Forbes collection of Faberge

[Nick Nicholson]

NAAOTMA,

Though the Hermitage and the Kremlin Armory Museum have both offered to hote the "Vekselberg Foundation" collection, it appears that Mr. Vekselberg plans to erect a separate musem in Moscow to host his collection (I have heard this through friends in Russia...).

Word is that the initial exhibition will be in a special Hall et the Church of CHrist the Redeemer in Moscow (during Easter of this year).  The Eggs will be taken on a tour of Russia after that, and on their return to Moscow, will be loaned to the Armory museum, where the eggs will be exhibited with the 10 already there.

We'll see though -- anything could happen!

Nick

[Nick_Nicholson]

If anyone is in New York City this weekend, the last exhibition of the Faberge Eggs now belonging to Victor Vekselberg will be on view at Sotheby's every day from 10am until 5pm Thursday-Sunday.

Happy Valentine's Day!

[Nick_Nicholson]

Dear All,

It appears that the Vekselberg collection will be placed on view at the Kremlin Armory museum.  That means there will be 19 eggs and over 400 pieces Faberge on view there.

Finally, for the first time sinc the revolution, the worlds largest collection of Faberge will bein Russia.

Best, Nick

[Rodger]

I note with interest that the Forbes sale of the ROMANOV eggs occurred, at their insistence by the way, the day following the publication of the 'Knight et al. paper in the Annals of Human Biology.   Given that Forbes is a news magazine, they would have had very fast access to the press release by the journal.

By the way, hasn't it ever occurred to anyone that the Romanoff family treasures were stolen from the Imperial family, and should have by all conscionable moral rights, had gone to their nearest relatives?

I know someone is going to whine 'oh it's state property' blah, blah, blah, but the fact is, the works are booty from robbery murder.

Shame on Lenin.  Shame on Armand Hammer.  And shame on the Forbes for not turning the artworks over to their rightful owners.  I never want to hear any Forbes, or any other person who possessed these family treasure ever speak about the rights of private property, because clearly, they haven't it would be pure hypocrisy for them to do so.

[_Rodger_]

I assume that since there have been no responses, everyone agrees with me.

Yeah, right.

[Nick_Nicholson]

Dear Rodger,

Just got your post, can't believe I missed it.

Though I agree with you on many levels, the one thing that no one can do is claim that the Faberge formerly in the Imperial collection was "state property."  Those objects were the personal property of the Imperial family, and never considered the property of the state, as were many of the jewels and the crown regalia.

Unfortunately, after the revolution, the pieces were nationalized, and were then "property of the state" though this is unfair, it is legal, and as the US and each country in Europe gradually recognized the legitimacy of the Soviet regime, the emigres lost their right to reclaim nationalized property.

There is a dreadful story (which I heard from a Romanov, so I think I can vouch for its authenticity), that when Grand Duchess Xenia was living at Frogmore, she was summoned by Queen Mary to a tea to show her the latest acquisitions by Faberge she had purchased.  Drawing a nephrite box with a diamond cypher from her vitrine, Mary asked if she might know what the letter meant, and to whom the piece might have belonged.

"It is my cypher," Xenia replied, "My husband gave that box to me on my name day.  It was in my library at St. Petersburg."

"How interesting," replied Queen Mary, putting the piece back in the vitrine, and firmly locking the door.

So you see that no one behaved well.  We can thank the Forbes family for creating such a massive and important collection, and for having the good sense to stop the sale, and allow the pieces to be acquired by someone who plans to share the pieces with the Russian people, and return the pieces to Russia.

Best,

Nick

[_Rodger_]

1)  I did not claim that the jewels, et cetera, are state property.  I've seen some people make this claim, and this formed the basis of the sale of Romanov artworks to people like Armand Hammer.

2)  You've mischaracterized my point.  My point is that the Romanov art objects belong to the Romanoff family by right.

3)  You mischaracterized the sale by Forbes to the Russian oligarch.  The fact is, the Forbes family pocketed some $100,000,000 cash from the sale.   They didn't advance the timetable of the sale out the kindness of their hearts.

[Forum Admin]

Nick,
I have heard that same story from other members of the Romanov family, but it was told a bit differently. Xenia obviously thought Mary was going to give her the box back. She said "OH my box! My husband gave me that box on my names day..it was in my library in St. Petersburg. Thats my box, how wonderful!"
Mary replied "How nice dear, but it is MY BOX NOW" and the tea was over.

[Robert_Hall]

This is going to sound terribly "revolutionary", but , what the hell.
By all reasonable logic, the entire Romanov wealth was derived from the work of the Russian people.  They are the ones who bought & paid for the Faberge & all the rest.
The Romanovs did not recieve a  "salary", the country was theirs to dispense with as they wished.  Therefore, when the family itself was "dispensed with", the "people" reclaimed "their" rightful property,[ In that sense, they- the Romanovs- had no "personal" property] and sold what they needed to, for whatever reasons.
One could consider the same situation with the present Queen Elizabeth II, she is "caretaker" of the Royal Collection", if the people [whomever that might eventually be determined to be]  decided to sell the lot off, well,  so be it.
Much the same logic has been used in all revolutions.
As an aside here, the items, as inventoried, that the Imperial Family took with them into exile/imprisonment were rather practical, not really luxurious. Even the jewels were taken for survival, not posessiveness.
These are my views, anyway.

