Pages

Search This Blog

RECOMMEND THIS BLOG TO FRIENDS!

Sunday, June 22, 2008

IS THIS A SCHIAPARELLI? OR A WEISS? OR A HASKELL? HOW CAN YOU KNOW?


Recently a colleague sent me the photos shown in this blog. She has this fabulous vintage brooch which she feels might be a Schiaparelli, but it's unsigned. While it's been stated here and there that there were a lot of unsigned pieces put out by Schiaparelli, if that's true it does make it hard to know whether you are looking at an authentic piece or not. The same can be said for many vintage designers. For instance it is true that not all pieces by Weiss were signed. Some have said the same of Miriam Haskell. So how on earth is one to know?



The unfortunate part of all this is that this situation has given rise to a proliferation of fakes. Most of us looking for vintage jewelry will first look for the signature on the back of the piece. For many designers, this signature will be placed either on an oval cartouche or in the case of earrings, stamped right into the clips themselves.
So it's imperative that someone looking to buy vintage jewelry familiarize themselves with the authentic signatures.

One place you can turn to, which is a wonderful resource is the site at RESEARCHING COSTUME JEWELRY. You can look up the designers' marks alphabetically and there's lots of photos of signatures to help you out. That's a site I've bookmarked and you should too as you'll find you refer to it often. But bear one thing in mind: these sellers who sell fakes can also make cartouches with the designer's signature in them. And if you're not buying in person, you might not notice that the cartouche looks like it's been soldered on after, or the solder is sloppy, or the signature is blurry or off center until you actually get the piece. That's how I got caught with the fake Schiaparellis I wrote about HERE. If you haven't read that piece, do check it out and look at the photos I posted. They sure show you what fake cartouches look like!

But now, let's return to my friend's piece above. It's not signed but it looks like a Schiaparelli. It has the large lava stones she was fond of and appears well made. After being caught I don't dare make a judgment call on this one. I just don't feel I know enough about Schiaparelli's designs. But there are experts, collectors who are very familiar with the various designers and can usually tell if this is a Schiaparelli are not. There are lots of books available on vintage costume jewelry that tell you what characteristics to look for. Ginger Moro, author of European Designer Jewelry, is very familiar with Schiaparelli. You can find her contact email at THIS LINK to order a copy of her book, a very worthwhile investment.

And then there's a group I always turn to when I want advice or confirmation on pieces I either own or am considering buying. It's JEWEL COLLECT, which has a large membership comprised of buyers, sellers and collectors, many of whom are experts on the various designers. It costs nothing to join their mailing list and if you are unsure about a piece, just post photos and ask them to look at them for you. They're very helpful. The advice is free and could save you lots of distress before you get stuck with fake vintage jewelry that costs you a fortune and isn't authentic. That sure hurts. So this is a case of "do as i say and not as I did". Research and ask before you buy, not after.

And now, having said all that, I'm calling on the members of JEWEL COLLECT to answer my colleague's question: is that lovely unsigned brooch above a Schiaparelli or not? Please leave your comments on this blog. Thanks!

4 comments:

Kathy said...

I agree with Dan, as posted on JewelCollect - it does have a Regency look to it; however, Regency's metal backing was usually a gunmetal or an aged gold. The backing on this one does not have the Regency feel. Signed or unsigned - it is still a beauty.
Kathy

CRUISEROO said...

Thanks for commenting Kathy. Yes so far most feel the same way. Here are the comments I've received:

"I have the same brooch plus matching earrings and am reasonably sure it's not Schiap (or Weiss). But I'd love to hear other's comments."

"Just my opinion, but it doesn't look Schiaparelli to me."

"It looks very similar to Regency pieces I have had in the past."

sguyot said...

A tremendous amount of effort went into making this piece. Although I can not tell you the maker the settings don't look like any that were produced by any of the major Providence finding manufactuers. It is also my guess that it is probably not a late model knock off based only on the of labor that appears to have gone into its production.

CRUISEROO said...

Thanks for your informative comment Squyot. Your input to this blog is much appreciated. Please come again!