Auction catalogues often resort to weird verbiage that seems designed to confuse potential buyers rather than enlighten them. Fabergé items are chronically affected by such sloppiness – with descriptions containing phrases like ‘in the style of Fabergé,’ ‘attributed to Fabergé,’ ‘apparently unmarked’ or ‘bearing Fabergé marks.’
‘Attributed to Fabergé’ – does that mean the auctioneers aren’t sure? That they think it might be by Fabergé but, er, maybe not…?
‘Apparently unmarked’ – how stupid is that? Why doesn’t the auction-house expert put his or her spectacles on, and/or pick up a magnifying glass, and have a good look? Is the thing marked or not? If it’s not marked, how do we know it’s by Fabergé?
Then there’s marked Fabergé. Means nothing. Is it by Fabergé or not? What does the auction house guarantee? Phoney Fabergé marks are very difficult to dispute in a court of law if a vendor uses this sort of terminology. You can find hundreds of items marked Fabergé on eBay that are just reproductions or modern junk.
If a piece is unquestionably by Fabergé, then the catalogue should say exactly that: why write marked Fabergé? Auctioneers need to explain what the difference is! Such ambiguity can create all sorts of different legal problems.
This sort of verbal confusion is nothing new. I was thumbing through an old Christie’s catalogue the other day and came across a number of examples that illustrate my point.
The sale concerned took place in London in January 2007, and was devoted to the Collection of King George I of the Hellenes. Nice-looking provenance. It included 14 lots apparently by Fabergé.
Six of these lots were catalogued as featuring the workmaster’s mark of Mikhail Perkhin. That sounded clear enough.
Three of these Perkhin items – a bowenite bell-push and two pink-enamelled cane-handles – were catalogued as by Fabergé (Lots 411, 417, 420). But the three other lots – a mauve enamel bell-push, a bowenite box and a green beryl hand-seal – were catalogued as marked Fabergé (Lots 400, 412, 419).
Why the hell were Christie’s separating these six items – all purportedly bearing the same hallmark ! – into two different categories: by Fabergé and marked Fabergé?
Was it just sloppy, inconsistent cataloguing by some modest, lesser-educated intern?
Or was it some sort of secret auctioneer’s code indicating that three items were unquestionably bona fide Fabergé, whereas the other three had something a bit dodgy about them?
A nephrite desk-calendar and pair of nephrite candlesticks were all marked Fabergé (not by Fabergé), with the workmaster’s mark of Julius Rappoport (Lots 401 & 402). Yet a rock crystal scent-bottle with unknown workmaster’s mark AR was unequivocably by Fabergé (Lot 399).
Talk about confusing! (AR, incidentally, was Anna Ringe, not Andre Ruzhnikov – Christie’s should have made that clear, but had presumably never heard of her).
The sale’s four hardstone creatures – green hardstone mouse, labradorite frog, hardstone turkey and nephrite frog (Lots 363-366) – were all catalogued merely as by Fabergé, i.e. were all unmarked (usually the case with small Fabergé animals that don’t have a flat surface large enough to appose a hallmark). So how do we know such pieces are kosher?
Answer: we don’t – unless they come with their original Fabergé fitted case.
Christie’s presented no material evidence as to the items’ provenance – no publications or literature, or old photos in situ. A regal provenance certainly helps a piece do well at auction – but it’s no cast-iron guarantee of authenticity. King George’s younger sister was Empress of Russia, so lived in St Petersburg, where Fabergé had a shop; his elder sister was Queen of England and lived in London, where Fabergé had another shop… but there’s no evidence that any of the sale’s 14 ‘Fabergé’ lots were purchased direct from Fabergé. Christie’s catalogue makes no mention of invoices or original boxes. The items could have been bought in a souvenir shop on Fisherman’s Wharf for all I know!
To conclude: I suggest all auction houses make a point of agreeing on a uniform approach to the terminology of their Fabergé catalogue descriptions – and put an end to all this ambiguity and potential palaver!
