Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest, note of case hearing on 12 December 2018: The Goodwood Cup by Edward Barnard & Sons (Case 20, 2018-19)

Application

1. The Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest (RCEWA) met on 12 December 2018 to consider an application to export the Goodwood Cup by Edward Barnard & Sons. The value shown on the export licence application was £161,500 which represented price at which the present owner had bought the item through a private sale. The expert adviser had objected to the export of the cup under the second and third Waverley criteria on the grounds that its departure from the UK would be a misfortune because (ii) it was of outstanding aesthetic importance and (iii) it was of outstanding significance for the study of a particular branch of art, learning or history.

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

3. The applicant confirmed that the value did not include VAT and that VAT of £32,300 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 cup to be displayed for fundraising.

Expert’s submission

4. The expert adviser had provided a written submission stating that the 1869 Goodwood Racing Trophy was an outstanding monumental example from the best period of manufacture of sporting trophies - from 1830s to 1870s noted as ‘a national art and a national manufacture.’ A period in which ‘some of the grandest, largest and technically unmatchable sporting trophies are derived.’ Barnard was one of the most prolific manufacturers - and this trophy was one of their most technically proficient. It was professionally designed by a celebrated Victorian sculptor Joseph Edgar Boehm who had considerable skill as an animalier, evidenced by his own passion for horsemanship and his rising fame as a portraitist in society. In 1869 he was also commissioned to make a huge marble statue of Queen Victoria for Windsor Castle.

5. From the late 18th century, sporting trophies were usually designed as cups with covers in the Neo-classical style, often in the form of famous antique models such as the Warwick, Buckingham and Portland Vases. Such silver prizes were regularly ordered from silversmiths by local retailers or race stewards for the winners of horse races. Race prizes were in great demand from all over the country from Buxton to Newcastle, York to Nottingham and Cheltenham to Brighton and from overseas as far away as Melbourne, Australia and Madras and Calcutta, India. The ubiquity of the cup form, especially for horse racing was lampooned by contemporary wits.

6. This was thought to be the only documented example of a silver trophy on which the subject of the relief had been copied from a celebrated contemporary painting. As there was a large demand for reproduction prints of Frith’s Derby Day, it was probable that the race stewards requested this design source. This trophy was thus a very special commission linking an innovative artist and royal sculptor to contemporary manufacture resulting in a technically and artistically splendid piece of silver. The importance of its original varied surface finish, contrasting oxidation against polished silver was a significant new development. The design also demonstrated contemporary humour; notably in the ingenious use of the inverted jockey cap as the lip, possibly suggested by the Goodwood Race Stewards.

7. When questioned about whether this type of aesthetic was well represented in UK collections, the expert replied that racing trophies as a genre were well-represented, but that this was a unique example both in scale and the level of sophistication of the figural composition. The cup had been designed by the prominent European sculptor Boehm, which also added significance due to the royal patronage of Queen Victoria and his personal relationship with Princess Louise.

Applicant’s submission

8. The applicant had stated in a written submission that they did not consider that the cup met any of the three Waverley criteria as it was not strictly an original artwork. The scene created was a replica of Derby Day by William Powell Frith. Furthermore, the applicant did not believe that a trophy cup made to commemorate winning a horse race and sold by the owning family was sufficiently connected with our national life that its departure should be rejected.

Discussion by the Committee

9. The expert adviser and applicant retired and the Committee discussed the case. They observed the monumental nature of the racing trophy which epitomised the eclectic Victorian aesthetic, encompassing a wide variety of stylistic motifs from Rococo to Neo-classical. The sculptor, Joseph Edgar Boehm, was held in high regard by Queen Victoria as tutor to Princess Louise. It was of interest that this cup had been taken to Windsor for the Sovereign to inspect; the Queen having previously purchased William Powell Frith’s painting Life at the Seaside, Ramsgate Sands.

10. The Committee remarked on Boehm’s high level of technical skill in the translating of Frith’s painting into a three-dimensional relief. However, its reproduction in silver would have been a largely mechanical process, with little input from Boehm. The condition of the cup had been compromised by the removal of the original oxidation of the figures and pearl-white (presumably frosted) background by subsequent over-cleaning. This had partially reduced the legibility and made it challenging to envisage its original sculptural quality.

11. The Committee agreed that UK collections were rich with examples of elaborate sporting trophies, in different and varied forms. They concluded that, while the cup was an interesting example of a Victorian sporting trophy, by a significant sculptor of the period, they were not convinced it was of outstanding significance, and did not meet the Waverley criteria.

Waverley Criteria

12. The Committee voted on whether the cup met the Waverley criteria. Of the nine members, one voted that it met the second Waverley criterion. Two members voted that it met the third Waverley criterion. The cup was therefore not found to meet any of the Waverley criteria.

Communication of findings

13. The expert adviser and the applicant returned. The Chairman notified them of the Committee’s decision on its recommendation to the Secretary of State.