Deposition of Geza Von Habsburg in The Case of John Jaffa Antique Enamel Company

DEPOSITION of John Jaffa Antique Enamel Company
CAUSE NO. 2007-30278

IN THE DISCTRICT COURT OF
ANTIQUE ENAMEL COMPANY, LTD.
Plaintiff
vs.
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
BONAPARTE ANTIQUES, INC.,
BRUCE BANES AND DALE ENGLEFIELD
269TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Defendants.
EXCERPTS FROM THE

ORAL DEPOSITION OF
JOHN JAFFA
[PLAINTIFF]
AUGUST 7, 2008
VOLUME 1
Page
Line
7
7
1
17
Q.
A.
Have you ever been a plaintiff or a party to a lawsuit before?

None of the lawsuits I've ever been involved in have come to court, so would I be a plaintiff
if we settled things before?
10
21
Q.
10
25
A.
Would you give me a general chronology of your work experience, Mr. Jaffa, starting with
the current work and working backward?
Can you explain what you mean by chronology?
11
15
15
7
9
Q.
A.
[...] what do you understand is the definition of an antique?

An antique -- well, an antique is something that is over 100 years old.
25
18
Q.
25
22
A.
25
24
Q.
You've mentioned damaged a couple of times. Can you give us a view of what you mean by
damaged?
Yeah. It had -- actually, can I see the piece? I can show you exactly. It had a thin line
running all the way down it.
Uh-huh.
25
25
A.
I've been in -- I've been in -- since 2008, for the last 32 years, I've been an antique dealer.
http://www.crazytrial.com/index.html[08-08-2014 19:23:18]
And it also had a little bit of discoloration on one side, which looked like somebody had
attempted to repair it. And when something has been repaired badly, after a period of time - it's a trade terminology -- the restoration goes off, and that means it goes yellow. And this
is what has happened to this piece.
Enlargement of Exhibit D-8.

The left photo shows the original enamel and what Mr. Jaffa describes as the damage
and yellowing. The right photos shows the damage, partially highlighted with a red
line.
26
27
24
4
Q.
A.
27
27
27
27
27
9
11
20
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
When you had this item repaired in England, did you -- can you describe the process?
They -- first of all, they disassembled the pieces. They put the white in a solution of
hydrofluoric acid, which is a substance -- is the only substance that eats enamel, and when it
was all clean, they refired it.
So they completely replaced the enamel on the unit?
Correct.
And did they give you any opinion as to the effect on that unit if they did that?
It would increase the value.
In your opinion, it would?
27
25
A.
In my opinion, it would increase the value.
34
25
Q.
35
A.
At the time you took this piece to the Palm Beach Show, you had just previously gotten the
enamel replaced?
Yes, sir.
36
Q.
36
12
A.
50
20
Q.
50
24
A.
55
19
Q.
55
23
A.
If he [Geza von Habsburg] hadn't vetted it off, you would have offered it for sale, would you
not?
Yes, sir.
I think I asked you earlier -- and you stated you did not advise Von Habsburg at the Palm
Beach show that the enamel had been replaced?
Correct.
Okay. And so you have indicated in your pleadings that this unit, this piece was vetted or
rejected, if you will, so the jury can understand, because of the hallmarks.. Is that correct?
Because of the fake hallmark.
Enlargement of Exhibit Jaffa #5.

