Arrival in New York: Tiffany & Co. and Ball, Black & Co., 1850–1863 23 Foundation and Dissolution of Starr & Marcus, 1864–1877 47 Return to Tiffany & Co. and Establishing Jaques & Marcus, 1878–1892 67 Transition to Marcus & Co., 1892
& CO., THE SECOND
Days of Marcus & Co., and the Arts and Crafts Exhibitions, 1892–1899
Design Drawings: The Emergence of
112 Early Jewels in Their Signature Styles, 1899–1906 151 Success and Stability: The Third Generation Joins the Firm, 1906–1917
159 The Evolution of Their Signature Styles, 1906–1917
197 Transition to Third Generation Leadership, 1917–1925
211 PART III: BUILDING A MODERN BUSINESS
213 William E. Marcus Jr., New President and Innovator, 1925–1929
240 Navigating the Great Depression, 1931–1935
254 The Final Flowering: The Jonker Diamond, the International Flower Style, and the New York World’s Fair, 1937–1939
283 The End Game and Transition to Gimbels
285 Family Developments and William’s Golden Years, 1942–1970
295 APPENDICES
296 APPENDIX I
Selected Marks & Signatures
298 APPENDIX II
The Society of Arts and Crafts, Boston, Exhibitions 1897 and 1899
300 Selected Bibliography
303 Index
FIG. 1 Herman Marcus, ca. 1850. Collection of Ann Elder Norz
Early Days in Germany, 1828–1850
Apprenticeship in Dresden
Herman Marcus (FIG. 1), who would later establish the firm of Marcus & Co., was born in Kassel, Hesse, in west-central Germany, on December 23, 1828. He was the third child of a large family that included seven sons and five daughters. In 1842, at the age of fourteen, he arrived in Dresden to train under the court jeweler Moritz Elimeyer (1810–1871). This would have been an enviable situation for a personable young man eager to launch a career in the business. Elimeyer, whose premises were located on the Neumarkt, in the historic center near the royal palace, had received his title as court jeweler to the Saxon royal family in 1836. In 1841, he opened an elegant salon with a richly decorated shop front in a superb new building on this square (FIG. 2). The building’s architect, Gottfried Semper (1803–1879), had in the same year designed the city’s opera house. Queen Victoria selected Elimeyer as “Jeweler, Goldsmith & Silversmith to Her Majesty Queen of England” sometime in the mid-1840 s.1 The Archives of the Royal Collection Trust retains an order placed by the Queen on Prince Albert’s twenty-fifth birthday. It reads, “To Elimeyer, Jeweller, Dresden, A small clock, a head for a cane, a large table seal & an inkstand for HRH Pr Albert, Aug. 26 1844.”2 Herman Marcus’s brief notes for his autobiography, which was never completed, suggest that he had made deliveries to Victoria and Albert at the Prince Consort’s home in Coburg. These personal deliveries helped to secure Elimeyer’s appointment as royal jeweler. Herman’s recollections of the colorful welcome festivities for the royal couple’s visit are detailed in his notes.
FIG. 2 House Elimeyer, ca. 1917. Dresden, Deutsches Dokumentationszentrum für Kunstgeschichte – Bildarchiv Foto Marburg
Herman’s descriptions of interactions with the royal family and aristocrats, including Lord Palmerston,3 together with his specific knowledge of Her Majesty’s commissions, suggest that he worked in the front of the house, rather than at the bench. Nonetheless, at a major jeweler’s such as Elimeyer, Marcus would have become familiar with the creation of refined, bespoke jewelry, royal orders, and medals, as well as domestic silver. Among Elimeyer’s Saxon royal family commissions were various jeweled medals, such as the Baden Order of Fidelity of 1842 (FIG. 3), as well as personal jewels such as an engagement bracelet with the names of the betrothed realized in calibré-cut emeralds and
MAP OF THE THEATER DISTRICT/ UNION SQUARE
Location of Notable Jewelers Circa 1875–1900
JAQUES & MARCUS
41 Union Square 11 SW Corner of 17th Street 1878–1884
857 Broadway 9 NW Corner of 17th Street 1884–1899
COLLABORATORS
GORHAM MANUFACTURING COMPANY
889 Broadway 6 NW Corner of 19 th Street 1884–1905
EVANS & SCHEER > WILLIAM SCHEER
859 Broadway 8 Between 17th and 18th Streets 1880–1884
857 Broadway 9 NW Corner of 17th Street 1884–1899
ALFRED DAVID LENZ (Intermittently based in Manhattan, 1892–1911 and later)
23 Union Square West 12 Between 15th and 16th Streets ca. 1901
MCTEIGUE & CO. 8 East 17th Street 10 SE corner of Fifth Avenue 1885– ca. 1900
F. WALTER LAWRENCE 857 Broadway 9 NW Corner of 17th Street 1894–1898
41 Union Square 11 SW Corner of 17th Street 1898–1905
DURAND & CO. 44 East 14th Street 14 Between Broadway and University Place ca. 1879–1895
COMPETITORS
HOWARD & CO. 264 Fifth Avenue 1 SW Corner of 29 th Street 1878–1907
BLACK STARR & FROST (successors to Ball, Black & Co.)
