 |
Diamond and gold pendant necklace from the estate of Lucille Ball sold at Christie’s New York in 2007 for $25,000, more than double the high estimate.
Photo courtesy of Christie’s Images Ltd. 2011.
|
From the first time actresses took center stage, they have
commanded attention. Initially, however, that attention had a negative
implication. Visible public figures, actresses were “ostracized as women of
dubious morals,” points out Michele Majer, assistant professor at Bard Graduate
Center (BGC) in New York City. “It’s really in the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries when this pervasive attitude toward them as amoral women
changed and they became role models for women across the social spectrum.”
These leading ladies were dressed by the best couturiers of
the day and they sparkled with gems from leading jewelry designers — both gifts
from admirers and gems they purchased for themselves. As they gained
international fame, so did their impact on the fashions of the day. “Celebrity
had the cachet of royalty even then,” points out Majer, “being on stage and in
the public eye was enough to bring them to the forefront of people’s
attention.”
What’s in a Name?
Majer is curator of a new exhibit at the BGC, “Staging
Fashion, 1880–1920: Jane Hading, Lily Elsie, Billie Burke,” which explores the
influence of actresses as fashion leaders. Much like today, there was a strong
connection between the actresses and the consumer. “The hat that Lily Elsie
wore in the operetta ‘The Merry Widow’ took off after the production became
successful,” relates Majer. “There were Billie Burke curls and shoes. Jane
Hading had a hat named after her, a veil and other items inspired by what she
wore on stage and off. She had her own skin care product. The level of fame of
all three women was widespread in Europe and America. In many ways, the
influence of actresses supplanted royalty in Europe. And actresses didn’t have
a problem exploiting it. They became their own brand.”
In much the same way, the advent of the motion pictures
catapulted film actresses into the spotlight. The power of Hollywood in
influencing trends was apparent from the early days, creating a growing demand
not only for the fashions but the jewels worn by these great ladies of the
silver screen.
“It was a
different type of Hollywood than today,” says Daphne Lingon, senior vice
president, jewelry department, Christie’s New York. “There wasn’t the same kind
of exposure where you knew everything about them. And I think that little bit
of distance was why they were held in a different regard and that translates
into wanting to get the bit of them that you can. These were elegant women and
they knew that they also were dressing for their fans and that their fans
expected it of them. In general with actresses, I think what people are buying
is a piece of history, a little slice of that lifestyle.”
“The pieces become imbued with a certain sort of aura,” sums
up Carol Elkins, senior vice president, jewelry department, Sotheby’s. “The
jewels that the actresses owned represent a period of history that goes to the
style of the times and how they are remembered.” The Hollywood films they
starred in, she points out, “offered an escapism to another kind of lifestyle,
which elevated them. People aspired to be like the actresses they saw in
films.”
There was a through line, notes Lingon. “The Hollywood icons
of the 1940s, ’50s and ’60s owned the jewelry they wore in movies and on stage.
They wore it in their private lives and it became part of their persona. And I
think that people identify with that.”
Often there is the story behind the piece that adds auction
allure, Elkins says. “We sold a piece from Katharine Hepburn that was given to
her by Howard Hughes. It was a Trabert & Hoeffer Mauboussin sapphire and
diamond basket brooch. The estimate was $15,000 to $20,000 and it sold for
$120,000.”
Another example Elkins recalls is a fabulous Van Cleef &
Arpels cuff bracelet pavéd with rubies and surrounded by diamonds belonging to
Marlene Dietrich that was auctioned at Sotheby’s New York in 1992. Estimated
for $300,000 to $400,000, it sold for $990,000. Dietrich wore the cuff in the
Alfred Hitchcock movie “Stage Fright.” The catalog entry for the piece included
a picture of Dietrich, in character, wearing the bracelet.
Similarly, Peter Shemonsky, private jeweler and jewelry
historian in San Francisco, California, recalls a sale of Mae West’s jewelry.
“She insisted that her jewels in the movies she made be real. And everything
she was seen in on film was hers. They were prized possessions. And we had all
these publicity shots from the studios and there she was wearing the piece we
were offering for sale.”
Putting a Price Tag on Fame
The rarity quotient, a factor in any sale of a quality
estate piece, is multiplied exponentially when it comes to the jewels of
celebrities. According to Benjamin Macklowe of the Macklowe Gallery, New York
City, “when you see the aesthetic choices that the famous made, if they’re good
choices, then that becomes something very special. ”
The quality of the piece, the design, the wearability are
all factors taken into consideration when jewelry is auctioned, Lingon points
out, “whether it’s owned by someone famous or not. But I think that if it has
this great provenance, that’s just the icing on the cake.”
Lingon cites the Christie’s sale in 2007 of several pieces
of jewelry belonging to Lucille Ball that attained prices well over the
estimates. But, she says, “they were pretty, wearable things, several of them
signed pieces by Van Cleef, and the workmanship was excellent. They definitely
had value in and of themselves.”
But there’s no denying that the provenance of a famous
actress can help drive prices over and above what the craftsmanship commands.
The recent sale of Elizabeth Taylor’s famed jewelry collection broke a series
of previous auction records (for coverage of the auction, see page 142). “It
definitely helped that the jewelry belonged to someone like Elizabeth Taylor,”
says Lingon. “The fact that she was an actress and a star was one thing, but I
think also there was the philanthropic component. Because this was a woman many
people could identify with and that’s why you see a lot of those prices.”
Someone at the celebrity level of Elizabeth Taylor is
“American royalty,” points out Shemonsky. “And I think most importantly,
there’s really nobody like her right now, who has made the contribution to
cinematic history but also is noted for humanitarian work.” It was also the
allure of the glamourous lifestyle. “There are all these romantic stories
attached to the pieces.”
In early December, just before the Elizabeth Taylor auction,
Doyle New York held a sale of property from the estate of Joan Crawford,
another larger-than-life Hollywood icon. According to Louis LeB. Webre, senior
vice president, marketing and media, at Doyle, the enthusiasm of her fans
translated into high prices for several pieces of jewelry included in the sale.
“The jewelry, which was relatively modest in value, achieved five to ten times
their estimates,” says Webre. “Jewelry is a very personal possession, not just
for celebrities, but for any woman. It is very intimate in nature — exquisite
objects with which she chose to adorn herself. This is why jewelry is such a
sought-after memento from a celebrity’s estate.”
Article from the Rapaport Magazine - January 2012. To subscribe click here.