Nineteenth Century Day Jewellery

'A lady is never so well dressed as when you cannot remember what she wears.'

The moral subject of jewellery appropriate to wear during the day came up over and over again in nineteenth century books and publications aimed at teaching young women style and etiquette. Young women in Europe and America were expected to want to get married and then manage their husband's households, staying out of the public sphere. Young men were expected to want 'modest' (whatever that means) and quiet wives, someone who would be happy to stay home and raise their children. Most if not all etiquette and household management books used moral arguments against wearing large or 'showy' jewellery during the day, and many were aimed at the growing 'middle' class, people who were the first generation in their family to have a disposable income, and who were nervous of disposing of it incorrectly.

The new possibility for people to start with very little and make their fortunes, regardless of family or connections, was a massive social change from previous centuries. The aristocratic/wealthy classes of the eighteenth century had assumed that family, connections, property, and power all came together, and always would. The famous 'gilded age' and Louis 14th jewellery show off wealth and splendour on an enormous scale.

With 'new money' gaining access to property and therefore power, 'good society' (old money) retreated behind a wall of 'good taste', so that admiring or displaying wealth for wealth's sake became frowned on. Jewellery worn in the 1800s was supposed to be either inherited from past generations, or gifted from close family. It was also supposed to be an expression of the young woman's 'artistic' nature and good morals, - pieces were meant to be prized for their design and workmanship over the size or cost of the materials. Having said that, the materials were always to be of the best quality, never imitation gemstones or plated metal. Imitation jewellery was always said to be in bad taste, as it appeared to be falsely advertising wealth and status. The fact that a woman might wear gold plated pieces because they were very well designed, or because she didn't want to spend so much money on jewellery, doesn't seem to have been considered.

  

Two images of women wearing day jewellery, on the left, Judge Mary Margaret Bartelme wearing a cameo brooch, and on the right, 'The Children's Holiday: portrait of Mrs Thomas Fairbain and her children', by William Holman Hunt 1864-5, showing Mrs Fairbairn wearing a coral brooch and earring set. 



The golden rule was that 'Glittering stones' were never to be worn during the day. Cameos, burnished (not polished) gold, enamelled gold, and coral, were Sarah Frost's only acceptable day jewels. Other materials generally considered suitable for day wear were agate, carnelian, onyx, jet, jasper, ivory, and some other opaque hardstones. Anything designed to catch and return the light was forbidden by 'good taste'.





Three examples of bangles that would have been considered broadly appropriate for day wear, all from the V&A collections. On the left, a carved Jet bangle, which would also have been appropriate for mourning dress. (More on that in the future).
In the middle, a stunning gold Tiffany & Co piece, from 1878, in the 'Archeological style', featuring two lion head terminals. The very broad term 'Archeological style' covers various design traditions that were copied, re-interpreted and updated in the mid to late 1800s. Discoveries in the Mediterranean, the Middle East, and north Africa, of ancient civilisations and their artwork were widely reported in Europe and North America, and the artifacts were shipped internationally to private collections and public museums. Their motifs and manufacturing techniques were quickly adopted by fashionable people wanting to display not just their artistic nature but also their classical education.
On the right, a gold bangle set with turquoises and seed pearls, these opaque materials being perfect for day wear.

There may have also been a practical reason behind this. Daylight is much harsher on clear (glittering) gemstones than candlelight or gaslight are, and many gems that looked stunning in the evening may not have looked as spectacular the next morning. It is also true that non-reflective materials and details of intricate carving could not be seen as well in the evening, so during the day was the best time to show these off.
The other general rule was that more, and larger, jewellery was acceptable as the day wore on, and when the woman wearing it was not in public. Bangles were highly fashionable for day jewellery, possibly because they could be quite large and intricate without appearing ostentatious.

Jewellery considered suitable for day wear doesn't actually change much over the century, but the repetition of the same advice from many authors and across continents raises the possibility that this was an area of dress in which women pushed the boundaries. Florence Hartley claims to have seen 'ladies pretending to be well-bred, descend[ing] to receive a morning visitor of their own sex, glittering like a jeweller's case, with costly gems.' I haven't found much direct evidence of this, as portraits from the time tend to be very formal, and the jewellery worn very minimal.


Fashion plates, however, do show women wearing jewellery in ways that would have been considered bad taste. The terms 'bad taste', 'vulgar', 'low pride' and 'ostentation' were often used, re-enforcing the moral aspect of personal adornment, and constantly reminding women that everyone who saw them would judge them based on what they wore.

The advice started at breakfast, where 'only such [jewellery] as is absolutely necessary to fasten the collar, cuffs, or belt' could be worn.  'Bracelets, necklaces, and other articles worn for ornament alone, are entirely out of place, and so are expensive gems, or elaborate design.' The above illustration from Ackermann's Repository 1828 shows a woman in fashionable morning dress, wearing a coral necklace and earrings. 

The judgements started as soon as women left the house. Women doing the household shopping were sternly warned -  'Never wear jewelry. It is vulgar in the extreme.' 

'Morning visits' were a popular social activity, women's opportunity to get out of the house and see friends. Women who walked to their friend's houses were told to dress appropriately for the street, in quiet, subdued colours, thick washable fabrics, and as little visible jewellery as possible. Women who travelled by carriage could dress more richly, with stronger colours, slightly more delicate fabrics, and could also wear more jewellery. 


For any type of sport or exercise, jewellery was said to be inappropriate, very sensibly because of the still relevant risk of damaging or losing it. While horse riding, skating, picnicking, or playing croquette, only jewellery necessary for fastening the clothes were to be worn. This didn't stop jewellers from making sports related pieces, and presumably didn't actually stop women from wearing them. 
Tartan ice-skating outfits and 'pebble jewellery' went well together, and any horse related sport supplied many motifs and designs for brooches, chains, and fob/chatelaine pieces.


These three sporting/hunting related pieces are in Fellows & Sons auction on November 12th 2015. The fox stickpin and the stag brooch are both examples of reverse carved crystal, and the horse shoe vinaigrette in the centre is a good example of jewellery that was worn for its usefulness, providing a reason other than vulgar display. 


The excuse of usefulness in day jewellery led to at least one very specific type of 'non-jewellery jewellery', the chatelaine, which I will go in to detail about in the future.