Like it or not, the recent glut of “cash for gold” ads has etched into our collective psyche how easy it is to turn our “unwanted, old or broken gold jewelry… even dental gold!” into fast cash. And if you’re not thrilled about stuffing your jewelry into an envelope and shipping it off to an anonymous buyer who can name his own price, you might be interested to know that Sotheby’s is actively seeking to consign your more “Magnificent Jewels” for sale at one of its high-end auctions.

But be warned, whether you’re one of the masses exchanging your scrap gold for quick cash or one of the wealthy elite consigning your magnificent jewels through an exclusive auctioneer, you can be sure that some self-satisfied snob somewhere in the world thinks what you’re doing is “vulgar.”

If, like me, you’re one of the masses, consider yourself lucky: there are too many of us to be singled out personally for the epithet and, in any case, little better is expected from the likes of us. On the other hand, the more prominent you are, the more likely you are to get a public verbal beat-down, especially if you happen to be selling an inheritance you received from someone still more prominent than yourself.

A perfect example of the latter scenario took place in 2006 when the children of Britain’s Princess Margaret auctioned off many of their late mother’s personal possessions, including her jewelry, at Christie’s, some four years after her death. Critics of the sale were up in arms, calling it “humiliating,” “disrespectful,” and, of course, “vulgar.”

It mattered little that the Princess’s children had no need for their late mother’s valuable tiaras, diamond necklaces, or Fabergé clocks. Or that they wanted to use the proceeds from the sale to pay inheritance taxes, buy things they could actually use, or donate to charity. Instead, the vulgarity of it all, according to the critics, lay in the fact that these objects once owned by royalty were allowed to slip into the hands of “souvenir hunters.” Above all, however, was the suggestion that by publicly exchanging the jewels for cash, these near-royals behaved shamefully like the rest of us by unabashedly seeking cash for gold.

In addition to being arrogant and insulting – not to mention hypocritical – these conclusions are so far removed from historical reality it’s almost ridiculous. If anything, the privileged and wealthy have taken full advantage of jewelry for its liquidity and viability as portable wealth for time immemorial. And although some have chosen to do so discreetly and quietly, many have chosen to take full advantage of the higher prices a distinguished provenance can command.

This is especially true in the case of royalty, who often amassed jewelry not only for personal enjoyment and self-aggrandizement, but also as a nest egg in the event of revolution or usurpation. Frequently, that same jewelry was sold by the original owners or by successive generations for any number of legitimate reasons – and to whomever was buying – to little critical outcry. (Incidentally, the mistresses of royalty and other wealthy men have also employed this method of “insurance” throughout history, and for similar reasons as their royal counterparts. But, unseemly as it may be, this particular connection is not necessarily what makes the critics cringe.)

Personally, I’m inclined to see historically important jewelry preserved wherever possible, but it’s sanctimonious and unrealistic to suggest that the heirs of the rich and illustrious – never mind the rest of us – should hold family jewelry sacrosanct and refrain from selling to the highest bidder, especially when there are no legal or ethical reasons to do otherwise and the proceeds could be put to more practical use. In fact, when it comes to important and historic jewelry, the more public and transparent the sale, the more likely it is that historical provenance will be preserved, or at least recorded, for posterity.

If such magnificent jewels were all sold on the sly – let’s say, slipped in an envelope and mailed attention: “Cash for Gold” – a great many historically important and beautiful collections might be lost, never to get the recognition they deserve. Now that would be vulgar.

-Tori

Tags: aristocrats, auctions, cash for gold, Christie’s, courtesans, diamonds, Fabergé, historic jewelry, inheritances, Links: Royalty, Princess Margaret, Sotheby’s, tiaras