Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest: Note of case hearing on 12 June 2013: a gold and gem set ring, (4, 2013-14)

Application

1. The Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest (RCEWA) met on 12 June 2013 to consider an application to export a gold and gem set ring, Jane Austen. The value shown on the export licence application was £152,450 which represented a hammer price of £126,000 at auction plus buyer’s premium of £26,450. The expert adviser had objected to the export of the ring under the third Waverley criterion, as there were reasonable documentary grounds to believe that it was owned by Jane Austen. The ring was of national importance due to Jane Austen’s stature as a novelist, and of particular local importance to those villages and towns, notably Chawton and Bath, where she lived.

2. The eight regular RCEWA members present were joined by three independent assessors, acting as temporary members of the Reviewing Committee.

3. The applicant confirmed that the value did not include VAT and that VAT would be payable in the event of a UK sale. The applicant also confirmed that the owner understood the circumstances under which an export licence might be refused and that, if the decision on the licence was deferred, the owner would allow the ring to be displayed for fundraising.

Expert’s submission

4. The expert adviser had provided a written submission stating that the gold ring (width 17.5 mm; height 8 mm) set with a turquoise was probably made in the eighteenth century, possibly about 1760-80. In excellent condition, the ring sat in a later nineteenth-century case bearing the name of T. West, goldsmith of Ludgate Street, London and was accompanied by papers documenting the history of the ring within the family of Jane Austen.

5. According to a note written by Eleanor Austen in November 1863 (sold with the ring), the ring belonged to Jane Austen (1775-1817). From Jane it passed to her sister, Cassandra, who gave it to her sister-in-law Eleanor Austen, second wife of the Revd. Henry Thomas Austen (brother of Jane and Cassandra), ‘as soon as she knew that I was engaged to your uncle’. Eleanor and Henry were married in 1820. From Eleanor (died 1864) the ring passed to her niece Caroline Mary Craven Austen (1805-1880), daughter of the Revd. , another of Jane’s brothers. According to a note written by Mary Dorothy Austen-Leigh in 1935 (sold with the ring), she received the ring from her aunt Mary A. Austen-Leigh (1838-1922). The latter ‘probably received it from her aunt Caroline’, the recipient of the note from Eleanor Austen. The ring is sketched in Mary Dorothy Austen-Leigh’s note and is described as ‘a bright blue turquoise Ring – mounted in a band – not a gipsy ring’.

6. According to a later note, written by Mary Dorothy Austen-Leigh in 1962 (sold with the ring), Mary A. Austen-Leigh received the ring from her mother Austen-Leigh (1801-76), rather than direct from Caroline as her note of 1935 had suggested. The expert adviser suggested that the difference between these two notes did not appear to be significant to the history of the ring. Mary Dorothy Austen-Leigh gave the ring to her sister Winifred Jenkyns on 27 March 1962 It is understood, that the ring was then consigned to Sotheby’s, London by another family member and sold on, 10 July 2012, lot 59 (£152,450, including premium).

7. The Expert Adviser stated that Jane Austen’s House Museum at Chawton exhibits only two pieces of jewellery as having been owned by Jane Austen: a turquoise bead bracelet which previously belonged to Mary A. Austen-Leigh and a topaz cross, which sent to Jane in 1801. The topaz cross is believed to be the model for the amber cross given by William to Fanny Price in . Jane Austen’s modest lifestyle and her early death mean that objects associated with her of any kind are rare; even her letters were in part destroyed by her family.

8. Jane Austen showed an appreciation of the significance of jewellery in personal relationships both in her life and in her novels. Furthermore, rings reflected the characters of wearers in her novels and jewels were often much more than symbols of vanity and excess. In Mansfield Park the giving of a jewel and its implications are explored in detail. It was precisely because Jane Austen understood so minutely the social and emotional nuances, including pain and pleasure, which could be associated with a piece of jewellery, and because jewellery has such potency as an intimate possession, that this elegant and appropriately simple ring aroused such interest when its auction was announced last year. Furthermore, the ring under consideration was little known to the present generation of Austen scholars and entirely unknown to the great majority of her readers.

Applicant’s submission

9. The applicant had stated in a written submission that in their opinion none of the Waverley criteria applied. While there was no question that Jane Austen was a cultural figure of enormous significance, they did not believe that the ring was as important a piece of cultural history as Austen’s significance was as a writer. The applicant suggested that, while the ring was ‘an attractive but simply designed piece’ of jewellery it clearly did not meet the threshold required to be of outstanding aesthetic importance. Finally, in their view, there was little scope for further research on this piece that would be of significance to the study and appreciation of either the works or the life of Jane Austen. In particular, nothing was known about how Jane had come to own the ring or whether it held any special significance for her.

Discussion by the Committee

10. The expert adviser and applicant retired and the Committee discussed the case. There was a discussion about the history of the ring within the family of Jane Austen. It was noted that the design of the ring appeared broadly comparable with other rings of the 1760s. There was particular interest in the significance of the use of a turquoise stone in a gold setting. Turquoise was believed to have protective qualities since at least the middle ages and had long been a symbol of love. It was observed that while not one of the more obviously expensive gem stones, such as a ruby or an emerald, the cabochon turquoise was a large example (later on, in the 19th century, it was more usual to find small beads of turquoise set in silver or pinchbeck as well as gold). It was understood that the simple and elegant ring would have been appropriate and befitting of Jane Austen’s status as a member of the Hampshire gentry.

11. The Committee noted the extreme scarcity of objects associated with Jane Austen. The two pieces of jewellery on display at Jane Austen’s House Museum together with the novelist’s writing slope held by the British Library were the most notable. It was agreed that this elegant and evocative object would be of interest to a wide range of people and that it contained the potential for further research.

Waverley Criteria

12. The Committee voted on whether the ring met the Waverley criteria. All eleven members voted that it met the first Waverley criterion. No members voted that it met the second Waverley criterion. One member voted that it met the third Waverley criterion. The ring was therefore found to meet the first Waverley criterion.

Matching offer

13. The Committee recommended the sum of £152,450 (net of VAT) as a fair matching price.

Deferral period

14. The Committee agreed to recommend to the Secretary of State that the decision on the export licence should be deferred for an initial period of two months. If, within that period, Arts Council England received notification of a serious intention to raise funds with a view to making an offer to purchase the ring, the Committee recommended that there should be a further deferral period of three months.

Communication of findings

15. The expert adviser and the applicant returned. The Chairman notified them of the Committee’s decision on its recommendations to the Secretary of State. The applicant confirmed that the owner would accept a matching offer at the price recommended by the Committee if the decision on the licence was deferred by the Secretary of State.

16. The expert adviser agreed to act as Champion for the item if the decision on the licence was deferred by the Secretary of State.