Shows hallmarks (out of focus) and new enamel (in focus).
55
24
Q.
And not because of the replacement of the enamel?
56
A.
Well -- no, not because of the replacement of the enamel.
56
Q.
In fact, Von Habsburg wasn't even aware of the replacement of the enamel, was he?
56
A.
Correct.
56
10
Q.
Well, can you sell that piece now?
56
12
A.
No.
56
13
Q.
For nothing?
56
18
A.
It's unsalable, because it has a fake hallmark on it, in my area of business. I mean, you may
get $50 for it, but I certainly couldn't recover any of my money for it.
57
15
Q.
57
17
A.
So can you tell me why you took a $12,000 purchase and were willing to spend 32, $3,300
to repair it?
Why?
57
18
Q.
Yes, sir.
57
19
A.
57
22
Q.
57
25
A.
Because a Faberge cane handle in that form of construction in good condition, I could get
between 30 and $40,000 for.
Did you consult anybody about the effect of this, what you're calling repair, before you did
it on the value of the piece?
You already asked me. I told you it made -- it enhanced the value of the piece.
58
Q.
My question is, did you consult anyone else about this, any other experts?
58
A.
About the value?
58
Q.
About the effect of that repair --
58
A.
No.
58
Q.
-- on the value?
58
A.
No.
58
Q.
You did not?
58
10
A.
No.
58
11
Q.
Have you had any experience repairing enamel pieces before?
58
13
A.
I may have repaired 10,000 pieces over the last 30 years.
58
15
Q.
And that repair, was that done on antiques?
58
17
A.
Yes, sir.
59
11
A.
Am I a specialist in Russian antiques?
59
12
Q.
Yes, sir.
59
13
A.
No.
62
21
Q.
So you've studied hallmarks. Is that correct?
62
22
A.
No, sir. If I would have studied hallmarks, I would have known it was a fake.
63
21
Q.
63
24
A.
Okay. I think at some point in time either you or your counsel, or both, have indicated you
would not be able to sell this piece?
I don't sell fakes.
63
25
Q.
So you wouldn't even attempt to sell --
64
A.
I don't sell fakes.
64
Q.
The answer is --
64
A.
The answer is --
64
Q.
-- no?
64
A.
-- I don't sell fakes.
64
Q.
64
A.
So without further explanation -- I'm asking you to tell me yes or no -- you do or have or
are willing to sell this piece on the open market now?
Now?
64
10
Q.
Yes, sir.
64
11
A.
No, sir.
64
12
Q.
Thank you. You would not even offer it for sale?
64
14
A.
Now?
64
15
Q.
Yes, sir.
64
16
A.
No, sir.
Exhibit D-8.
A screen shot of the web site of Antique Enamel Company, date-stamped 10/15/2008.
Note: the photo shows the original enamel along with the damage and yellowing. (Compare to Page 25, Line 25,
above.)
65
Q.
65
Q.
[...] I would like to get you to look at a couple of pictures, here, and ask if you can identify
those pictures as the condition of the piece that we're talking about, and whether they are
before or after the repair to the enamel.
Well, I can't see any damage on -- on this -- on these -- on the photographs. It's difficult to
say because it depends on the shot.
You'd have to have your -- be able to --
65
A.
65
10
A.
Maybe it's on the other side --
65
11
Q.
I see.
65
12
A.
-- of the photograph..
65
13
Q.
Okay. So --
65
14
A.
I can't -- I can't ascertain if it's the whole or just -- just half of it.
65
15
Q.
I see.
65
17
A.
Because the line and the damage was on the same side.
65
19
Q.
I got you.
65
20
A.
And this looks in good shape to me.
Enlargements of various exhibits showing 360 degrees of the original enamel. Quality of photography varies, but
it's all the same enamel.
66
Q.
66
A.
I want to hand you Exhibit 5 to your deposition, and ask if you can identify that, those
pictures as the enameling that's currently on the machine -- on the piece or if that was the
original enamel.
Same answer.
66
Q.
So you can't tell?
66
10
A.
I can't tell because it's not -- it's not a whole picture. It's only half a picture.
66
12
Q.
Okay. That's fine.
33
13
A.
It's the same. You need to see what's on the other side.
65
15
Q.
So it's not identifiable is what you're saying?
65
17
A.
As far as I can't identify it.
67
19
Q.
Do the hallmarks on this piece make it a fake?
67
21
A.
Yes.
67
22
Q.
They do?
67
23
A.
Yes. The mark -- the hallmarks are fake.
70
21
Q.
Are you able to tell if that is, in fact, an antique, or something that is a current manufacture?
71
A.
When I bought it, I thought it was a correct piece. Now, the -- it's told -- now we've
ascertained that it's a forgery, I've been -- obviously been thinking when it could have been
made.
Uh-huh.
71
Q.
71
A.
71
20
Q.
And I'm surmising, I'm not a hundred percent correct because I wasn't there at the time,
obviously, if it would have been made a hundred years ago, it wouldn't have a fake mark on
it. So it must have been made after. It was made to deceive.
Could it have been made in, say, 1910?
71
21
A.
No.
71
22
Q.
Why?
71
23
A.
Because it would have had a correct hallmark on it. Nobody would have made it in 1910
and put a fake mark on it because they weren't making fakes, and it would have been made
by Faberge. It wasn't necessary.
MATERIAL EXTRANEOUS TO THE DEPOSITION
From A. Kenneth Snowman, Carl Faberg Goldsmith to the Imperial Court of Russia.
Greenwich House, 1983, page 148: "John Hayward has given fascinating details in the
course of an article 'Salomon Weininger, Master Faker' in The Connoiseur of November
1974 in which he records [how Weininger] replaced authentic pieces from the Treasury
(which he had sold to waelthy collectors) by his own skilfully made forgeries. [Weininger]
ended his days in the Austrian State prison at Stein on the Danube in 1879 [...]."
72
17
Q.
73
Q.
You have represented that you're an antiques expert, but I think you stopped short of saying
you're an expert in Faberge. Is that right?
I'm not an expert in Faberge. I'm really good at the prices. I know what things are worth,
but within -- I'm not good enough -- I'm not good enough to know that the mark was wrong
because the face should have been looking to the left instead of to the right in a two-year
period.
I'll say it in a simpler way. You do not claim to be an expert in Russian antiques either?
72
20
A.
73
A.
I do not claim to be an expert in Russian hallmarks.
73
11
Q.
Does the same thing hold true for antiques, Russian antiques?
73
13
A.
73
17
Q.
Um, anything with a Russian hallmark on it, I'm -- and couldn't tell you without a series of
books and et cetera, et cetera, in front of me and research whether it was correct or not.
Okay. But there are a lot of antiques other than antiques that had to be hallmarked?
73
19
A.
Well, I don't deal in them.
DEPOSITION of Geza von Habsburg in the case of John Jaffa Antique Enamel Company vs.
CAUSE NO. 2007-30278


