Posted by John R on October 21, 2013, 10:07 am, in reply to "Re: Style"
I believe it is very plausible (but still purely speculation untill we have facts) that the design of Massin was used as the blueprint by a designer working for Vita Israel or even a third party who's name was later erased. To me there's absolutely no doubt as to who's design it was originally. It's so obvious.
Vita Israel also worked together with other jewellers who did the actual designing while they 'only' supplied the gemstones.The Wedding Gift Parure for Wilhelmina comes to mind. So perhaps there were more collaborations like this?
Anyway, I am confident we will finally learn the truth about who actually made it, once and for all!
--Previous Message-- : I would love to agree, but my feeling is that : style rarely is a "hard" : criterion. It usually can only support more : substantial evidence. Just see the debates : about attributions of anonymous paintings to : famous masters. Style is so easily copied. : : My guess is that it was the name of the : designer that was erased from the coloured : drawing and that Vita Israëls manufactured : the tiara. It is a pity that - apparently - : so little is known of Massin. If it is : proven that Massin had contacts with the : Dutch Court he might as well have been : invited to work out his older original : design for a specific tiara for the Dutch : Court. It's just a theory. But who would : dare to erase the name of a well-known : designer? : : : --Previous Message-- : Thank you Jos, you raise valid points. : : What should also be looked into is original : design drawings by Massin, to compare the : style, the 'hand' of the drawing with the : 1881 colour design. : : :