251 Fifth Avenue 2 NE Corner of 28th Street ca. 1874/76–1898
DREICER & CO.
4 John Street (not shown) Between Broadway and Nassau Street 1878–1884
1128 Broadway 3 SE Corner of 26th Street 1884–1892
THEODORE B. STARR 206 Fifth Avenue 4 Alternate entrance at 1126 Broadway Between 25th and 26th Streets 1878–1907
C.W. SCHUMANN’S SONS
860 Broadway 7 Between 17th and 18th Street 1889–1895
935–939 Broadway, The Mortimer Bldg. 5 Between 22nd and 23rd Streets 1895–1910
TIFFANY & CO.
15 Union Square/ 15th Street 13 1870–1905
An exuberant figure, an expert “four-in-hand driver,” Wickliffe was characterized by the R. G. Dun gumshoes as “rather extravagant in his style of living, which has at times caused some comment, yet parties who claim to be well posted think he does not spend his income.”165 While flamboyant, he was also “a ready wit … and possessed a most kindly and amiable disposition.”166 As the retail jewelers moved uptown, Dun noted that Durand & Co. followed them, with new premises on the south side of Union Square at 44 East 14th Street, opened in 1879, in close proximity to Tiffany & Co., T.B. Starr, and Black, Starr & Frost, among others. In The Jewelers’ Weekly Complete Directory of the Jewelry and Kindred Trades in the United States of 1895, Durand’s 14th Street premises are coded as “m” for manufacturing. The source also lists a personal address for Wickliffe at 3 Maiden Lane, prefaced with a “d,” indicating that he was dealing there. Like his older brother, Henry, who had purchased a notable “blue old mine stone” of over 4 carats in South America, Wickliffe too was trading in diamonds and precious stones on his own account, eventually retiring from the family business to pursue this activity.167
Creating a niche in the market, 1882
In collaboration with Durand, Scheer, and F. Walter Lawrence, Jaques & Marcus began to define its market
and style. In a twenty-six-page self-published monograph titled Something about Neglected Gems ( FIG. 55), the young firm looked to establish for itself a niche in the jewelry business, in an area less competitive than that of diamonds, sapphires, and rubies, over which firms such as Tiffany & Co. and T.B. Starr vied for
David Behl
FIG. 55 Cover page of Jaques & Marcus booklet, Something about Neglected Gems, 1882. Swann Auction Galleries
FIG. 56 Colored diamond and diamond pendant, Jaques & Marcus, ca. 1885–1890. Collection of Neil Lane
FIG. 57 Alexandrite chrysoberyl, natural pearl, diamond, and enamel brooch, Jaques & Marcus, ca. 1885–1890. Collection of Eric Streiner. Photo credit:
FIG. 85 Emerald and enamel necklace in the firm’s “Antique” style, ca. 1896 –1897. Courtesy of FD Gallery
Early Days of Marcus & Co., and the Arts and Crafts Exhibitions, 1892–1899
TThe family firm is born
he decade of the 1890 s witnessed a global financial panic, a major world exposition held in Chicago, and two important Arts and Crafts exhibitions in Boston, all of which impacted the business and design trajectory of Marcus & Co. Meanwhile, the family traveled to Europe and India for inspiration, the second generation settled into leadership and design roles, and they continued cultivating rich and influential clients. Then, after a lifetime of striving and success together, Margaret and Herman died within five years of each other. By the close of the century, the firm’s distinctive body of design and exceptional craftsmanship had emerged, and their prestige and reputation were established.