Plaintiff
vs.
Defendants.
EXCERPTS FROM THE

VIDEOTAPE EXAMINATION BEFORE TRIAL OF
DR. GEZA VON HABSBURG, Ph.D
[PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT WITNESS]
JULY 7, 2009
10:15 a.m.
held at the home of Dr. Geza von Habsburg,
12 Governors Road, Bronxville, New York
Page
Line
25
Q.
21
A.
Now, I think in order to begin this discussion and to establish your credentials, could you
please provide us with a description of your background, training, and education with regard
to evaluating and giving opinions on the authenticity of Faberge jewelry.
I have a Ph.D. in history of art from [name withheld] in Switzerland, 1965. I was head of
[name withheld], the auction house, from 1967 to 1984, with particular specialty in Faberge
and Russian art, and I was also head of [name withheld] from 1980 to 1984, overseeing all
the overseas offices of [name withheld].
During my stay at [name withheld] in 196-- '79 [sic], I wrote my first book on Faberge
together with a colleague, [name withheld].
Through my hands -- I organized annually two auctions of Faberge and Russian art,
beginning around 1970, right through to 1984. These auctions comprised hundreds and
thousands of objects by Russian masters and by Faberge, so I think I can safely say I have
handled more Faberge pieces than anyone else that I know.
8
8
20
22
Q.
A.
Have you published other books on Faberge?

I have. At later dates -- I have in all published 12 books on Faberge, and have organized
five major exhibitions worldwide, in the United States, in Russia, in Paris, in London, which
I have put together from objects owned by people I know and museums I know and which
have attracted over the years over two million visitors.
http://www.crazytrial.com/depositionofgeza.html[08-08-2014 19:22:56]
19
19
20
22
Q.
A.
Now, Dr. von Habsburg, when was the first time that you saw this piece?
I saw the piece at the Palm Beach Fair on January 30th, 2007.
28
22
Q.
29
A.
All right. Please state your opinions on the quality of the piece as that bears on whether it
might or might not or is or isn't a Faberge.
It has to be pointed out that thousands, if not tens of thousands, of objects today are made as
forgeries and all of these have hallmarks which are copied from original hallmarks, and in
some cases are so much alike the originals you cannot tell, so we begin, we specialists begin
by looking at the object and at the quality of the execution before we even look at the
hallmark. In this case, both the hardstone and the enameling is perfectly legitimate and in
keeping with what Faberge's workshops might have produced, but the chasing of the palm
leaf borders, both above and below the white guilloche enamel surface, are much too
perfunctory, they are not properly chiseled or tooled or chased, as we say. They are not -every piece made by the Faberge workshops was hand-finished to a very high degree, which
differs strongly from what other workshops alongside Faberge were producing for sale at
the same time.
30
17
Q.
30
21
A.
31
Q.
31
A.
33
33
14
16
Q.
A.
34
11
Q.
34
15
A.
Now, based upon all of the factors you have discussed, is it your opinion that the parasol
handle is a forgery?
I would have to qualify. It is a Faberge forgery, that is correct, but it may very well have
been a Russian contemporary piece produced by one of the lesser known firms which
worked at the same time emulating, imitating the things of Faberge.
But in terms of whether it was a Faberge piece, it is your opinion that the piece is a forgery
in that respect?
The hallmarks of Faberge are forgeries, yes.
Now, if you examine the piece -- please look at the enamel.

