Newsletter 2023 Spring

Feature Stories:

• Battered Fabergé Survivors from the 1902 von Dervis Exhibition
• Fabergé Fact-checking Avoids Historical Inaccuracies – Reader’s Help Appreciated!

Regular Columns: Auction News | Publications

Battered Fabergé Survivors from the 1902 von Dervis Exhibition

By Anna and Vincent Palmade (USA), and Dmitry Krivoshey (Russia)

The Charity Exhibition of Fabergé Artistic Objects, Old Miniatures, and Snuff Boxes was held in St. Petersburg, Russia, at the von Dervis Mansion in March 1902. It was a venue in aid of schools under the patronage of the Empress Alexandra Feodorovna (1872-1918), with many of the items shown belonging to the immediate Imperial Family. After the Paris Exhibition Universelle in 1900, it was only the second time the public was able to see the Imperial Eggs created by Carl Fabergé, and also the very first time Imperial Easter Eggs and other Fabergé creations were exhibited on Russian soil.¹ Six Fabergé objects discussed in this essay are from the 1902 exhibition – a thermometer and a barometer en suite, and four clocks in different styles which survived the 1917 Revolution, yet in their journey to the year 2023 all of them suffered losses or transformations. A unique numbering system used in our forthcoming book traces the history of 914 Fabergé objects seen at the von Dervis exhibition, and in more recent times.

A thermometer and a barometer discussed in our article “Re-purposed en suite Fabergé Objects from the 1902 von Dervis Exhibition” in the Fabergé Research Newsletter, Winter 2021, are from the Mikhail Perkhin studio (mark М.П. – active 1886-1903), and belonged to Grand Duchess Xenia Alexandrovna (1875-1960), sister of Emperor Nichols II. Being of the same style, we assumed the utilitarian pieces were en suite despite being separated by a couple of shelves in the von Dervis exhibition vitrine (A.) Indeed, a few weeks after the publication of our analysis, we found the thermometer and barometer en suite in the Pink Room of Xenia’s St. Petersburg Moika Palace in an early 1899 photograph.² The next year the barometer was hanging alone on the wall of Xenia’s Boudoir in her Farm Palace in the Alexandria Park, her summer residence close to St. Petersburg.³ In more recent times, the standing thermometer (B., #420) was re-purposed into a vase, while the circular wall barometer (B., #447) was converted into a clock and then back to a barometer.

Two similar Fabergé clocks on wooden stands (C. and E.) situated on the top shelf of Xenia’s vitrine in the von Dervis Exhibition survived the Revolution, but changed over time.

The clock (C.), also made by the Perkhin workshop in 1898 (stock number 59870), is shown on a shelf next to the entrance of the Veranda in Xenia’s Boudoir at the Moika Palace⁴, and is now in the collection of Alexander Ivanov, who identified it from archival von Dervis vitrine photographs. In 2010, the clock which had suffered losses and alterations to its silver ornaments – lighter areas and holes are visible on the wood and the silver ornament around the clock have been restored with a different pattern (D.). It was on view at a 2010 exhibition in Kostroma, a riverside city in Western Russia, and we were able to confirm the Ivanov identification despite the losses and alterations thanks to entry 928 in Xenia’s 1918 inventory: “…hanging clock on wood to attach to the wall decorated lilac enamel and bronze”⁵ – the mention of lilac for the colored enamel gave it away.

Its counterpart at the 1902 Exhibition, the clock (E.) graces the cover (F.) of the 1990 Elagin Palace exhibition catalog even though it has lost its wooden stand, and is not detailed in the catalog’s written descriptions. Our research journey took many turns, but now the clock has a chronology:

• January 4, 1900 The clock was invoiced to Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich (Xenia’s husband) for 480 rubles.⁶ The identification was confirmed by the invoice specifying ‘raspberry’ as the color of the enamel, just like the mention of lilac for the enamel color in the 1918 inventory confirmed the identification of its counterpart on the other side of the vitrine shelf (C.). The mention of red enamel in the same 1918 inventory, entry 998, confirmed the identification of the standing thermometer (A.) discussed in our Fabergé Research Newsletter, Winter 2021, article – who needs color photography?!
• March 1902 The clock is in the von Dervis Exhibition.
• March 1903 The clock is standing on a console in Xenia’s Monika Palace White Room in an archival photograph.⁷
• 1985 The description of the clock in the 1990 publication for the 1989 exhibition indicates it is from the Viktor Aarne workshop (mark BA – active 1880-1904) and “Received from the Hotel ‘Astoria’ in 1985”.⁸ Individuals visiting the hotels during those times recall the hotel lobbies were furnished with objects from former imperial palaces.
• 1989-1990 Clock (F.) is on the cover of an exhibition catalog, The Great Fabergé: The Art of the Jewellers of the Court Firm, the publication of the first-ever Fabergé exhibition held in the Soviet Union and co-organized by the Helsinki jeweler A. Tillander, whose firm was a contemporary of Fabergé’s. Ten Russian museums from Moscow and Leningrad, A La Vieille Russie of New York City, and a number of private collectors in Finland were invited to exhibit at the Elagin Palace in Leningrad in 1989. Russian and English catalog was published the following year.⁹
• 2023 Where is the Aarne clock (F.) now?

A monumental clock (G.) by Julius Alexander Rappoport (mark I.P. – active 1883-1908) is showcased on the top of the vitrine dedicated to Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna (1864-1918), wife of Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich of Russia, the fifth son of Emperor Alexander II of Russia. At first glance nothing looks wrong with the modern appearance of the clock (H.). However, upon closer inspection and comparison with a nearly identical object (I.) of the same time period, clock (H.) is stripped of all its imperial markings. The crown and monogram finial, and the grenade finials on the four top corners have all been replaced by ball finials. The dedicatory plaque at the base and the names of the donors engraved on the side were removed. The enamel on the top part as well as the four studded feet are gone. These losses and transformations had taken place by the time the object was sold at auction by Leslie Berker, Esq., O.B.E. in 1961.¹⁰ A closer look suggests clock (I.) also differs from the clocks (G. and H.), because of the three intertwined laurel wreaths on the front instead of the two. Our final conclusion – the two clocks (G. and H.) are one and the same because of the identical defects of their bowenite bases.¹¹ The comparison with its near identical twin (I.), which was presented by the officers of the Preobrazhensky Regiment to Vladimir Petrovich Kornilov, strongly suggests our fifth object (G. and H.) was presented by the same officers to Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, who was the head of the Preobrazhensky Regiment between 1882 and 1891, before becoming Governor-General of Moscow.

And finally, a look at the free-standing pyramid showcase of Princess Zenaida Yusupova, the heiress to the largest fortune in Russia and mother to Prince Felix Yusupov, who had married Princess Irina Alexandrovna, the daughter of Grand Duchess Xenia Alexandrovna. The vitrine hosts on its bottom shelf a sixth “battered survivor” from the von Dervis Exhibition: a bowenite desk clock (J.), also from the Mikhail Perkhin studio (mark М.П. – active 1886-1903) dating to 1898 with stock number 60187. It is now in the Kremlin Museum with its remaining silver ornaments (K.), unfortunately re-arranged in an awkward manner. The authors found the clock on a table in an archival picture of Princess Zenaida.¹² The room is not identified, but we have reasons to believe it is directly above her Moika’s Palace Sitting Room in what used to be the apartment of Countess Elena Sergeievna Sumarokova (1829-1901), mother of Count Felix Yusupov Senior (1856-1928). A consultation with the custodians of the Yusupov Moika Palace will hopefully solve the mystery before our book about the 1902 Fabergé exhibition at the von Dervis Palace is published.