The World’s Columbian Exposition, held in Chicago, Illinois, from May 5 to October 30, 1893, was a significant success for the United States. Spoken of as the “White City” and spanning some 630 acres of fairgrounds, the Fair showcased the architecture of Daniel Burnham (1846 –1912) and the landscape designs of Frederick Law Olmsted (1822–1903). It epitomized the Beaux-Arts aesthetic and featured exhibits and cultural displays from forty-six participating nations. Twenty million visitors from around the world toured the many modern marvels, including the elevator and the Ferris wheel. The grounds were spectacularly illuminated at night by the innovations of Nikola Tesla (1856 –1943) in alternating-current electricity (FIG. 86). The Exposition was overshadowed by the Panic of 1893, a severe economic crisis that followed a series of
FIG. 86 “Court of Honor” illuminated by Nikola Tesla, World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago, 1893. Black-and-white photograph. Kenneth M. Swezey Papers, Archives Center, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution
FIG. 102 Scans of pages from the design drawings, “Brooches, Pendants, No. 1,” images 77 and 92 Courtesy Dartmouth Libraries
Early Jewels in Their Signature Styles, 1899–1906
The Hindu style
The firm’s so-called Hindu style dominates their early work, as evidenced by surviving jewelry, design drawings (FIGS. 158 and 159), and listings in George’s submissions to the 1897 and 1899 Arts and Crafts exhibitions in Boston. Those displayed at the exhibitions were enthusiastically received by critics, who commented that “the Hindoos and not ourselves are the ones who represent advanced civilization.”124 Their designs were inspired by antique jewels that Herman, William, and George had seen and purchased
in various regions of India during their travels there in 1895. In addition, materials such as carved emeralds, as well as cabochons and beads, were purchased on that trip. Much of Marcus & Co.’s Indian-inspired jewelry is set with emeralds, which would have been available in India—the major consumer of Colombian emeralds during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.125
This group of early jewelry has certain commonalities in surface treatment, materials, and ornamentation. They include engraving and intensive chasing of the gold with beading, stippling, and circular punch-
FIG. 158 Design drawing with carved Indian emerald, “Brooches, Pendants, No. 1,” image 79. Courtesy Dartmouth Libraries
FIG. 159 Design drawing with carved Indian emerald, “Brooches, Pendants, No. 1,” image 77. Courtesy Dartmouth Libraries
ing, inspiring some to liken the treatment to octopus patterning (e.g. FIG. 135). The chasing also features linear impressions that follow the curves and scrolls, providing depth and texture to the gold. Small graduated groups of beads set within scrolls or along a jewel’s edges may have been intended to reference the ancient art of granulation, widely practiced in India.Occasionally gems themselves are mounted in an Indian manner with closed backings lined with foil, as in the
ring illustrated here (FIG. 160). This ring, like most other Marcus jewels from this period, is chased and enameled on the interior (FIG. 161), as Indian jewelry is often ornamented on the back with enamel. In the Marcus ring, an interior enamel monogram, “HLM,” is also noted on the design drawing (FIG. 162). A watch design set with a large cabochon emerald, produced several times by Marcus, recalls the opulence of Indian jewelry (FIGS. 163 and 164) and is elaborately worked
FIG. 160 Emerald, diamond and enamel “Hindu” ring, ca. 1901–1902. Vartanian & Sons, New York. Photo credit: David Behl
FIG. 161 Chased and engraved interior and reverse of Fig. 160
FIG. 162 Design for Fig. 160, “Rings, No. 1.” Courtesy of Morse Museum
FIG. 164 Emerald, diamond, and enamel pendant watch, ca. 1901, front and back. Collection of Eric Streiner. Photo courtesy of Christie’s
