NEW YORK NY – Sothebys sale of Magnificent Jewel

first_imgNEW YORK, NY – Sotheby’s sale of Magnificent Jewels brought a total of $30,582,751, exceeding the pre-sale estimate of $20/26 million* and achieving the second highest total for a various owners sale of Jewelry at Sotheby’s New York since 1995, according to a press release received by Elite Traveler.The sale was 88.4% sold by lot and 91.9% sold by value, with white diamonds dominating the top ten prices of the sale and nearly 79% of sold lots selling for prices above their high estimates. The top price of the day was achieved by The Perfect Gift, a Magnificent and Rare Oval Diamond, weighing 30.48 carats, D color, with flawless clarity and type IIa ‘‘Golconda-like’’ classification, which sold for $4,114,500 ($134,990 per carat), above the high estimate (lot 231, est. $3.3/3.8 million).Lisa Hubbard, Chairman, North and South America, of Sotheby’s International Jewelry Department, commented, “Special pieces achieved special prices today. After a worldwide highlights tour in which we met many new collectors, we were pleased to see so much competition in the saleroom. Almost 79% of the lots sold brought prices over their high estimates to achieve a New York sale total second only to that achieved at the height of the market in 2007. It has been my privilege this fall to work with the magnificent jewels from Lúcia Moreira Salles, a collection of great style and beauty and a collection which drew many new buyers into our saleroom. As the top ten lots show, Asians are active at the high end of the market but Americans were out in full force buying at all levels of the market.”Among the high points of the day was the offering of magnificent jewels from the collection of former Brazilian model and philanthropist Lúcia Moreira Salles, which brought an outstanding $5,884,688, surpassing a pre-sale estimate of $2.6/3.6 million and with every single lot finding a buyer. Salles’ career began in Paris at the end of the 1950s, and in the 1960s-70s she became a muse for both Valentino and Coco Chanel, at one point working as Chanel’s exclusive house model. Among the top jewels of the collection were three exquisite gem stones mounted by revered Paris designer JAR – a Diamond ‘‘String’’ Ring set with an oval diamond weighing 16.04 carats, F color, SI1 clarity, and type IIa, within a platinum and diamond mounting achieved $722,400 ($45,044 per carat) (lot 278, est. $350/450,000); an Emerald and Diamond Ring, set with a cabochon Colombian emerald weighing approximately 27 carats mounted in platinum and purportedly formerly in the private collection of King Farouk of Egypt totaled $524,500 (lot 277, est. $400/600,000); and a Ruby and Diamond Ring set with a sugarloaf cabochon Burmese ruby weighing approximately 16.30 carats mounted in platinum brought $410,500 (lot 276, est. $150/200,000).Among the highlights from the group of spectacular natural pearls were the elegant Single Strand Natural Pearl and Diamond Necklace, which sold for $602,500 (lot 274, est. $250/350,000); a Pair of Natural Pearl and Diamond Pendant Earrings which brought $230,500 (lot 273, est. $75/100,000); and a stunning Natural Pearl and Diamond Ring that more than quadrupled the high estimate of $50,000 to sell for $218,500 (lot 270, est. $30/50,000). Six bidders competed for a Double-Strand Diamond Necklace weighing approximately 90 carats from the late 19th Century driving the final price to $458,500 (lot 266, est. $200/300,000).Gary Schuler, Director of New York Jewelry, said, “Today’s results are a continuation of the demand we have seen for spectacular white stones so far this season in New York, Hong Kong and Geneva. The demand was global, with multiple international bidders vying for every stone. While trade bidding was very strong, private collectors from around the world won the majority of diamonds, both at the top end of the market as well as those wearable stones 10 carats and under.”Top quality white diamonds were highly sought after as multiple stones elicited bids from as many as nine different potential buyers. The sale’s top price was commanded by The Perfect Gift, a Magnificent and Rare Oval Diamond, weighing 30.48 carats, D color, with flawless clarity and type IIa ‘‘Golconda-like’’ classification, which climbed to $4,114,500 ($134,990 per carat), above the high estimate of $3.8 million (lot 231, est. $3.3/3.8 million). The last lot of the first session, a Pear-Shaped Diamond, the Property of a Lady, the stone weighing 25.47 carats, H color, VS2 clarity, mounted in platinum also surpassed the high estimate of $700,000 to sell for $1,142,500 ($44,857 per carat) (lot 137, est. $600/700,000). An 18.11 carat Important Round Diamond, H color, Flawless, with excellent cut, polish and symmetry brought $1,058,500 ($58,448 per carat) (lot 226, est. $750,000/1 million), while a Square Emerald-Cut Diamond weighing 9.69 carats, type IIa and in the sought-after Asscher cut, was pursued by at least nine bidders and sold for $890,500 ($91,899 per carat) (lot 215, est. $350/450,000). A Pear-Shaped Diamond from a Distinguished Private Collection, weighing 13.85 carats, D color, VS2 clarity, was the subject of intense competition, finally selling for $1,070,500 ($77,292 per carat), double the high estimate (lot 224, est. $400/500,000).Two seminal Cartier works of art formerly in the collection of Mrs. Cole Porter and Russian Princess Natalie Paley were also among the highlights of today’s sale. An Egyptian-Style Jeweled Scarab Belt Buckle created by Cartier in Paris in 1926 sold for $302,500 (lot 229, est. $250/350,000) and a Cartier Egyptian-Style Lapis Lazuli, Turquoise, Diamond, Black Onyx and Enamel Bracelet made in Paris and dating to 1929 totaled $242,500 (lot 230, est. $75/100,000).A superb array of colored precious stones offered included two exceptional Cartier bracelets from a Distinguished Private Collection: A Cabochon Emerald and Diamond Bracelet, Cartier, New York, 1923 featuring Colombian cabochon emeralds weighing approximately 70 carats and old European-cut diamonds weighing approximately 9.50 carats, mounted in 18 karat gold and platinum, which totaled $458,500 (lot 223, est. $250/350,000); and a Ruby and Diamond Bracelet, Cartier, circa 1925, reminiscent of jewels from the collections of the Duchess of Windsor and Helene Beaumont, set with cushion-shaped and oval Burmese rubies weighing approximately 62 carats and diamonds weighing almost 10 carats, which sold for $590,500 (lot 225, est. $200/300,000).An iconic American jewel with an exemplary stone, the Rare and Important Fancy Intense Yellow Diamond and Emerald Ring, Tiffany & Co., designed by Louis Comfort Tiffany circa 1915-1920 more than doubled its presale high estimate to achieve $818,500 after a lengthy battle between multiple bidders (lot 222, est. $200/300,000).last_img read more

