Just what is fine jewelry?

Jewelry Discussion
61

An example of the term azure used in jewelry biz literature.

Mark

62

This thread has gotten way off-topic; I’m still waiting to see
answers about “what is fine jewelry?”. So far I’ve noted two answers

    1. lots of gold & diamonds, and 2) quality craftsman/womanship.

Personally, I would agree with #2, but not #1. There’s too much crap
out there that is solely gold & diamonds; I used to fix a lot of it.
And I don’t think that my jewelry is finer because it has more gold
& diamonds than yours has.

So let’s talk about fine jewelry. If the maker’s skill is the
defining attribute, then can fine jewelry be made with silver and
sapphires? If not, why not? What about mass production, and does that
degrade the fineness of the jewelry the further from the maker’s
hands or personal touch. What other attributes does "fine jewelry"
have that makes it “fine”?

thanks,
Kelley Dragon

63 
So let's talk about fine jewelry. If the maker's skill is the
defining attribute, then can fine jewelry be made with silver and
sapphires?

First, silver is precious metal and sapphires are precious stones.

We must stay away from simple answers. Precious metals and precious
stones are critical ingredients in fine jewellery recipe, but their
presence alone does not guaranty it. Neither does craftsmanship, nor
excellence in design. All three must come together in harmonious
union.

Take example from restaurant business. The most coveted award is
three Michelin stars. For restaurant to get them, it must
demonstrate excellence in food, service, and wine list. Wine list is
not only judged on quality, but also how well it goes with the menu.
If restaurant serves, high quality but simple menu, with wine list
comprised of complex wines, even if service is great, it would not be
three Michelin star restaurant.

The same applies to jewellery. Design can be great in itself, but not
appropriate for metal and/or gemstones selected. Great stones can be
placed in expensive but wrong settings, and etc. These are all flaws
which in ideal world should disqualify from fine jewellery class
membership. Different houses uphold these standards differently. But
because we can find crap in work of Cartier, Tiffany, and others; it
should not be used as an excuse to do the same.

Leonid Surpin

64

I think it may be useful to consider in this discussion that there
are two senses of “fine” much akin to the two senses of “art.”

We often speak of art, with a small a, versus Art, with a capital A.
When your 5 year old comes home with a picture s/he made in art
class, well, no one would say that the activity the kids were engaged
in ought not to be called art. Whether it’s a painting, a drawing or
a bas relief made of macaroni, the object was made with materials and
techniques that come under the rubric “art,” with a small a. But is
it Art?

Similarly we can speak of fine jewelry and Fine jewelry.

Now, fine jewelry, with a small f, is simply a commercial
designation. Jewelry made of precious metal and precious or
semi-precious materials is fine jewelry, as a term of commerce, as
opposed to costume jewelry. As to whether any individual piece ought
to be called “Fine,” that’s the same sort of question as when we
look at a painting or sculpture or a video installation and say,
“Yes, but is it Art?”

Elliot

65

The idea of “fine” jewelry is subjective. What is fine today, may not
be in a year. What you may like, I may not think is so “fine”. What
one designer makes, another may think is awful. Someone may love the
Crown Jewels, whereas someone else may love modern pieces. Beauty (as
well as calling something fine) is in the eye of the beholder.

Val

66 
As to whether any individual piece ought to be called "Fine,"
that's the same sort of question as when we look at a painting or
sculpture or a video installation and say, "Yes, but is it Art?"

I just pulled Elliot’s quote because his posting was interesting. I
like to think of an “all art is art” POV in terms of food - “all
food is food”, it’s dinnertime, here’s your kibble. Hey, it’s
food… There’s some truth, but it’s just not useful.

And I believe it was David, long ago, who said that the term “fine
jewelry” just doesn’t mean so much anymore. That’s kind of the bottom
line, and certainly there are no lines, here.