I have done so, and with great care, and I must say that I see no obvious repair to the piece.
There is no obvious -- first of all, there is no visible damage, nor is there any visible repair,
except perhaps along the very lowest part of the enamel where there may have been
chipping originally and which seemed to have been filled out by what is probably a cold
enamel, which is one of the ways of repairing damaged pieces of Russian enamel.
In your opinion, is the repairing, if done by qualified craftsmen of enamel, damaging to the
value of a piece?
Any -- it depends on the extent of the enamel. If it is in any way visible to the naked eye, it
would affect the price of the object, because most Faberge collectors would not wish to
acquire a piece that has been repaired.
Now, it's up to the dealer to disclose or not disclose a repair if it is invisibly done. Even
experts may not with cursory examination spot any repair, but repairing objects of this
nature is a perfectly legitimate way of making them more pleasing to the eye.
38
38
4
6
Q.
A.
Do you buy and sell Faberge items yourself?

No, I don't.
40
12
Q.
Where are the forgeries being produced, to the best of your knowledge?
40
14
A.
A number of them in St. Petersburg, Russia, and maybe even more of them within the
Russian community of New York based on or around 47th Street.
41
Q.
41
A.
If you -- based on the number of forged items you've seen, what do you think is the most
likely time period these [sic] might have been produced, if it was not a contemporary
Russian piece?
If you exclude that, then you are left only with contemporary forgeries, which would date
somewhere between 1970 and 2007. I would say that based on the fact that the forger or the
applier of the hallmarks made such a silly mistake as not to pay attention to the fact that
Henrik Wigstrom was not working before 1899 and that the hallmark of Wigstrom should
have been with the periods at the base of the initial. A contemporary forger working at
present would not have committed those mistakes. So I would date this piece to somewhere
between -- somewhere around 1918.
45
Q.
[...] you had mentioned that "At best the handle is a contemporary Russian object." And you
45
A.
50
Q.
50
A.
mean by that that this is of the period, approximately 1903?

What I said, "at best" means that in my opinion it is not a piece by Faberge but it might
theoretically have been produced by one of his numerous imitators working in St.
Petersburg at the time.
About the enamel, Dr. von Habsburg, is it possible to get an opinion of the age of an article
from the enamel itself?
Not to my knowledge.
50
Q.
50
13
A.
50
25
Q.
51
A.
51
23
Q.
52
A.
How about the quality of the enamel? Can you make a determination as to the authenticity
of a Russian article of the period by your examination of the enamel?
Faberge's enameling surpasses that of all his contemporaries, those who worked alongside
him, and usually Faberge's enamels are so perfect that there are absolutely no impurities, no
pock marks, because his -- one of his dictums is that every single piece that left his
workshops would have had to have been examined by him personally as to imperfections,
and if imperfect, such an object would not have been sold by his firm.
I note in your book, Court Jeweler to the Czars [sic], you have made some references to
Faberge saying, in effect, that no enamel today can compete with Faberge. Is that still your
opinion?
No longer so, sir. [...] I would still say that what you have just mentioned, that the quality of
a Faberge guilloche enamel is superior to that of any -- of virtually any contemporary today
[sic] enameler active today.
Okay. Dr. von Habsburg, had you had any experience or discover [sic] objects by [...]
Henrik Wigstrom that may have had seams?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "seams."
52
Q.
Well, an obvious end of one layer and beginning of another.
52
A.
With Faberge what one would expect, that there would be no seams visible [...].
52
21
Q.
52
25
A.
53
Q.
53
A.
54
13
Q.
Okay. The age of enamel, is there an aging process that one would observe in the enamel of
a piece from that Wigstrom period?
No. No. The colors remain unchanged.
But if there is some aging along one of the perimeters of the enameling, would that indicate
age or would a discoloration indicate age?
What you call discoloration, we might call oxidation, and, yes, objects tend to oxidize over
the years. Less so, much less so with gold than with silver [...]. With gold it would be much
less so. There would be a little discoloration or oxidation. [...] with Faberge one would not
expect any discoloration even at the seams or at the borders of enamel mounts.
What if we're hypothetically talking about another workmaster of that contemporary time? Is
54
19
A.
55
Q.
55
A.
55
11
Q.
55
15
A.
55
18
Q.
55
23
A.
55
23
Q.
56
A.
56
15
Q.
it likely in your opinion that there could be some aging discoloration of the enamel along
the edge next to the chasing?
Yes. Among the lessor [sic] competitors of Faberge, yes.
With enamel discoloration quickly occurring or is this something that only occurs over a
long period of time?
I would say that it would be over a period of time.
When you examined the piece we're talking about at the show in 2006, were you aware that
the enamel on that piece had recently been replaced?
No.
Did Mr. Jaffa tell you that the enamel had recently been replaced when he presented the
piece to you Dr. von Habsburg for vetting?
No.
You have indicated in your -- in one of your books about the difficulty to determine
forgeries if the enamel is done well, that it may be impossible to actually confirm that the
enamel was recently replaced. Is that still your opinion?
I thought we had touched upon this subject. Is it still the same question as to whether a
Faberge guilloche enamel is superior to that of a contemporary forgery? Contemporary
meaning a present day forger? Is that your question?
Basically. Let me go back in. In your book of "Faberge Court Jewelers to the Czars" [sic]
you have indicated that there are three categories of fakes that conclusively exist, and you
say in item A, "objects established [sic] through re-enameling" and so forth, "it's virtually
impossible to identify this type of falsification." Is that still your opinion?