ENDNOTES:

¹ “Early Imperial Egg Exhibitions“, Miek’s Fabergé Eggs.
² GARF 662-2-26.
³ GARF 640-3-20.
⁴ GARF 662-2-56.
⁵ In a paper entitled, History of the Nationalization of the Petrograd Palace of the Grand Duchess Xenia Alexandrovna, 2018. In Russian.
⁶ Guzanov, A. and R.R. Gafifulin, Fabergé Items of Late XIX – Early XX Century in the Collection of the State Museum of Pavlovsk, 2013, entry 2751.
⁷ GARF 662-2-53.
⁸ The Great Fabergé: The Art of the Jewellers of the Court Firm, 1990, Cover and Written Description on p. 120, Item 8.
⁹ “Bibliography“, Fabergé Research Site.
¹⁰ Sotheby’s London, November 27, 1961, Lot 166 sold by Leslie Berker, Chairman and Managing Director, Berkertex Ltd., Plymouth and London in OBE New Years Honors to Crawley for £360 ($1,008).
¹¹ The two intertwined laurel wreaths and bowenite stone pattern are clearly visible on a 1902 von Dervis Exhibition photograph (State Museum Hermitage, File #410666).
¹² Coutau Begarie, Paris, July 9, 2021, Lot 193.

Fabergé Fact-checking Avoids Historical Inaccuracies – Reader’s Help Appreciated!

By Fabergé Research Newsletter Readers
Contact: Christel McCanless if you have more information or questions.

Is it getting easier or harder to distinguish between original objects made during Imperial times by the Russian jewelry firm of Carl Fabergé located in St. Petersburg and Moscow, and Fauxberge objects made in the style of the original Fabergé? Fauxberge is defined by Wikepedia:

“Today the term is a part of the expertise vocabulary in the field of Fabergé, used to refer to items that are copies, counterfeits, or pastiches, of historical Fabergé products made between 1885 and 1917.”

In most cases, the modern objects do not match the unique workmanship of the original Fabergé objects, the descriptions, nor any of the known original Fabergé marks. The Fabergé Research Newsletter has addressed this Fauxberge topic¹ several times since 2008:

• 2009 “Will the Real Fabergé Stand! A Dealer’s Perspective” by Peter L. Schaffer of A La Vieille Russie, a New York City family business specializing in Fabergé and antique jewelry, shares highlights from a Fabergé lecture given to members of the American Society of Jewelry Historians.
• 2013 “Is it Really Fabergé?” by Will Lowes, senior author of Fabergé Eggs: A Retrospective Encyclopedia penned these observations after an extended study of auction catalogs. More…
• 2014 Smaller auction houses began using umbrella agencies to market their “Fabergé” objects. In 2023, these consolidators are a dominant force in marketing both types of Fabergé objects, often with generic descriptions, i.e., a Russian gilt silver enamel snuff box.²
• 2017 “Fauxbergé – Caveat Emptor!” compiled by Christel Ludewig McCanless, editor/publisher, Fabergé Research Newsletter, with research contributions from Fabergé enthusiasts worldwide.
• 2023 Hard copy Fabergé and Russian Works of Art auction catalogs are no longer printed and sold by subscription, an important part of the auction trade begun in 1934! The major auction houses no longer have specialists just for Fabergé, instead a cataloger covers several subject areas. An increasing number of Fabergé pieces appear in smaller or regional auction houses. The level of expertise for authentication of Fabergé in these auction houses is highly variable, and sometimes the auction house relies on the consignor for details. In the past, Sotheby’s and Christie’s provided a standardized nomenclature to assist buyers in understanding the described authenticity of an object. A few basic definitions from one of the last Christie’s London printed catalogs (May 3, 2021, p. 331):

  “Attributed to…”: in Christie’s qualified opinion probably a work by the artist in whole or in part.

  “Marked Fabergé, Workmaster…”: in Christie’s qualified opinion a work of the master’s workshop inscribed with his name or initials and his workmaster’s initials.

  “By Fabergé…”: in Christie’s qualified opinion a work of the master’s workshop, but without his mark.

  “In the style of…”: in Christie’s qualified opinion a work of the period of the master and closely related to his style.