I will say one thing that is important, and that is that fine
jewelry - I think of that as “jewelry which is fine” - is crafted.
Getting a piece of sheet metal and soldering down some wires into a
flower shape is not fine work. Sculpting wires into something with
dimension and depth and putting them into some floral arrangement
is, or might be. Bending a wire into a circle for a ring shank is no
comparison to really crafting a shank that looks like you actually
cared. It occurred to me, and you might find it useful - search Googe
(images is easiest) for “Chippendale chair”. Aside from the fact
that you’ll get some fine chairs, look at them more closely. What
you’ll see is the utter lack of lumber - everything is made, and
crafted with skill and reason to a point that the untrained eye can
see almost no evidence of the raw materials. They are sculpture. The
same goes for jewelry - that level of craftsmanship and care doesn’t
necessarily make it “fine”, but without it, it certainly can’t be.

I think that some novice jewelry makers just don’t understand these
things, and think that Cartier is doing just the same as the
students, just more of it. No, our raw materials aren’t sheet and
wire and such, it’s 24kt gold shot. We don’t just make jewelry, we
also make the materials to make the jewelry with. Everything is
crafted - though yes, we do use findings , here, when they are
called for. It’s like food again - yes, you can get Prego spaghetti
sauce and pour it over pasta and yes, you are a cook. We start with
fresh tomatoes and yes, we do grow them out back.

67

Hi Guys,

Listening to this discussion, talking to my tutors and listening to
other jewellery professionals, it is apparent that there is no clear
definition of the term “fine jewellery”.

The term is highly subjective, it ranges from precious metals and
stones, to crafted pieces of plastic.

I guess it could be used as an effective marketing term… e.g.
Here’s your 18ct wedding band with a little hand engraving on the
inside of the band… OR… Here’s a piece of fine jewellery in the
form of a wedding band, skillfully crafted in 18ct gold, with hand
engraved highlights on the inside of the band.

Maybe there will never be a definition of the term "fine jewellery"
that has any substance.

If a tutor is asking for fine jewellery… it’s very wise for the
student to find out what the tutor believes fine jewellery to be…
discretely.

Regards Charles A.

68 
Listening to this discussion, talking to my tutors and listening
to other jewellery professionals, it is apparent that there is no
clear definition of the term "fine jewellery". The term is highly
subjective, it ranges from precious metals and stones, to crafted
pieces of plastic.

There is definitely a standard for Fine Jewellery, and there is
nothing subjective about it.

A lot of people labour under misapprehension that personal likes and
dislikes have anything to do with assessments of quality, skills,
and craftsmanship. Standards are not meant to satisfy whatever
preferences there are. It is quite common to hate the piece, but at
the same time to recognize excellence in design, materials,
execution, or all of the above.

Leonid Surpin

69

Leonid -

There is definitely a standard for Fine Jewellery, and there is
nothing subjective about it.

And that standard would be…

Kelley Dragon

70

Suppose the jewelry pieces are fine figurines and amulets or perhaps
fine relief work, eg carvings into a stone jewelry box. A figurine
example is at http://www.ganoksin.com/gnkurl/1gj

Are small small intricately carved pieces like “Mythic Messengers”
fine jewelry?

First, the stone itself is of little value. Argillite is after all,
just consolidated dirt which dinosaurs might have walked on and layed
their eggs in. The composite of clay, mud, silt etc. became a rock.
The rock does not rate highly in the three criteria of “fineness” for
jewelry. It is not particularly rare, durable or aesthetic. How then
does stone worth a few cents become a jewelry carving worth
thousands? That requires an intelligent design translated into a
carving by creativity and the science of jewelry making.

I have been studying British Columbian First Nations fish designs in
art, carving etc. Some works go toward the literal while others are
more metaphorical or abstract. If Sto:lo jewelry makers and Haida
jewelry makers have a contest to carve a fish figurine in stone of any
kind (jade, argillite, granite etc) can we then use absolute
standards to judge which is better? Suppose we open up the contest to
nations beyond our borders and to “futuristic” and abstract designs?
Is an Italian fish or a Chinese fish carving better than a Sto:lo fish
carving when free style expression is allowed?

