Jewelry

Easter Mystery "by Karl Faberge"?..

At the beginning of 2004, Victor Vexelberg, a Russian businessman, acquired through the ╚Connection of the Times╩ fund an Easter egg of red enamel in the form of a purse, the surprise shaped as a platinum basket full of stony flowers.

The egg has got the ╚Spring Flowers╩ title. Scientists got to know the ╚Spring Flowers╩ in March, 1961. It was acquired by Lansdale Christie, an American collector, in ╚Out of Old Russia╩, a New York shop (owners: The Sheffers; according to a book by K. Mak-Kanless, 2001). In 1966, after the collector▓s death, the egg was acquired by Malcolm Forbs as an Imperial one through the same shop. In 1962, in the second edition of the ╚Karl Faberge╩ book, Kenneth Snowman, a Faberge specialist, represented this egg (in the first edition of 1953, it was not mentioned) as the property of Empress Maria Feodorovna. In 1961, the Sheffers did not ascertain that this egg was of Imperial nature; it was Mr. Kenneth Snowman, the author of the book, who did it.

The egg bears an inscription of Faberge▓s inventory number of 44374. The egg is located in a case with the inscription of ╚K. Faberge╩ under two-headed eagle and the names of the cities, ╚St. Petersburg-Moscow-London╩. This was the third time when M. Forbes purchased an Imperial egg by Faberge. Up to that moment, in 1965, he had already bought the Imperial Easter presents: the ╚Renaissance╩ and the ╚Laurel Leaf╩ eggs. In November, 1966, M. Forbes bought the fourth egg titled the ╚The Fifteenth Anniversary of the Coronation╩.

Nikita Chrusheov wanted to catch up and outstrip America in meat and milk production, and Forbes decided to outstrip Russia in egg industry. The Armoury at the Moscow Kreml was in possession of 10 Easter masterpieces by Faberge while, towards 1990, Malcolm Forbes had 11 eggs. However, in 1993 after the publication of Valentine Skurlov▓s archival reflections, it turned out that of 11 subjects, there were only 9 Easter eggs.

In 1990, Malcolm Forbes died having bequeathed the collection to his children. He was sure that the ╚Spring Flowers╩ egg was an Imperial one.

The ╚Spring Flowers╩ egg was exhibited at 21 exhibitions, including exhibitions in the Metropolitan Museum, the Victoria and Albert Museum in London, in the Moscow Kremlin in 2004, it was demonstrated in Sotheby▓s exhibition hall (New York). The work is mentioned in 38 books and more than 70 magazine articles.

Up to the 1990s, the ╚Spring Flowers╩ egg had been presented in all publications and at all exhibitions as a doubtless Faberge▓s work until, in 1989, after scientific and research work, Valentin Skurlov noted that Imperial Easter eggs should not bear inventory numbers. Skurlov shared this information with M. Lopatko, the State Hermitage employee who published out this fact in 1993.

In the catalogue of Faberge▓s exhibition, Gamburg (1995), Tatyana Muntyan, the curator of the Faberge collection in the Armoury, mentioned a List compiled by the Anichkov Palace superintendent in the autumn of 1917 while transporting the precious subjects to Moscow. In the List, there is a sentence of ╚Silver and gilded purse in the form of an egg, covered with red enamel, with one sapphire╩. There is no mentioning of pedestal of bovenite, though in the same List of 1917, all the other Easter eggs were written of to have a pedestal (in case it was). In the List of the Armoury of 1922, there is a mentioning of ╚One silver basket with flowers, framed, with roses╩ (Faberge had executed several baskets with flowers, this one could be a basket of the ╚Icy Egg╩ of 1913. ≈ V.S.).

T. Faberge, L. Proler and V. Skurlov, authors of a monograph of ╚Imperial Easter Eggs by Faberge╩ (1997), exclude the ╚Spring Flowers╩ of the final ╚List of Imperial Eggs╩ and ranked it among ╚non-attributed ones╩ as the chronological row of Imperial Easter eggs had been documentarily completed.