  “Bearing marks…”: in Christie’s qualified opinion not a work of the master’s workshop and bearing later marks.

These definitions/qualified headings can change, and vary by auction house. No written description replaces the potential owners viewing the item themselves, and ultimately practice, Caveat Emptor! The authenticity of four Fabergé or Fauxberge Fabergé objects – tea cup holder, silver rabbits, nécessaire, and glue pots/perfume bottle studied by contributors for the current newsletter issue are based on these criteria:

• Quality and style of the workmanship
• Precious metal hallmarks
• Hallmarks of the Fabergé firm and the workmasters’ marks, and
• Provenance.

Tea Cup Holder

The press release for a champleve enameled tea glass holder³, a gift to the Archives and Special Collections, University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada, states the object is from the Fabergé workshop circa 1889. Upon request, the University archivist quoted in the release shared a fuzzy photograph of the marks (A.), which appear to be a master’s mark and a silver assay mark for Moscow during the time period of 1899-1908. The workmaster’s mark suggests one of these possibilities: SF, FS, GF or FG. None of these workmaster marks are associated with the Fabergé Moscow workshop. In the published description (A.), the appraiser states the tea glass holder is “Stamped with Fabergé factory Imperial eagle style hallmark as well as the unknown artists (F.C?). Circa 1889.” Unfortunately, the Fabergé Imperial warrant (B.) used by the Russian jeweler after 1885 is not shown on the mark shared by the appraiser. It is noted the word style in the object description does not in any way suggest the object is not authentic.

The design of the tea glass holder is typical of items made in Moscow by both Fabergé and other silversmiths. “In 1887, Feodor Rückert (1851-1918) began working with Russian jeweler and Fabergé egg maker, Carl Fabergé. His mark Ф.Р. (F.R. in Russian Cyrillic) can be found on cloisonné enamel objects made in Moscow, which he sold both independently, as well as under Fabergé.” A detailed catalogue raisonné for further study is Muntian, Tatiana. Feodor Rückert and Carl Fabergé, 2016, published in English and Russian.

Provenance: “The teacup holder was a gift to the father of the donor, alumnus Ely Bronstein (BA/70), as payment for medical treatment proffered in Shanghai, sometime in the 1930s. Dr. Gregor Bronstein and his wife Ada eventually moved out of China in 1952, and then relocated to Winnipeg in 1954.”⁴ Reviewing the provenance issue, suggests there is not an unbroken line from the original date when this tea glass holder was made based on the ca. 1900 hallmarks. The holder can only be traced back to the 1930’s when the donor’s father acquired it in Shanghai, China. Many Russian exiles resided in that section of China, so it is not unusual to find a Russian artifact there. (Object summary by James Hurtt, USA)

Silver Cat and Silver Rabbit

The authenticity of a silver cat and silver rabbit shown in a 2023 Antiques Roadshow (USA) is the next topic to explore. For Fabergé enthusiasts familiar with the workmanship of Fabergé, it is obvious the cat is not genuine. The fur is not finely detailed and the Antiques Roadshow (USA) appraiser pointed out the weight of the silver was nominal. One can often recognize a silver Fabergé piece because of its heft. The marks are also suspect. The rabbit’s fur appears to be more finely finished than the cat, but has atypical diamond eyes. The majority of rabbits by various Fabergé workmasters have garnet eyes serving as the push piece for elegant bell pushes and their fur coats are represented in a more realistic manner.

One must remember a great many of Rappoport’s pieces are also marked with the Imperial Warrant and Fabergé. The Antiques Roadshow (USA) appraiser thought the “bunny” is genuine, but I have my doubts. (Object analysis, Courtesy James Hurtt, USA)

A search for silver rabbits by Christel Ludewig McCanless in auction catalogs from 1934-to the present yielded very few results – which ones are authentic Fabergé and/or match the known Fabergé authentication criteria? The rabbits in the right-hand columns of the illustrations below were made in Moscow. In the left-hand column questions remain.