It is almost a cliche of art that great artists are not recognized
in their lifetimes. How does one reconcile that with absolute
standards? I am not arguing for or against Leonid’s absolutist
statement but simply asking the question.

Which “future fish” figurine carved in “future jade” is judged to be
best?

71 
There is definitely a standard for Fine Jewellery, and there is
nothing subjective about it.

Everything we make is inspected under 10x magnification. Everything,
and everything ABOUT everything. Finish, polish, contours, thickness
of prongs, setting is straight and plumb, prong tips are even and
equal with no windows, no porosity, pinholes or pits or burs or saw
marks or sanding scuffs. Everything. Inside and out. As is the
standard for the industry.

72

One more opinion.

“The idea of “fine” jewelry is subjective. What is fine today, may
not be in a year. What you may like, I may not think is so “fine”.”

I don’t think the term “fine jewelry” addresses issues of
fashion/style or taste. There are many many pieces of “fine” jewelry
I find horrible, but I recognize the quality of the materials and
construction. I can see that the finished piece is well designed
according to the intention of the designer.

When I was a kid, my sisters and I loved looking through our moms
jewelry box. We had a very clear understanding that there were 2
kinds of jewelry:

  1. Real (fine) jewelry and 2. Junk (costume) jewelry. What were the
    differences, as understood by the uncompicated minds of kids? Real (
    fine) jewelry was made of high quality materials and construction,
    meant to last for generations. Junk jewelry (not a perjorative in
    our minds) was made of inexpensive, sometimes “fake” materials ; some
    made to not fall apart, much was of poor construction,
    self-destructiong easily.

In that light, fine jewelry is fine whether you like it or not.
Whether you’re a classicist or a modernist, you recognize that the
crown jewels, as well as a Zobel minimalist piece is “fine” jewelry.
Fine jewelry retains it’s fineness, in and out of style, like it or
not.

So, for example: where do pieces like those of artist Thomas Mann
fit? He uses silver (fine indicator) but also found objects ( junk
:wink: ) in his well known pieces. They are well constructed to last
(fine), but not infintessimally finished (junk). They lie in some
other ground. They are in a class of studio art jewelry whose
artists employ both or either fine/junk in their own way. Mann’s work
is about ideas, presented in a manner to please and inspire. They are
about our time, and they will continue to illustrate ideas about our
time and the human heart for generations to come ( in the same way
that hair jewelry informs us today of that time).

Where do I fit, I wonder? I use some very expensive materials (fine),
but also feathers, shell, or other bits that inspire (junk). I
certainly work to my highest ability in craftsmanship and expect my
pieces to last indefinitly. Enamel has long been used IN fine
jewelry, but usually as accent, my work is about the enamel
primarily. I put myself in the fine studio-art-jewelry category.

Marianne Hunter

73 
There is definitely a standard for Fine Jewellery, and there is
nothing subjective about it.

So who publishes the standard? ISO? ASTM? ASME? The worshipful
Company of Goldsmiths? SNAG? A standard implies an organization
who’s members have agreed on what the standard describes. What you
are talking about is simply your opinion. If you feel a standard
should be published then maybe you should form or find an
organization who can publish such a document and if enough people
agree with you then it might become a true standard but till then it
is simply your opinion. Which is no more or less valid than another
persons opinion on the subject.

James Binnion
James Binnion Metal Arts

74 
There is definitely a standard for Fine Jewellery, and there is
nothing subjective about it.

That is cool, can you provide a copy of the governments “fine
jewellery” standards document, or at least a reference to it?

There isn’t one in Australia, is there one in America, or elsewhere
in the world?

If the government document doesn’t exist, then there’s no standard,
and it’s all personal opinion.

Regards Charles A.

75

Hi Marianne,

This is to address the ‘Junk (costume) jewelry’ portion of your
post. There are about many dealers, collectors, historians and
authors that would disagree with this terminology. Just in this
country alone, there are 3 major CJ groups comprising about 3800
members who study this on a daily basis from all over the globe.

