The Dark Side of Provenance: When the Seller’s Story Undermine the Sale

Collection Cartier - Art Deco Carved Turquoise and Diamond Tiara -1936

As a jewelry historian, I do love a good provenance story; every aspect of a jewel’s journey adds to its desirability: the pictures of the owner(s) wearing the jewels, its historical relevance and the evolution of its design, the family history, the transmission, the emotional connection, and so on.  However, some provenances are more tainted than others, which raises the question of whether it is always good marketing?   

My mother always said being superstitious bring bad luck. The perfect dichotomy in one sentence! So, I try to ignore the folklore around stones and jewelry; however, one cannot always turn a blind eye to the weight of history that comes with some pieces and their provenances.  As Spring auction season started, I poured myself into the upcoming jewelry sales, and I was delighted to find a very rare Art Deco carved turquoise and diamond tiara by Cartier (the name of the auction will not be mentioned not to undermine the work of my esteemed colleagues.). The catalogue proudly announces an aristocratic provenance in the title and adds a full paragraph on the original owner.   

There are very few carved turquoise tiaras of that time by Cartier on the market. The one coming up at auction is very similar to the one in the Cartier Collection, the Art Deco turquoise and diamond tiara, from 1936, (pictured – and currently on display at the V&A Museum in London). Soon, therefore, I could stand the chance of owning such a rare and beautiful headpiece, should I make the winning bid at the auction in a few weeks, except that I did my due diligence on the “prestigious” provenance announced in the catalogue. I knew the name of the family in general terms, but I had no idea who was the woman who owned the said refine piece of jewelry.   

The woman with such perfect taste in jewelry was far from being what I, and many others, would consider a good person. Research shows that she stood as a feminist at the beginning of the 20th century, but it turns out it was more a mean to her political ambitions to pursue her bigoted views. The Lady was a proudly outspoken sympathizer of the Nazis during WWII, which led to the abrupt end of her political career in 1945. Maybe there is redemption to be found in the story of her life but in my opinion her politics were unforgivable. Alas, these facts ruined the beautiful tiara for me.  Which led me to consider the question: is provenance always good advertising? And do jewels carry the emotional baggage of their previous owners?  

At auction, provenance and the mention of “from a noble family” normally add value and importance to a piece; however, considering the current legacy of this tiara, one wonders why the auction house insisted on giving so many details. At the same time, one can be grateful that they did as I want to believe that jewelry do carry the energy of its past owner(s), to some extent, even if I am often very conflicted about it. One could (and probably should) forsake the provenance of the tiara and give it a new life? Other wonderful pieces have not been previously owned by less than savory people (i.e Wallis Simpson, Heidi Horten to name just a couple). Or should I simply take the advice of one of the greatest jewelry lover and collector, Ms. Elizabeth Taylor, regarding her owning the Krupp Diamond, named after its previous owner, another despicable figure in History, she always enjoyed mentioning that now it belongs to “a nice Jewish girl”. Would you give a new identity to the tiara by acquiring it and wearing it proudly despite its provenance or would you pass on the auction by principle?