Research Challenge #1

A closer look at an Imperial egg by Fabergé and a nécessaire containing tools for personal body care “attributed to Fabergé”, share similarities in size, style, and workmaster marks. In each case, the objects have a Fabergé marks for by August Holmström (1829-1903) – workmaster mark AH (active 1857-1903), and are dated 1887 and ca. 1900.

Initial research team observations:

1. Despite the attribution statement and based on the price realized at auction (estimate $8,000 – $12,000, sold for $275,000), there must have been several bidders, who after having examined the unusual nécessaire egg in person, agreed it was real.
2. A conundrum not resolved is the odd wording of the workmaster mark details in the Hindman auction lot description –
   “Maker’s mark of A.W. Holmström (sic), Fabergé workmaster’s mark.”

Does the confusion perhaps arise from the fact that a father and son Fabergé workmaster team used the same mark during different time periods, and the identical mark and egg design features appear on the Fabergé Imperial Easter Egg given to Empress Marie Feodorovna (1847-1928) by her husband, Emperor Alexander III (1845-1894) in 1887?

Workmaster father/son team details are found in our Fabergé Research Site, Workmaster and Marks section.

August [Wilhelm, never used in marks on objects] Holmström (1829-1903) – workmaster mark AH – active 1857-1903. His workshop created the Fabergé copies of the Imperial regalia in a one- to ten-scale miniatures. The history of the tiara in the McFerrin Collection has an interesting historical connection dating back to ca. 1810 and involves the Holmström workshop ca. 1890. Two more tiaras exist with a flower theme from this same workshop, after 1903 owned by August’s son Albert. Fabergé Research Newsletter Winter 09-10 | Spring 13.

Albert [Woldemar, never used in marks on objects] Holmström – Son of August Holmström, continued using his father’s mark AH – active 1903-1917. Biographical details on Albert Holmström (1876-1925). He was the son of August Holmström, who took over his father’s jewelry workshop after his death in 1903, and maintained the quality of the pieces made. It appears to be unique in the Fabergé genre that the same mark was used by two generations of qualified workmasters, and needs to be considered in dating a piece. Examples of their work are the 1892 Diamond Trellis Egg (2011 McFerrin Collection), and the 1896 Lilies of the Valley Basket (Matilda Geddings Gray Collection) and under Albert’s leadership, the 1913 Winter Egg (private collection) and 1914 Mosaic Egg (British Royal Collection).

ENDNOTES:

¹ Fabergé Research Newsletter 02.08 | Fall 08 | Fall 09 | Spring 12 | Summer 12 | Fall and Winter 17 | Spring and Summer 21
² Aalders Auctioneers & Valuers | Invaluable
³ Rutkowski, Chris. “A Gift that Likely Won’t Be under Your Tree this Year”, UM Today News, December 6, 2022
⁴ Ibid.
⁵ Julius Alexander Rappoport (1851-1917), the leading silversmith in the St. Petersburg Fabergé ateliers, who is described as being responsible for “small objects for writing tables, to vases, to elaborate ornaments for table settings”, with the largest article known to have been produced being a surtout-de-table commissioned by Emperor Alexander III for the dowry of his daughter, Grand Duchess Xenia, in 1894 at a cost of 50,000 rubles. (Lowes and McCanless, Fabergé Eggs: A Retrospective Encyclopedia, 2001, p. 231; “Fabergé Urn at the New York Stock Exchange”, Fabergé Research Newsletter, Spring 13)
⁶ A story or statement of doubtful authenticity, although widely circulated as being true. (Wikipedia)

Auction News

Changing World of Fabergé Auctions, Part II

By Christel Ludewig McCanless (Editor and Publisher, Fabergé Research Newsletter)

Timothy Adams in his recent article “Changing World of Fabergé Auctions and the Ivory Trade Law”¹ discussed significant changes have occurred in the auction world –

• Hard-copy auction catalogs have been replaced by online catalogs.
• Advertised ‘private sales’ supplement the traditional auction house functions.
• Acquisition of smaller auction houses [Ed. note: Cornette de Saint Cyr (France), Rasmussen, and Bukowskis (Scandinavia), Skinner (USA)] by Bonhams, London.