While much of CJ, particularly the ‘newer’ pieces- say 1970 on, as
an example, are not constructed particularly well, are designs that
’mimic’ the earlier pieces, and are quite fragile, there are many
pieces that are still in excellent condition which command massive
prices, because of the designs and workmanship.

It’s true, many of the designers were bench jewelers, working for
Cartier and Tiffany, and designed jewelry in Sterling and Vermeil.
In mid-1942, Sterling Silver was used as a substitute, when base
metals were being used for the war effort.

Just to mention a few who are well known for exquisite pieces, are
Marcel Boucher, Pennino, Trifari (early KTF), Ciner, Fahrner, Jean
Dunand, Chanel, Hobe, and Haskell.

I have been fortunate to own some incredible examples of ‘Fine
Costume Jewelry’ from 1931 by Boucher, 1943 by Trifari, and 1930 by
Pennino. You would be amazed at the pieces, as they have survived
these many years, and are magnificent examples of fine jewelry
standards.

While some may disagree with this, these pieces have been designed
and constructed and much has lasted since the early 1930’s in
excellent condition. Christie Romero made a life long study of this,
and particularly her 3rd addition of Jewelry Identification and
Price Guide by Warman’s is very thorough, in depth, and shows
fabulous examples of Fine Jewelry by Cartier, Van Cleef and Arpels,
Pierre Sterle, Belperron, to name a few.

An extensive amount of research has been done on design patents for
specific pieces by particular makers, predominately by Trifari and
Coro. For instance, in 1930, Trifari hired its most celebrated and
prolific designer, Alfred Philippe, who designed man now sought
after pieces until 1968. He produced designs made by William Scheer
for Cartier and VC&A.

While this is still CJ, I refer to it as Fine Costume Jewelry.

With regards to ‘Fine Jewelry’ I am with Leonid on this. Fine
Jewelry shows in all aspects, from all views, a design and
construction, properly executed and finished, that is apparent to
the customer/viewer that contain the highest standards of the craft
attainable.

Just one persons opinion worth noting. On a personal note, I can
only hope at some point that I can produce, even for myself, a true
piece of Fine Jewelry.

Dinah

76 
And that standard would be

Let me see if I can provide a general answer to all questioning the
existence of standard.

First of all, consider that we have many institution specializing in
jewellery education. If there were no standard, than how students
attending such schools are judged? So there is obviously has to be a
standard!

In the USA there is a certification organization ( the name escapes
my now ), where one goes to attain certificate ( they have various
levels ) by taking a practical test. One has to fabricate some items,
which are judged on quality. I believe they even publish their
standards on their website. (someone will provide a link I hope )

Quite often, reputable jewellery houses have their own standards,
exceeding generally accepted ones. And even among these higher
standards, there are even further distinguished categories.

For example, “gout Toussaint” is a well known designation for some
Cartier jewellery which well known to collectors. Tiffany jewellery
carrying Schlumberger name is executed to higher quality standard
than regular production. We can go down the history lane and
appreciate the fact that in order to become master goldsmith, one had
to take a test administered by guild. Karl Faberge conducted his daily
walk-throughs carrying a hammer, to smash whatever he saw was bellow
firm’s standard.

So how could we define the standard for fine jewellery. Goldsmithing
is so complicated and so varied discipline, that to actually sit
down and document requirements for every type of technique would be
an impossible task. Or, at the very least, it would produce a tome so
huge that nobody would care to memorize it. Instead we are guided by
intuitive understanding acquired via training, study, and experience.
Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once said " I know it when I see
it". He was talking about obscenity, but the principle equally
applies to fine jewellery.

Leonid Surpin

77 
but I recognize the quality of the materials and construction.

I care about this topic equally as much as I care about the fate of
the Him alayan spotted tree frog, which is not much. But as so often
happens, it 's just getting silly and more than a little
self-serving. There’s often the loss of perspective for the sake of
argument, around here.

