Around 3 years ago I bought an amazing fur clip that was dated to 1930 I think and signed Hattie Carnegie, with the simple early HC in a lozenge. To my amazement I found the same face. without the dangles, in Fifty Years of Collectible Jewelry by Lillian Baker. What puzzled me was that the author had attributed the head to Eisenberg Original. There was no logo shown however, so I didn't know if it was an error in the book production or not. Then to my total astonishment I came across the identical fur clip - well virtually identical but for a few 'spot the difference' differences. This time the fur clip - also with its dangles, was attributed to Eisenberg Originals as it had been in the book. So natch, I bought it. I believe them both to be genuine - after all - Eisenberg and Carnegie were both Austrian. It seems likely that Hattie used Eisenberg to manufacture her jewelry. But what do the experts think? Here are the pics to show the differences. In all cases the Eisenberg is on the left of the picture when the two are shown side by side. At first glance they look identical but (and I am sure they were cast from the same mould) - Eisenberg's dangles have pendants whereas Carnegie's have globes. Eisenberg's dangles fit to circles that are flush to the head - Carnegie's look slightly more proud, although still integral to the head but possibly soldered. The Eisenberg head seems narrower but of course could have been squeezed by its craftsman on removal from the mold. In addition to the logos (placed in the same spot) each piece carries a single signature. On Eisenberg it is an B (or even an 8) and is placed above the left eye of the face. Carnegie's is an N and is placed below and to the left of the HC logo. The frown lines on both faces are identical and each carries the same number of rhinestones, placed in the same spot. The Eisenberg is a true gold tone both exterior and interior but the Carnegie (which looks more worn and might well have been) is a less pronounced gold on the front and looks silver inside. The Eisenberg has one less dangle than the Carnegie which has eleven. The Eisenberg may always have had ten of course but could be missing one, which if it is, would be the centre one because on Carnegie's there are three from this fixing. Apart from that I can see no differences, the clips' prong is identical and fxed in the same way. Might one or other have been a sample prototype for the one that went on to be produced? The book describes the head attributed to the Eisenberg as 1930 Eisenberg Original Guilded silver with faux gemstones. It came from the Mildred Combs collection. I adore this piece (well now pieces) and would love to know more about them. <img src=http://www.members.aol.com/handsondec/goodfront.jpg> <img src=http://www.members.aol.com/handsondec/front.jpg> <img src=http://www.members.aol.com/handsondec/goodback.jpg> <img src=http://www.members.aol.com/handsondec/sbslogos.jpg> <img src=http://www.members.aol.com/handsondec/sbs.jpg> <img src=http://www.members.aol.com/handsondec/hclogo.jpg> <img src=http://www.members.aol.com/handsondec/eologo.jpg> <img src=http://www.members.aol.com/handsondec/book.jpg>
I have no idea, but am tossing my 2 cents in to bump this in. they have a greel tragedy or the gods look to them. Perhaps Bacchus?
I think somebody was copying some one else, and the difference in dangles is just a design change. Either way that goes, it's a fascinating pair to have in your collection. Hollis
i'm not especially jewelry knowledgeable, but these look so much like the things i see offered in doyle's costume jewelry auctions. i'll bet if you wanted to sell them, they'd do well in the high-end market. cheers tamara
Thanks Tamara, I am definitely going to hang on to them and hope they appreciate in value, whilst at the same time I depreciate - so that when I am a pensioner I can sell them - and yes they may well end up at Doyles.