Sadly, more changes along with observations by newsletter readers must be added to the Adams short list. In a nutshell, newsletter contributors find it hard to do scholarly Fabergé object research (provenance and auction lot descriptions) without hard copy catalogs in their private catalog collections and/or in art libraries when neither hard copy or PDF records for auction lots are available. The auction houses, in order to save huge data storage fees and maintenance costs, have removed archival records from their online databases. Christie’s auction house begins with the year 2000, and Sotheby’s from November 2007 to the present. Do these trends give adequate protection to the buyer new to his area of interest, and/or provide researchers the needed tools to be authentic in their research efforts? How will AI (Artificial Intelligence) help in the future?

Dealer Updates from newsletter readers:

1. Andre Ruzhnikov Fine Art and Antiques (London) website illustrates over 90 Fabergé objects with archival specifics, and two auction reviews:

   Sotheby’s Geneva, November 15, 2022, auction included 44 Fabergé objects annotated in “‘Scottish’ Owl Stokes Swiss Mayhem …” The analysis (November 28, 2022) concludes with a segment entitled On-line Catalogue of Errors:

   “When on-line sales became predominant during Covid, auctioneers took the opportunity to post catalogues exclusively on their websites – and to forget about printed versions. It now seems Sotheby’s have stopped producing printed catalogues altogether…People love catalogues. People collect catalogues. They are both an important tool of the trade and vital for research libraries…Sotheby’s have started removing unsold lots from their catalogues posted on-line. Why? …”

   Another review, A Changing Market (Bargains to Be Found – If You Seek Far and Wide, December 20, 2022) enumerates in detail Fabergé lots offered by a few lesser-known auction houses in the world – Sedart (Barcelona), Millon, and De Baecque & Associés (both in Paris).
2. John Atzbach Antiques (Redmond, Washington) illustrates Fabergé objects including Feodor Rückert objects. Research Tools: “Workmaster Feodor Rückert”² by John Atzbach, and a monograph by Tatiana Muntian³, showcase the artistic styles and techniques of the Fabergé and Rückert studios. A venue with the same title as the 2020 Muntian monograph featured 400 Rückert and Fabergé objects at the exhibition halls of the Assumption Belfry and Patriarch’s Palace in the Moscow Kremlin Museums from October 9, 2020 – January 10, 2021. The media segment on the Kremlin website mentioned above includes three fascinating videos. Of particular interest is the video entitled “Feodor Ruckert. The Art of Enamel” with English subtitles. Very educational!

   Both dealers, Andre Ruzhnikov and John Atzbach, offer newsletters via free subscriptions.
3. M.S. Rau (New Orleans, Louisiana USA), a dealer in Fabergé canes, walking sticks, umbrella handles, etc., is advertising again in the Wall Street Journal, April 26, 2023, Section A10, after a long absence.
4. Fabergé objects featured by established Fabergé dealers, A La Vieille Russie, New York (NY), and Wartski, London (UK), and its participation in the Treasure House Fair, June 23-26, 2023.
5. Bonhams’ owner floats sale of auction house at $1 billion – Epiris, a private equity company which owns the auction house, has reportedly approached JP Morgan Chase & Co to advise on the deal. (The Art Newspaper, February 7, 2023)

Auction catalog research tips: Major art libraries (Watson Library at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Frick Library, Cleveland Museum of Art, Hillwood Museum, Getty Museum, Gemological Institute of America, etc.) have long runs of hard copy auction catalogs. Researchers near their local library with interlibrary loan service may be able to obtain copies of specific catalog pages for a small fee. Scipio is a database of over 570,000 auction catalogs from the late 16^th century until recently when printed auction catalogs were discontinued. Older hard copies are available for purchase from Jeffrey Eger Auction Catalogues. The website’s accompanying index stops in 2018, so direct inquiries are necessary for more recent catalogs.

Auctions Past and Present