On Saturday, May 15th, a group of jewelers, artists, writers, curators, scholars, dealers, industry insiders, and lovers of jewelry gathered in a private club in New York City to discuss the idea of fakes and forgeries throughout jewelry history organized by ASJRA (Association for the Studay of Jewelry and the Related Arts). For as long as there has been jewelry there have been people using lesser materials to create “knock-offs” from Ancient Greece and Italy to modern day America some of the greatest capers, counterfeiters, and con-artists were discussed. 
Fig. 1 Attributed to Giacinto Melillo, Brooch with Erotes on a Dove, 1870-1880
Keynote speaker Jack Ogden showed examples of ancient “fakes” along with tips for recognizing them—one should take note of style, technology, manufacture, and design composition when looking at all jewelry including ancient. One must ask: could this have been made in the period it’s said to have been? Does the design make sense for the period? This discussion nicely dovetailed with Janet Zapata’s discussion of revival motifs in 19th century jewelry. During a period of great interest in the past, with many archeological digs and discoveries taking place, ancient designs were seen as a “fresh new design source.” Revivalist jewelry is different than that of the ancients, Renaissance, or Gothic cultures in that it appropriates imagery from the past but uses modern techniques for granulation, micro-mosaic, and filigree (fig. 1).
Talk of forgeries and fakes was followed by insight into some of the 20th century’s greatest heists and hoaxes, including the Great Diamond Hoax and the 1960s robbery of the American Museum of Natural History by “Murph the Surf.” It’s important to realize that the robbers were eventually caught, most of the jewelry was recovered, and the hoaxes were eventually foiled.
The afternoon’s sessions dealt with re-use of materials. Ursula Ilse-Neuman
Fig. 2 Jan Yager American Collar II, 1996 Daphne Farago Collection
of the Museum of Arts and Design, New York City, spoke on the use of recycled materials in jewelry, ranging from work by contemporary studio jewelers such as Jennifer Trask’s use of butterfly wings and animal bones and Jan Yager’s crack vile necklace (fig. 2) to high-style jewelry like Marjorie Meriwether Post’s art deco style brooch which includes a 60-karat Mughal emerald that dates back to 17th century India (fig.3). Harrice Simons Miller spoke about the appropriation of imagery by Kenneth Jay Lane and Gabrielle “Coco” Chanel, famous designers of costume jewelry who both favored Byzantine crosses among other things.
Fig. 3 Possibly by Oscar Heymen & Brothers for Marcus & Co., Marjorie Merriweather Post Brooch, late 1920s
Faberge expert, Geza von Habsburg “properly confused” the audience with his discussion of “fauxberge,” explaining that 95% of the pieces he receives inquiries about are copies—but “good fakes” that are often difficult, if not impossible, to decipher from the real thing. Often these fakes are correctly marked and sometimes are even in an original box. These tend to be well-made and can puzzle even the most devoted scholars of Faberge—beware!
The highlight of the afternoon session was learning about the recent scholarship surrounding the Hope and Wittlesbach diamonds from “the world’s greatest diamond counterfeiter,” John Nels Hatlenerg (he admits he doesn’t have a whole lot of competition) and Gary Roskin, scholar and author of the website www.roskingemnews.com. Together with curators and conservators at the Smithsonian Institution, these two men examined both of these famous diamonds to determine whether or not the two diamonds were originally cut from the same stone. The Hope diamond was cut from the famous “French Blue”, a 67 1/8 carat blue diamond also known as the “Blue Diamond of the Crown” which was owned by Louis XIV in 1678 and disappeared during the French Revolution. Unfortunately, initial analysis seems to say this is not the case. However, this lead to an interesting discussion of why stones are re-cut in the first place, Roskin explains that even with minor changes in cut (which actually don’t change the stone’s weight all that much),a diamonds clarity, color, beauty, and value can vastly increase.
The symposium was followed by a study day on Sunday where participants were welcomed into the studios of jewelry artists Tom Herman, Jamie Bennett, Pat Flynn, and Jennifer Trask before getting a chance to view the treasures of the metalsmithing department and the Samuel Dorsky Museum at The State University of New York at New Paltz.
Overall the weekend was a huge success and the conference organizers, Elyse Zorn Karlin and Yvonne Markowitz deserve a round of applause for all their hard work. As participants left the conference on Saturday I heard more than one comment this was the most interesting conference they had been to in a long time—possibly ever.
Emily Banis