Geza fon Habsburg in the ╚Faberge. Treasures of the Russian Empire╩ book (2004), which is devoted to Vexelberg▓s collection, provides false information on the egg sold in 1993 through the ╚Antiques╩ Russian Unity for 2,000 rubles. For the first time, this statement appeared in A.V. Solodkov▓s article titled ╚On the Trail of Faberge▓s Treasure╩ which was published in a catalogue of Faberge works exhibition in the State Hermitage (1993) and then, in K. Mak-Kanless▓ book, under a title of ╚Faberge Eggs. A Retrospektive Enciclopedia╩ (2001). K. Mak-Kanless did not work with the archives of the ╚Antiques╩ Unity and used data of Alexander Solodkov▓s article, who interprets an egg of the ╚Spring Flowers╩ as an Imperial one. Besides, in T. Faberge, L. Proler and V. Skurlov▓s book, in an Appendix 6, at page 262, it is stated that the ╚Bouquet of Field Flowers╩ Easter egg dated of 1991 (presently located in the English Queen collection) was sold in 1993 through the ╚Antiques╩ Unity for 2,000 rubles.

Crystel Mak-Kanless mixed up the ╚Spring Flowers╩ with the ╚Field Flowers╩ and Geza fon Gabsburg doubled the mistake. K. Mak-Kanless introduces a new, false chronology of the egg▓s story, starting from 1903, when it was allegedly presented to the Empress Maria Feodorovna. Then, there follow the dates of ╚1917╩ and ╚1922╩ when the egg was allegedly on the list of things sent to Moscow. Then, there is an inscription of ╚1927╩ ≈ a date when the egg came back to the Armoury and, finally, of ╚1933╩ ≈ a date of its sale through the ╚Antiques╩ Unity. Neither of these dates is confirmed by archive sources.

K. Mak-Kanless writes that for the first time the ╚Spring Flowers╩ egg was mentioned in G. Banebridge▓s book, in edition of 1949. At this page, she tells of nothing but a surprise ≈ the ╚basket with flow-ers╩ ≈ which used to belong to the ╚Icy Egg╩ of 1913. Banebridge does not write about the ╚Spring Flowers╩ at all. It turns out that the ╚Spring Flowers with ⌠a surprise■╩ was introduced in 1961. Presently, there are enough reasons to ascertain that this egg is false and is in no way a Faberge▓s work.

ARGUMENTS:
1. In 1917, the List includes a ╚silver and gilded╩ egg; in 1961, there appeared an ╚a golden egg with hallmark 56╩.

2. In 1917, in the ╚Purse of Red Enamel╩ egg, which is mentioned in the List, there is ╚one sapphire╩ (T. Muntyan▓s information). In 1961, in the ╚Spring Flowers╩ egg, the sapphire is absent. The sapphire may have been the egg▓s button. Then, why was the egg titled the ╚purse╩ in 1917?

3. The ╚Spring Flowers╩ egg bears an early hallmark by Mikhail Perhin (up to 1895). The scratched number corresponds to the year of 1892 but a company inscription on a case relates to 1907√1914 as Karl Faberge opened his shop in London (1915√1916, called ╚Petrograd╩ probably). In 1903√1906, Allan Bow (owner of the London shop) did not use cases with the inscription of ╚St. Petersburg-Moscow-London╩ since he used to sell products by ╚K. Faberge. Moscow╩, the Moscow Trading House. The inscription on the case was not engraved the way as it used to be on the other analogues cases. The case and the fabric are new, there are no sings of historical wear; difference from the case of the ╚Fifteenth Coronation╩ is especially noticeable because, on the latter, the sings of wear are more distinct. Besides, this egg was manufactured 19 years later than the ╚Spring Flowers╩ one.

4. The hallmark does not correspond to the 89th article of the Hallmarking Instruction of 1882 which had been valid up to January 1, 1899. Fittings, which frame the basement, has neither a hallmark (which metal was used: gilded brass, silver or gold?) nor the master▓s mark. At every known Imperial Easter egg of 1887√1895, there is no hallmark of ╚56╩ without an emblem of the city (this kind of hallmark is called a ╚sign of certification╩). The information of the hallmark and of the inventory number of this egg has never been published, so their authenticity cannot be confirmed; those experts, who had seen them, have never uttered their opinion.

5. The ╚Basket with Flowers╩ is executed in 1892 (the date corresponds to the inventory number), 21 years before the famous ╚Icy Egg╩ of 1913, where, as the surprise, the same type of a platinum basket was present. The original design of the egg of 1913 was worked out by Alma Pill. In 2002, Preben Ulstrup, a Dutch researcher, published a letter written by Emperor Nikolay II to his mother, Empress Maria Feodorvna, where, according to Faberge, the Emperor explains the plot of the egg of 1913, ╚It is winter outside and, inside, there is a greeting of spring╩. Why should he have explained the plot to the Empress if, starting from 1892, she had already owned such a gift? The fact that the ╚basket with flowers╩ was situated inside the ╚purse╩ cannot be explained in the same way as Faberge didit in respect of the ╚Icy Egg╩. It turns out, ╚Outside, there is a purse, and inside, there is a greeting of spring╩.