[Forum Admin]

Robert
Your point is not correct. There was a definite difference between  Imperial Russian "State" property and personal Romanov property. Certain things which were State property could not really be given away or sold or kept personally for that matter. Remember the considerable row Marie Feodrovna created when she refused to give the new Empress Alexandra "Imperial State" jewelry which rightfully belonged to the new Empress. Also, Nicholas made it quite clear that he paid for the new Livadia Palace out of his personal monies and not State funds. In fact, it is well documented that when the State property was deducted from the total Romanov wealth, the Yussupov (Sumarkov-Elston)'s were richer than the Romanovs! Nicholas was quite aware of what was personal and what was State. The Faberge in question was, as Nick said, personal property.

Also, trust me, QEII is WELL AWARE of what is personal property and what is state property and she can not touch 10p worth of state property without Parliament's ok. That said, she is still personally the largest landowner in Britain.

What the legal point here is simply this: The Soviet Government nationalised ALL personal property.  The only owner of any property in the USSR was the "people" controlled by the Soviet government. Individual Personal property rights ceased to exist. This action was legal, because there was no international law at the time. We may not like it, it may be unfair and unjust, it may be illegal by modern international law, BUT the critical part is that at the time, it was the law of the land in the USSR and no international law, treaty or agreement, superceded that. The sales of the Faberge pieces and other property in the 20's and 30's by Christies, Hammer, et al were legal sales AT THAT TIME. There was no violation of any laws because the Soviet Govt. was in point of fact the new legal owner of that property and any purchaser took possession legally and subject to the laws of the country of the sale.  

Juan Peron nationalised all assets belonging to non-Argentine parties, under Argentine law. If you read the case law this generated, it was pretty well settled that those nationalisations were legal.

The only "right" which any Romanov, Shuvalov, Bariatinski etc descendent might have for property nationalised by the Soviet Govt. is a moral/ethical one, which sadly was not recognized ever by any Court of competent jurisdiction.

[Robert_Hall]

I was not trying to say that the Soviet view was correct. I was trying to explain their justification in nationalising private property.  That is: where did the Romanov wealth come from in the first place. The point was that nationalisation needed an excuse. All such revolutions, especially communist ones, have used that excuse.
Also, I know the British situation was a bad analogy.  Of course the Queen is well aware of the difference.
Also, I understand about the Yussopouvs being the wealthiest, actually, I think there were other families wealthier as well.

[Nick_Nicholson]

Robert,

You are right; the Stroganov-Scherbatovs were richer, as were the Demidovs.  Until the 1880's, the senior branch of the Orlovs and the Belosselsky-Belozerskys were richer as well.

These figures are based on Romanov weath MINUS state property, so while The Catherine and ALexander Palace would not be included as assets,  Pavlovsk would be.

If the prerevolutionary assets were returned, it is estimated that the Yusupovs and Stroganovs would each be worth as much as 5 BILLION dollars each, as the Baku Oil fields in Azerbaijan were essntially divided between the two familys.  The Stroganovs also owned virtually all of the semiprecious stone mines in Sibera.

Not too shabby.

Nick

[_Rodger_]

The Forum Administrator's analysis is outstanding.

Moreover it should be understood that Nicholas championed private property rights as they related to the issue of government or individual ownership.   In fact, his insistence upon a separation of private property from collective or state ownership was the source of much contention between himself and the Imperial Duma.  

As far as the issue of 'people's' this and 'people's' that, there are at least 2 factors negating those arguments.

First)  There was no serfdom during Nicholas' reign.  Property such as mineral wealth was not siezed from individuals and given over to the state as a matter of course.  The Imperial Family purchased their jewelry with their own money, much the same as anyone today could go into a jewelry store and order a custom piece of work to suit.

Second)  Even during Nicholas' time, Russia was by law and in essence the private property of the Emperor.  Any right to private property on the part of others originated from and was to be conveyed by the monarch.  The state, and the government that adminitered it, were in theory, if not in practice, the Emperor's property and the mechanism by which whatever rights conveyed were protected.  The alienability of property was one of Nicholas' more important legacies, one that was of course canceled by the revolutionary governments.  The Emperor saw his duty as one of protecting and enforcing these property rights, much the same as any modern government does for it's own citizens.  

[_Rodger_]

I must say that I personally suspect Robert_Hall's 'objection' was more based on playing 'devil's advocate' than a sincere belief.  

It seems to me to be reasonable to ask such questions, and it's reasonable to explore why or why not they should carry any weight.  

[Robert_Hall]

No reason to suspect at all...of course the statements I made are indeed "devil's advocate".
As for my sincere, personal beliefs, well, they are expressed to sincere, personal friends.
This is a simple discussion forum.
It seems to me some people carve things in stone, then forget to blow off the dust.