All posts in Vintage Jewelry

The “idea” represented by this vintage Herbert Rosenthal jeweled bee brooch, with its golden wings, its diamond-encrusted thorax, and its bezel-set ruby eyes, has remained a topic of interest in the realm of copyright law since early 1970s.

In a landmark case decided by the 9th District Court in 1971, Herbert Rosenthal alleged that a competing jewelry designer had infringed his design copyright by manufacturing jeweled bee brooches nearly identical to this one. Though the courts ruled in favor of competition, and therefore in favor of the defendants, tremendous precedents were set from this case, and one like it which involved an imitation of one of Rosenthal’s jeweled turtle brooches.

Mr. Rosenthal is credited with setting the standard for the bee motif in brooches. At one time he was the exclusive designer for bee pins for Tiffany & Co, and his bee brooches are vintage collectibles in today’s market. However, a search in Google for Herbert Rosenthal fills the pages with discourses on the merits of copyright law.

According to Kari at FashionLawWiki, “copyright is the protection of ‘original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression,” provided by the laws of the United States. This copyright protection includes literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works.” Such copyrighted materials are protected, without official registration or publication, the moment they are created.

Copying of such an original expression is illegal, and legal action can be taken to recover loss and damages associated with such theft. However, copyright law has its limitations, and in the case of Mr. Rosenthal’s bee brooch, the matter was tricky for the courts to decide.

The renowned New York designer had registered his bee brooch design with the Copyright Office. Therefore, when similar bee pins made by another jewelry manufacturer flooded the market, effectively stealing a portion of his hard-earned market share, he took the offenders to court on the grounds that his “copyright registration of a jeweled bee [entitled him] to protection from the manufacture and sale by others of any object that to the ordinary observer is substantially similar in appearance.” {cited: Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kalpakian, July 7, 1971}

The courts agreed that the ornamental bees did indeed appear similar upon initial observation. Because the Kalpakians had access to Mr. Rosenthal’s bee pins prior to the manufacture of their own collection, the courts could not rule out intentional or accidental (still an infringement) copying. Indeed, some of the “imitation” bee pins even had the same number of white diamonds on the thorax. However, after much consideration, the courts decided in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring that the similarities in the design owed to the fact that bees are bees.

Since the “idea” of bees is not protected under copyright law, Mr. Rosenthal’s claim was denied. As the record states, “others are free to utilize the ‘idea’ so long as they do not plagiarize its ‘expression.’” Since the Kalpakian jewels were not identical to Mr. Rosenthal’s, the courts had no choice but to preserve “the balance between competition and protection reflected in the patent and copyright laws.” To render judgment in favor of Mr. Rosenthal “would confer a monopoly of the ‘idea’ upon the copyright owner free of the conditions and limitations imposed by the patent laws.” {cited: Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kalpakian, July 7, 1971}

Indeed, the merits of this case continue to impact today’s jewelry designers. There is a fine line between the healthy competition inspired by flattering imitation and the violation of copyright infringement.

According to attorney Daliah Saper, cases such as this one serve to caution what she calls ‘inspired by’ designers to “carefully take into account similarities between all their designs” {cited}. She goes on to explain that minor differences between a potential infringement and an original design may not be sufficient to differentiate the two, and the courts may rule in favor of the original copyright holder in such cases. Such inspired-by designs must achieve a unique visual impact in order to be fully free of possible infringement.

Despite the stiff competition and the court’s ruling in 1971, Herbert Rosenthal’s jeweled bee brooches stand the test of time and reign as valued collectors’ items in the realm of vintage jewelry. And it’s no wonder, with their intricate details, their whimsical facial expressions, and their high-quality stones and gold.

I picture this hammered gold toad brooch on the lapel of a tuxedo, perhaps at a costume ball worn by someone dressed as Henry James, Washington Irving, or F. Scott Fitzgerald. With its smugly tilted head, its dapper platinum scarf, and its gold and platinum stogie, this portly gold frog is the whimsical creation of master goldsmith and highly decorated jewelry designer, Henry Dunay.

Henry Dunay has been called a “peerless craftsman” and “the Father of the American school of jewelry design” {1}, and his jewelry has been worn by Hollywood celebrities, First Ladies, and international VIPs for the past forty years. Fighting the temptation to sell out to mass production, Mr. Dunay worked fifteen-hour days at his workbench to produce one-of-a-kind, imaginative, hand crafted pieces one by one.

Proposing that designer jewelry “comes from an artistic impulse” {2}, Mr. Dunay has poured his life out in pursuit of this ideal, creating masterful pieces of wearable art with uncompromising quality and distinctive style. Though most of Mr. Dunay’s work is stunning for its beauty and elegance, he did spend some time creating whimsical animal brooches like this one.