6. The Faberge company only started to produce stony flowers for a Paris exhibition of 1900. Frantz Birbaum writes that the company got a Chinese sample of this product after Pekin had been captured by Russian troops in 1899. In 1896, the company had already manufactured the famous ╚Basket with Snowdrops╩ but the authors of ╚The Faberge Flowers╩ book (2004; Tatyana Faberge and Valentin Skurlov among them) agree with Birbaum▓s opinion of the first stone flowers having been introduced in the end of 1890s. Herein, judging by the inventory number of 1892 and by the hallmark of ╚early Mikhail Perhin╩, they were introduced before 1895.

7. Jewellery and technological execution of the ╚Spring Flowers╩ Easter egg does not correspond to Mikhail Perhin▓s opinion of the quality of the work: a low level of quality of the assembled parts, their unskilful fastening and covering with some uncertain kind of ╚springs╩. The surface of the egg is devided into two parts by transversal stripes, which are not of any aesthetic significance but evidence inability of enamel covering the surface of an egg. Gold armature in the form of rocailles is not fixed tightly to the body of the egg, which is a defect of mounting, and never appears in the authentic Mikhail Perhin▓s products.

8. The construction of the egg (opening into two parts) is identical to that of another similar egg which, in 1953√1977, used to turn up as an ╚Imperial╩ one and was finally ╚exposed╩ in 1980. This is the ╚Nicolay II Riding a Horse╩ egg. It firstly appeared in 1953, in a monograph about Faberge written by the above mentioned K. Snowman, as a present of Empress Alexandra Feodorovna to her tsar-spouse for the 300th anniversary of the Romanov dynasty. In 1977, it was sold through a Geneva auction as an ╚Imperial╩ egg. We can suggest that both eggs (the ╚Spring Flowers╩ and the ╚Horse Statue╩) were manufactured in the same workshop. In 1979, when the owner tried to resell the ╚Horse Statue╩ egg through an auction expert K. Snowman refused to attribute it as a Faberge work. Since the information of that egg was published in the ╚Scandals╩ section the auction had to accept their error and to pay out a huge compensation to the customer. Two-headed eagle and armature (╚a net╩ on the top of the egg) of both the ╚Spring Flowers╩ and ╚Horse Statue╩ eggs are not tightly fixed to the surface of the egg and leave big gaps.

9. Actually, the egg cannot be called the ╚purse╩ because the coins would inevitably fell out of it while opening. It is the only fastener which can be a part of the purse.

10. Combination of the gold egg, platinum basket and stony flowers with gold armature is an evident stylistic dissonance. So, the ╚Icy Egg╩ of 1913 contains a platinum basket in the platinum egg.

11. The egg▓s inventory number of 4473 is very close to 44255 scripted on the Easter egg with dark blue enamelled stripes and a blue agate rabbit inside. It is possible to suggest that both subjects were produced within a month, consequently, they should bear the same hallmarks. In 1921, the ╚Rabbit╩ egg was acquired by the ╚Tillander╩ company, Helsinkfors, and in 1924, it was sold to Budapest; it firstly appeared in 1953, in K. Snowman▓s book, as an Imperial one. At that time, there was no ╚rabbit╩ in the egg, it appeared in 1962, in the second edition of K. Snowman▓s book but, unlike the ╚rabbit╩ of 1921, it was executed of another stone. Up to the 1990s, the egg had been considered to be an Imperial one until the experts came to a conclusion that the Imperial eggs should not bear an inventory number. From 1962 on, the ╚egg with the rabbit╩ was located in Stavros Niarhos▓s collection who had acquired it as an ╚Imperial╩ one. Niarhos had consulted Feodor Agafonovich Faberge and when the latter pointed out that the egg was not an ╚Imperial╩ one he made a big crow. Similarity of the numbers (the products are manufactured in the same month of 1892) allows to suggest that manufacturing masters of the ╚Spring Flowers╩ egg had a possibility to examine the hallmark of the egg ╚with the blue rabbit╩.

12. The origin of the ╚Spring Flowers╩ egg is not clear: where it had been located up to 1961, before it appeared in the antiques market. All known Easter eggs were noticed by the researchers in 1920√1940. The egg was introduced in March of 1961, a year and a half later after the death of Evgeny Karlovich, the last Faberge▓s son, who would not have allowed a false product to appear.