FIG. 304 Plique-à-jour enamel morning glory pendant brooch, ca. 1905 –1906. Courtesy of Newark Museum
FIG. 305 Plique-à-jour enamel morning glory pendant brooch and necklace. Courtesy of Sotheby’s
FIG. 309 Front and reverse of plique-à-jour enamel Cattleya mossiae orchid pendant, with conch pearls and diamonds, ca. 1905 –1906. Courtesy of Macklowe Gallery. Photo credit: Bret Wills
FIG. 311 Plique-à-jour enamel and diamond fuchsia pendant, ca. 1905 –1906. Private collection. Photo credit: David Behl
William E. Marcus Jr., New President and Innovator, 1925–1929
Novel advertising campaigns
Now in his early forties and newly elected as president of Marcus & Co., William Marcus Jr. immediately began developing novel advertising strategies. The book of essays he would publish in 1969 argues the importance of advertising to “promote the Good Will attached to a name, product or service. This is not money poured down the drain but a wise use for available funds.”1 In light of the firm’s history of sparing investment in marketing, William might have felt the need to justify the expense of the unusual campaign he was plotting. By June 1926, Marcus & Co. had hired the prominent Philadelphia advertising firm N.W. Ayer & Son (founded in 1869), which in 1947 would devise the acclaimed slogan “A Diamond is Forever” for their client De Beers. Designs by the American painter and illustrator Rockwell Kent (1882–1971) (FIG. 386) had attracted the attention of William and Chapin. Kent had emerged around 1920 as one of America’s foremost artists. He was also a pioneer in commercial art, producing captivating images in a stylized figurative manner for advertising agents and editors of fashionable magazines. The Marcuses were especially impressed by advertisements for the Steinway Piano Company, which incorporated musical-themed paintings Rockwell had made, without any overlays of advertising copy. Through Ayer’s fabled artistic director Vaughn Flannery (1898–1955), the Marcuses contracted with Kent to produce a series of drawings for advertisements in several elite magazines, including Vogue, Vanity Fair, Country Life, Town & Country, Arts and Decoration, The New Yorker, and House & Garden. In
his works on paper created during the 1920 s, Kent’s métier was drawing with pen, brush, and ink.2 “As an artist who was also involved in advertising, Kent was among the first to resist the standard practice of showing the product being marketed. Instead, he constructed a visual environment that was psychologically conducive to suggestion rather than instruction.”3 In these magazines, his original pen and ink drawings were translated into print by means of photomechanical reproduction (FIGS. 387 and 388). The firm selected Vanity Fair to publish a complete run of these ads, perhaps judging its readership to be most receptive to their particular message.
The full-page advertisements consisted of a Kent illustration paired with copy created by the Marcus
386 Rockwell Kent, ca. 1920 Photographer unknown. Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution
FIG.
MAP OF COLLABORATORS AND COMPETITORS
MARCUS & CO.
671 Fifth Avenue 1 SE corner 53rd Street ca. 1933–1937
679 Fifth Avenue 2 Between 53rd and 54th Streets ca. 1937–1942
COLLABORATORS
GUSTAV MANZ 42 West 48th Street 1 ca. 1935–1944
MCTEIGUE & CO. 16 West 52nd Street 2 1932–1936
642 Fifth Avenue 3 SW corner 52nd Street ca. 1936–1969
OSCAR HEYMAN & BROS. 58 West 40 th Street 4 Between 5th & 6th Avenues ca. 1922–1936
642 Fifth Avenue 5 SW corner 52nd Street ca. 1936–1960
WILLIAM SCHEER 7–11 West 45th Street 6 Between 5th & 6th Avenues ca. 1915–1932 594 Fifth Avenue 7 (Factory at Black Starr & Frost premises) SW corner of 48th Street ca. 1932–1942
COMPETITORS
BLACK STARR FROST –GORHAM 594 Fifth Avenue 1 SW corner of 48th Street ca. 1910–1962
CARTIER 653 Fifth Avenue 2 (leased, then purchased) SE corner 52nd Street 1916–present
CHARLTON & CO. 635 Fifth Avenue 3 SE corner 51st Street ca. 1919–1943
F. WALTER LAWRENCE 665 Fifth Avenue 4
Between 52nd and 53rd Streets ca. 1935–1971
GILLOT & CO.