His witty menagerie of golden animals speaks not only to Mr. Dunay’s sense of humor, but also to his confidence as a designer. In his biography, one essayist remarks that the demand for elegance and sophistication in the fine jewelry market dissuaded most designers from weaving humor or wit into their designs. Not so for Henry Dunay, who made such fanciful pieces as a brooch featuring an egret resting on the backside of a rhinoceros, a monkey face bracelet with bulging diamond eyes, as well this funny pooch with an open gaping mouth and piercing diamond eyes.

This smoking frog and his twin brother with a bow tie are an exquisite blend of the famous jeweler’s artistry, skillful technique, and clever whimsy. They make a perfect choice for the whimsical, yet serious designer jewelry collector.

Citations
1. Breslow, Susan. New York Magazine, 11/01/93.
2. New York Magazine, 11/02/92.

Hummingbird Brooch by Mauboussin
Copyright 2013 Christie’s

This lovely enamel brooch hummingbird sold for $2405 at Christie’s this past January. Featuring a cabochon sapphire and diamond eye, the stylized bird clip was made at an unrecorded time by the jewelers at Mauboussin. As is well known, trends in jewelry come and go much like the ebb and flow of the tides. Christie’s did not provide a date for the piece, which presents an intriguing mystery for any avid jewelry collector.

Hummingbirds were most certainly in vogue during the 1870s, a time in which the French jewelry firm was enjoying grand success. However, it was far more popular at that time to fashion these ornaments out of real hummingbird heads and feathers. While this practice abated by the 1890s, jeweled birds remained wildly popular during the Art Nouveau period, particularly the grand peacock.

Once again, though, it does not appear that this hummingbird brooch was made at the turn of the century. For one thing, the tiny jeweled creatures were a passing fancy and not a real trend of the period. More importantly, this particular brooch, though highly stylized, has none of the artsy characteristics of Art Nouveau jewelry.

Heading into World War I, the fashion tides changed once again. Out swept the natural motifs of France’s “New Art,” and in flowed the architectural lines patterned after the modern mechanical wonders, the steam engine, the airplane, and the automobiles. The jewelry firm, founded by M. Rocher, weathered the transition well, now with Georges Mauboussin at the helm.

As Primavera Gallery reports, Mauboussin won Grand Prize at the Exposition des Arts Decoratifs in Paris in 1925 for their jewels, “which boasted legibility of design, clear bold lines and a proclivity towards geometric patterns.” Clearly, this hummingbird design does not find its origins in the Art Deco period, which lasted through the 1930s.

By turning to Mauboussin’s ad campaigns in the 1940s and 1950s, one can finally see where this little birdie might have made its debut. Thanks to the Paris firm, HPrints, there exists a limited record of Mauboussin’s design trends throughout this vintage period. The ads of the early ’40s feature hints of the bird beauties to come, with brooches and earrings increasingly featuring the classic feather tips and jeweled plumes indicative of the emerging naturalist themes. Butterflies make their debut in a photo shoot by Edgar Elshoud, a prominent ad photographer in the 1940s. In addition to Moaboussin, his clients included the likes of Cartier and Boucheron, as well as many famous couturiers.

A brooch featuring two whimsically plump birds perched upon a branch rounds out a 1945 spread for Mauboussin accessories, and the first stylized ‘bird of paradise’ appears in a 1947 ad spotlighting the design talent of Rene Sim Lecaze. In 1948, we see the first sign of the peacock’s influence on Mauboussin’s designs. An ad illustrated by S. Markovitch features a magnificent necklace. Its expertly placed emerald and ruby cabochons evoke images of the tail feathers of a peacock in repose. It is absolutely breathtaking in its execution and its evocation.

The bird motif became increasingly popular as the 1940s gave way to the 1950s. During this time, all the major houses were making sculpted birds in gold and precious stones. This ad, dated 1947, features examples from France’s top four jewelers, including Cartier, Mauboussin, Boucheron, and Van Cleef & Arpels. A similar ad taken out in 1959 features a comparable layout featuring stylized bird clips made exclusively by Mauboussin.

The bird motif seems to be ebbing by the 1960s. However, what appear to be catalog pages from 1964 and 1967 feature several whimsical bird pieces that bear some resemblance to the lines of this hummingbird brooch sold recently by Christie’s. Though none of these advertisements definitively place the hummingbird on Mauboussin’s timeline, it is safe to estimate that it was created sometime between 1947 and 1967.