th century articulated fringe of old-mine cut diamonds with foliate motifs alternating with natural pearls fringe necklace

A 19th century articulated fringe of old-mine cut diamonds with foliate motifs alternating with natural pearls fringe necklace

The articulated fringe of old-mine cut diamonds with foliate motifs alternating with natural pearls, suspended from a row of collet-set old mine-cut diamonds within open-back mounts, mounted in silver-topped gold, diamonds approximately 18.00 carats total, detaches to form two separate bracelets of various lengths, length of bracelets 15.5cm and 22.0cm respectively, total length of necklace 37.5cm. Sold for HK$450,000 plus Premium and tax
Footnote: Accompanied by a certificate from the International Gemological Institute, stating that the thirteen pearls are natural and of cream translucent colour and, the twenty-six diamonds range from F to K colour and VVS to I1 clarity. Report number M3J16538, dated 10th September 2007.

</H3>

[Slraep]

Yet another view...

[Caitlin]

and another

The 21 jewels were smuggled out of France during the French Revolution by the Countess of Sutherland, wife of the British ambassador and an ally of the extravagant queen.
Marie Antoinette's necklace is expected to fetch £400,000. See more of the lots on offer
They were to be returned when the wife of Louis XVI escaped imprisonment.
But she never did and went to the guillotine in front of a baying mob in 1793.
Half a century later in England, the drop-shaped natural pearls were mounted onto a necklace with diamonds and rubies for the wedding of the countess's grandson, George Granville William Sutherland-Leveson-Gower, to Ann Hay McKenzie.
The necklace will be sold at Christie's next Wednesday.

Raymond Sancroft-Baker, a Christie's jewellery expert, said: "It is exceptionally rare to be able to offer jewels that belonged to Marie Antoinette and which are completely fresh to the market.
"The story behind the pearls and their integral incorporation into this necklace for the Sutherland-Leveson-Gower family wedding in 1849 adds to its fascinating history."

[Valeria101]

Is it my illusion, or are these latest images showing some much, much more attractive pearls ?

[Caitlin]

If those are Pteria sternas, they change incredibly according to the light they are shown in. I think this is just an example of it. I think they mayb be better looking pearls than we first thought-

PS
The first image at the top of the thread is GONE so I am glad we captured them in later posts.

I highlighted where it says the pearls were set 50 years later. So those were her pearls, but not her setting.

[olivia24]

Yeah, the first picture was awful, but the necklace looks much better in closeup (the picture underneath the portrait of Marie Antoinette especially). The jewels are beautiful, but the setting is a bit too gaudy for my tastes.

[Caitlin]

It didn't sell. The necklace only got a 340,000 pound offer, far below the 400,000 pound reserve.

[knotty panda]

So no one lost their head bidding on it?

[Caitlin]

Tee Hee ....

[GemGeek]

Originally Posted by knotty panda

So no one lost their head bidding on it?

Good one Knotty Panda