Winter 2008 - 2009 - Blue Serpent Egg Redating - Reader’s responses
Excerpts of reader’s responses on the redating hypotheses suggested by Annemiek Wintraecken in the Fabergé Newsletter, November 2008, have been compiled with the writer's permissions. Newsletter space limitations do not permit publishing lengthy rebuttals. Individuals interested in contacting the writers of the responses may email Christel McCanless. Additional future rebuttals will be posted on the newly-initiated Fabergé Eggs Forum.
Toby Faber (Author, The Extraordinary Story of the Masterpieces That Outlived an Empire):
I like your theory about the mix-up between the 1887 and 1895 egg. It seems to fit the facts and the picture better than the current attribution – we can be pretty sure, I think, that the surprise from the 1896 egg was lent to the 1935 Belgrave Square Exhibition by Grand Duchess Xenia (see Lowes and McCanless, Fabergé Eggs: A Retrospective Encyclopedia, 46). Doesn’t that make it quite likely that she also possessed the egg itself – i.e., (assuming you’re right) the 12 Monogram Egg? It seems to make it more likely that the 12 Monogram Egg came to the West with Marie Fedorovna, before ending up in the possession of the mysterious ‘Mrs Berchielli’.
Alex Mogilevski (Fabergé enthusiast from Russia):
I found your recent research on the Blue Serpent Clock Egg extremely interesting! Indeed the telegraphic style used to describe the Easter Eggs in the invoices presented to the Court makes the correct attribution of some eggs quite difficult. Therefore, I am sure that your research is an important contribution to the Quest! ... We cannot ignore the opinion of Marina Lopato regarding the unbelievably low price for such a sophisticated egg and its very sophistication for such an early period ... Since you are corresponding with most learned Fabergé scholars, I wonder whether you had a chance to discuss your findings with Valentin Skurlov, the leading Russian expert on Fabergé.
Geoffrey Munn (Wartski):
How marvellous! I am not the only person who will be thrilled to see this published.
Vincent Palmade (Fabergé enthusiast):
I think you are right that the egg on the left of the second shelf from the top is the 1887 Easter Egg - the white horizontal band does look like the band where the hours would be indicated together with the head of a snake pointing to them. Furthermore, the golden stripes on the upper half of the egg are clearly in the style of the Faberge objects from the mid 80s (e.g., Kollin).
Scott Ruby and the Curatorial Staff of Hillwood Estate, Museum, & Gardens:
After reading Annemiek Wintraecken-Penninks’ recent article concerning the re-dating of our Twelve Monogram Egg, Hillwood Estate, Museum, & Gardens feels it must reply to her findings and assert that the arguments set forth in her article are largely based on invoice descriptions and her own hypotheses. There is no proof at present to firmly support any of the theories she claims demand a re-dating any of the Imperial Easter Eggs. While it is possible the Twelve Monogram Egg could, in fact, date to 1896 without further research and evidence, Hillwood Estate, Museum, & Gardens will not change the dating of the Twelve Monogram Egg at the present time.
Ulla Tillander-Godenhielm (Fabergé scholar and author):
It is not the clock of the Blue Serpent egg, which attracts the eye in this magnificent object, rather it is the superb blue émail en ronde bosse and its advanced technical details performed by truly skilful goldsmiths. In this egg, I see the ‘mature Fabergé’, and find it difficult to believe that the young newcomer Mikhail Perkhin could have supervised the production of such a complicated object.
If the Blue egg was made as early as 1887, it is odd and unusual that Fabergé would repeat this ‘Sèvres porcelain vase model’ some 15-17 years later in three of his truly important commissions (Duchess of Marlborough 1902, Rothschild 1903, Kelch 1904).
When a designer/jeweller/artist has a good idea, he/she does like to make variations on this theme, but then goes on to create something new. If I could ‘blindly’ put a date on the Blue Serpent egg it would be the year 1901 or 1902 …
(Editor’s note: Dr. Marina Lopato [Fabergé: Imperial Jeweler, 1993] already suggested the Blue Serpent Clock Egg was too sophisticated for this relatively early date of 1887.)
Géza von Habsburg (Fabergé scholar and author):
... really happy that the mystery of the date of the Blue Serpent Egg has been satisfactorily solved. All these years I have been saying that the egg had to be much later due to the superb quality of its enameling, a technique (émail en ronde bosse) which was not yet fully mastered by Fabergé around 1885 (see the somewhat uneven, blotchy quality of the enamel on the 1884 Bismark Box [Munich 1986, cat. 404]), especially on its curved sides.