13. Two split parts of the egg are absolutely asymmetrical. It is clearly evident at a photo from K. Forbes, R. Tremer-Brenner▓s book titled ╚Faberge. Forbes Collection╩, 1999. All the other Easter eggs by Faberge are symmetrical.

14. The product did not pass a complete scientific expertise. Its attribution was based on subjective conclusions of the ╚experts╩, who might commit a mistake. Complete expertise includes the following stages: archive and historical, art historical and stylistic, jewellery and technical, goods and organoleptic, hallmarking, metallurgical, gemological.

15. Nobody has ever studied the archives of the Income Administration at Narkomfin (People▓s Committee of Finances) where, in 1922, the ╚Purse in the form of an egg, silver and gilded, with a sapphire╩ was trespassed to. It is the place that can give an answer to the question who and when bought this product as well as provide more detailed description of its surprise.

In the ╚Profile╩ magazine (September 20, 2004), D. Belikov and N. Gotova, the authors of ╚The Talents and Forgery Manufacturers╩ article, note that among those ╚newly hurt╩ while purchasing the works of art, is Victor Vexelberg, ╚Some of the eggs acquired by him turned out to be ⌠rotten■.╩

Vladimir Voronchenko, the head of the Board at the ╚Connection of Times╩ fund, declared, ╚In The Forbes collection, which we had acquired and which numbers 200 subjects, we detected 9 false products among which there were 5 Easter miniature eggs-pendants as well as silver goods. Without a Faberge hallmark, such a little egg costs 2 thousand dollars and with the hallmark, it costs 15√20 thousand dollars╩.

Pluses and minuses. The ╚Spring Flowers╩ egg is not ranked as an antiquarian subject. It is less than 50 years old (namely, 44). According to American laws, if an antiquarian subject is over 100 years old, it is not imposed an export due; if it is less than 100 years old the due in amount of 12,5 % is applied. This is a minus. If imported, the size of insurance fee will be less. This is a plus. It is impossible to pawn it in a bank and obtain a considerable credit. This is a minus. Expenses for guarding low down. This is a plus. The subject was exported to Russia to participate in the exhibitions on February, 2004. That is why it was free from customs dues. This is a plus. We can continue the list of pluses and minuses.

The one fact is absolutely clear: this egg cannot be demonstrated along with other Faberge subjects. There were gossips that the owner might present it to the Hermitage, the Armoury, the Patriarchy or the President┘ However, at press conferences, the representatives of the ╚Connection of Times╩ fund categorically denied this possibility.

It is not clear who was consulting the purchase of the Easter eggs on January, 2004. In Gabsburg▓s book (2004), which is devoted to Vexelberg▓s egg collection, at page 20, Victor Vexelberg thanks ╚Andrey Ruzhnikov, one of the leading experts in Faberge products, who acts as a Fund consultant during technical expertise and estimation╩. Sotheby▓s is not responsible for expertise of the goods as it was a direct transaction which was carried out between the owners and the ╚Connection of Times╩ fund. Unfortunately, they have not so far invented ╚ovometer╩ (if you do not recall, it is a device with a lamp which allows to detect rotten eggs; in 1950√1970, it could be seen in every grocery shop). The competency of the fund consultants ≈ ╚Faberge experts-egg experts╩ turned out to be insufficient.

Financial losses of the buyers go on obscured as the ╚Spring Flowers╩ egg has not been estimated. They estimated the Imperial Easter eggs only (70√105 million dollars) as well as Kelh▓s ╚Chanteclair╩ egg (4√6 million dollars). The rest of the Forbes collection, including six ╚non-imperial╩ eggs, has been acquired ╚in addition╩.

This is not the first Easter egg which has changed its attribution during last 25√30 years. For many years, Easter eggs manufactured for the Kelhs, have been positioned as the Imperial ones. Such Easter eggs as the ╚Nicolay II▓s Horse Statue╩, the ╚Rabbit╩, the ╚Twilight╩ (1917) were also considered to be imperial. Now it is time to exclude the ╚Greeting of Spring╩ egg of Faberge products line.

Mrs. Marina Lopato, the Hermitage employee, and Tatyana Muntyan, the keeper of ten imperial Easter Faberge eggs at the Armoury, pointed out that they had not been involved into the expertise of the ╚Spring Flowers╩ Easter egg (the information was valid on February 12, 2005).

Valentin SKURLOV,
Tatyana FABERGE
Illusrations are provided by the authors