610 Fifth Avenue, 5 La Maison Française SW corner 49 th Street ca. 1937–1949
HARRY WINSTON 620 Fifth Avenue 6 SW corner 50 th Street ca. 1932–1942
LITTLE SHOP OF T. AZEEZ (Marie el Khoury) 561 Fifth Avenue 7 SE corner 46th street ca. 1915– ca. 1935
386 Park Avenue 8
Between 53rd and 54th Streets ca. 1935– ca.1955 (Business closed)
OLGA TRITT
730 Fifth Avenue 9
Between 56th and 57th Streets ca. 1928–1932
589 Madison Avenue 10 SE corner of 57th Street ca. 1932–1949
PAUL FLATO
One East 57th Street, 11 14th Floor NE corner of 57th Street ca. mid to late 1920 s–1943
RAYMOND YARD
607 Fifth Avenue 12 17B
Between 48/49 th Street, 8th Floor ca. 1926–1958
TIFFANY & CO.
401 Fifth Avenue 13 SE corner of 36th Street ca. 1905–1940
727 Fifth Avenue 14 SE Corner of 57th Street ca. 1940–present
TRABERT & HOEFFERMAUBOUSSIN 407 Park Avenue 15
Between 54th and 55th 1936–1953
UDALL & BALLOU
730 Fifth Avenue 16 SW corner 57th Street ca. 1923–1942
VERDURA
712 Fifth Avenue 17 SW corner 56th Street ca. 1939–1972
The End Game and Transition to Gimbels Ą
Having survived the many challenges of the 1930 s, continually adapting to changes in taste and fashion, Marcus & Co. held its final election of officers in June 1941. William, possibly considering an exit from the firm, opted for the more ceremonial role of chairman of the board and treasurer; Chapin was elevated to president and secretary; Kenneth Van Cott, the firm’s devoted business manager and gem expert, became vice president; and Dorothy Marcus remained assistant secretary, an honorific role.237 However, the country was preparing for war, and in September 1941 President Roosevelt signed a “record tax bill intended to raise $3,553,400,000 to pay part of the cost of the country’s vast rearmament and lend-lease programs.”238 A week later, more details emerged as the legislation was further interpreted. It became clear that “luxury goods of all types will be made to bear part of the burden of national defense.” Along with duties on “pleasure cars,” radios, musical instruments, furs, perfume, cosmetics, and playing cards, retailers were required to pay “ten percent excise taxes on all jewelry, whether real or imitation.”239 In advance of the new levies, The New York Times reported that “consumers besieged stores for liquor, furs, jewelry, and cosmetics.” A Marcus competitor, Black, Starr & Frost– Gorham, said that “the buying of jewelry … was comparable to that of the week before Christmas.”240 Those interested in hedging against inflation, joined the “beat-the-tax” buying trend by purchasing diamonds and precious metals in advance of the levy.241 Under the new taxes, shopping slowed considerably, and customers were notably fewer. This left Chapin and William in an untenable situation. The firm had not generated sufficient profit
during the 1930 s to allow them to take a salary, while at the same time, with the mood of belt tightening and under intensifying competition, they had no pricing power.
Plans for a change in the structure of the company were underway. The original incorporation of the firm in New Jersey on May 2, 1892, had specified a duration of fifty years. On May 4, 1942, Chapin and Dorothy reregistered the name of “Marcus & Co.” as “Chapin & Dorothy, Inc.,” filing for a “Certificate of Change of Name.”242 This document, ending the fifty-year-old firm, was signed by Chapin, William, and Dorothy. It is possible that Chapin still held out hope of continuing the family business, with Dorothy’s blessing and company shares, but without their brother William.
In order to raise capital to fund William’s exit, a partial liquidation was arranged through one of the firm’s best clients, Alva Bernheimer Gimbel (1893–1983), whose husband, Bernard Gimbel (1885–1966), was president of Gimbels department store. In November 1942, an advertisement in The New York Times announced “Gimbels liquidates Marcus & Co.’s $500,000 jewelry stock averaging 50 % off … There never has been a jewelry sale of this magnitude.”243 To attract attention to the extraordinary event, an important emerald and diamond bracelet, once priced at $100,000 and now heavily discounted for liquidation,244 was illustrated one day earlier in The New York Times. The Art Deco bracelet, by an unknown manufacturer, was reported to be “the largest in the world” containing diamonds “in every shape … mounted on a platinum setting of 3,000 parts, achieving unusual flexibility”245 (FIG. 551). Among the jewelry advertised for sale at “plain, old Gimbels” were items that had