Of course there are standards for the jewelry industry. Just because
they aren’t written down doesn’t mean they don’t exist. There were
no written standards, really, for diamond grading until Liddicoat
devised the GIA system, but all he did was codify the system that
had been in place, in the diamond trade, at least since Tavernier.
The standards are essentially just what I wrote the other day -
quality in the sense of finish and craftsmanship, not really so much
about design. All of us in the trade know these things.

And of course we have fine jewelry, just as we have fine linens and
fine wine and fine dining and fine women and fine cars. I’ll define
fine jewelry if you define fine wine, hows that? It’s simple
English, and it’s how we communicate with each other - good, better,
best, fine, finer, finest.

And bad, worse, worst. To pretend otherwise is simply to be obtuse.

My suggestion would be, not to go from the bottom up but from the
top down.

Google “Faberge coronation egg coach” - images is easy. Now to be
sure, it is solidly Victorian, but I don’t think many would argue
against it being one of the finest things on Earth - the coach
itself, that is. Take it from there, and everybody can be their own
judge of relative merit. Also to be sure - there is some place in
the middle where one will say, “It’s fine” and the other will say,
“In your dreams.” I just let those folks work that out for
themselves, just like the fate of the Himalayan spotted tree frog.
The notion that there’s no such thing as “fine jewelry”, as some
seem to want to say, is just complete nonsense. In the real
world,there is. Go to a restaurant, politely introduce yourself to
your neighboring table, and ask them, “Is there such a thing as fine
jewelry?” And their answer is all you need to know, because it’s
English, it’s how we communicate.

78

I think of fine jewellery sort of in layers - first it is of fine
materials - not diluted, pure, - this would mean to me gold, silver
and platinum as well as the four sisters as I call them - diamonds,
emeralds, rubies and sapphires. Then there is the next layer - it is
not enough that the materials are fine – the workmanship must also
be fine, in the sense of distinctively well made. It isn’t a matter
of personal taste at all - every piece must be perfect - smooth
where it should be smooth, pointed where it should be pointed, if it
is filed to a ninety degree angle, it must be 90 degrees, not 89-1/2.
And all of this under magnification as well. It must stand up to the
highest level of scrutiny by one’s peers. And it must be made
primarily for it’s beauty in and of itself. Fine jewellery isn’t
functional - although it must function.

so… make beautiful jewellery for unique people. And make it
well.

Barbara

79 
If you feel a standard should be published then maybe you should
form or find an organization who can publish such a document and if
enough people agree with you then it might become a true standard.

Wouldn’t that be a bitch fight (excuse the profanity).

And when the standard is set in stone, people will still complain
about it.

Regards Charles A.

80 
There is definitely a standard for Fine Jewellery, and there is
nothing subjective about it.

I would like to express an opinion here regarding a point of view
which may be central to the situation. In several discussions where
Leonid expressed a strongly different view, the problem seems to me
to be cultural in nature. He is, in my opinion, saying much the same
things as the rest of us, but saying it in a different way.

In my several years at University, I was acquainted with a number of
“Russian” or “Eastern European” students. This group, scattered over
distance and time, had one unifying characteristic: statements were
made with an extreme degree of absolute certainty. What would be
“likely” to me, would be presented as the only possible viewpoint.
What I found myself objecting to was not the idea they were
expressing, but that hard, invariable statement and the belief that
what was being said was RIGHT, and they couldn’t (wouldn’t?) accept
anything to the contrary. Once I began to listen to the concept
being presented, and take with a grain of salt all the absolute
phrases, I found myself actually agreeing wit them on some things,
and genially differing with them on others.

In my opinion, there is something which I cannot quite define which
instills this absolute expression characteristic among those with
that same proud heritage of what I am generically referring to as
“Russian” or “Middle European”.

Again this is all my opinion. Keep it up, Leonid! One day some of us
will “listen” and “listen again” to hear the substance of what you
are saying, and be able to hear past the presentation.