10 million lawsuit over disputed energy study sparks Twitter war

first_imgA solar panel array Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) Email Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country By Christa Marshall, E&E NewsNov. 3, 2017 , 1:45 PM At issue is the $10 million lawsuit filed by Stanford’s Mark Jacobson against NAS and an executive at an energy research firm last month, claiming the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences had published a study critical of Jacobson’s earlier work on renewable energy without considering multiple warnings that the follow-up paper contained false statements (E&E News PM, Nov. 1).Jacobson’s original 2015 paper outlined how the U.S. could be 100 percent fueled by hydropower, solar and wind.His work was challenged by a 2017 paper listing 21 authors, including Vibrant Clean Energy LLC CEO Christopher Clack, whom Jacobson is also suing. That paper claimed Jacobson’s study had a large modeling error on hydropower output. Jacobson wants that paper retracted (Climatewire, June 20).One of the loudest critics of Jacobson’s lawsuit is NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies Director Gavin Schmidt, who on Twitter called suing NAS “exceedingly ill-advised.” A journal not correcting an error damages Clack’s reputation, not Jacobson’s, he wrote.”No one I’ve talked to thinks this is a good idea or even justified,” Schmidt said in an email.The concern is that the case sets a precedent for scientists to rush into court to address criticisms of their work, rather than going through established processes to publish follow-up commentary and research.Townsend argued the Clack paper was strongly worded but was not out of the bounds of scientific exchange.”Critiques can hit you hard. They can make you damn mad. Especially if you are convinced they are wrong. … But the response should be: prove them wrong, in the process of science. Or maybe step back and truly consider if they have merit,” Townsend wrote. Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe [The lawsuit] does not seek to litigate science, but rather to respect and protect the process and rules that govern it and protect all of its stakeholders.center_img Wikimedia Commons/Photo courtesy of U.S. Air Force photo/Airman 1st Class Nadine Y. Barclay $10 million lawsuit over disputed energy study sparks Twitter war Read more… In an email, Jacobson declined to comment on criticism of his lawsuit. But his attorneys released a statement last night fleshing out their argument about why a lawsuit was the only option after PNAS did not follow its own procedures and ignored Jacobson’s requests to correct errors in the Clack study prior to publication.The statement from law firm Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman PC says PNAS should have published the Clack study as a “letter” — which is for differences of opinion — rather than as a report, which is reserved for “research of exceptional importance.” PNAS failed, Jacobson said, to follow its own code of ethics that requires complaints of false statements to be investigated by a PNAS editor.The lawsuit “does not seek to litigate science, but rather to respect and protect the process and rules that govern it and protect all of its stakeholders,” the statement said.But Schmidt said on Twitter that he and others have written full papers that were effectively comments. The literature is “littered with such examples and with everything in between,” he wrote.Also, PNAS guidance for comments is limited to about 500 words, so substantive disagreements have to be framed as original research, he said.Clack did not respond to a request for comment on the lawyer’s statement, but one of the co-authors on the rebuttal paper said he stands by the contention that Jacobson made modeling errors.”This is not about differences of opinions. This is about internal inconsistency, which is a matter of fact,” said Ken Caldeira, a senior scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science.NAS spokeswoman Jennifer Walsh said the organization does not comment on pending litigation.Lawsuits from scientists are not unheard of. Perhaps most famously, Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann sued the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute in 2012 after they accused him of academic fraud and compared him to a convicted child molester.But analysts say the Jacobson case is unusual for one scientist suing another, and the focus on errors in a paper.Mann’s lawsuit was very different, Schmidt said, because it wasn’t “attempting to litigate a science result but rather whether it’s ok or not to call people ‘frauds.'”Reprinted from Greenwire with permission from E&E News. Copyright 2017. E&E provides essential news for energy and environment professionals at Originally published by E&E NewsA Stanford University professor’s lawsuit against the National Academy of Sciences has sparked angry responses from scientists who say it sets a dangerous precedent that shoves disagreements over research into the courts.”Getting to the bottom of the science should be done through the process of science. Not through attacks or lawsuits,” Alan Townsend, director of the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research at University of Colorado, Boulder, wrote on Twitter yesterday, part of a chain of critical tweets. Law firm of Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman last_img read more