From G.von Habsburg-Lothringen, et al, Faberg Court Jeweler to the Tsars. Rizzoli
International Publications, Inc., 1979, page 150:
"Three categories of fakes can be said conclusively to exist:

a) Objects embellished, through re-enamelling, re-gilding, re-decoration with precious
stones or remarking with lacking punches. (These objects are genuine, but their value has
been enhanced by later additions. It is virtually impossible to identify this type of
falsification.)
b) Genuine objects made by Russian contemporaries of Faberg who imitated him (e.g.
Hahn, Kchli, Sumin, Britzin) and that have been turned into Fabergs by subsequent
marking [...]. Only the practiced eye of an expert can recognize these imitations.
Difference in style and quality makes it possible to identify the genuine article [...].
56
25
A.
58
Q.
58
13
A.
58
25
Q.
59
15
A.
59
16
Q.
c) Complete forgeries [...]."

Yes. I might specify that, again repeating what I said before, that Faberge's craftsmanship
surpasses that of any present-day craftsmen. That would be my answer today.
I won't say it's virtually impossible any longer. I think we can -- that was written in 1979. I
think today I would tend to say that upon close examination a forgery would be come
evident to a specialist as far as the quality of the enameling is concerned.
Okay. Now, taking a piece and embellishing it, is that effectively what we would say has
occurred in this specific case, where you re-enamel a piece?
Actually, when I used the word "embellished." I referred to something else in that particular
book, namely addition of extraneous elements in order to add value to the piece, namely
forgers, for instance, have added diamonds or have added an imperial cypher or added an
imperial miniature. That is what I meant as embellished. Embellished, I did not -- in this
particular case "embellish" does not refer to repairing a piece.
Referring back to that quote that I was reading shortly from about the -- let me try again.
Referring back to the quote that we were talking about a moment ago, "Faberge Court
Jeweler to the Czars" [sic].
You have said the three categories of fakes and you said conclusively to exist in item A,
"objects embellished through re-enameling, regilding, redecoration with pressure [sic]
stones."
Yes, indeed, yes.
Now. Dr. von Habsburg, we also talked about, and I have seen references in your books to
falsely marked genuine articles. Is it your opinion that this piece that we're talking about
could have been marked subsequently with the Henrik Wigstrom hallmark in order to try to
59
25
A.
make it more valuable?

What I would say to begin with, an object like this, you would expect to be hallmarked.
Therefore, it is not a question of adding forged hallmarks to a genuine object, because
objects of this nature by Faberge are always hallmarked by at least the workmaster who
produced the object, so to add a forged hallmark to an object which would normally have
already had a Faberge hallmark would not fall into that category.

From G.von Habsburg-Lothringen, et al, Faberg Court Jeweler to the Tsars. Rizzoli
International Publications, Inc., 1979, page 46: "Articles that did not come up to [Carl
Faberg's] standard of quality were either destroyed or sold without his signature.
From Gza von Habsburg-Lothringen, et al, Faberg in America. Thames and Hudson /
Fine Art Museum of San Francisco, 1996, page 95: "Since Faberg's flowers and animals
usually are not signed and the source of the now missing pieces is undetermined, one
wonders if perhaps Minshall bought them from an unreliable dealer, discovered they were
not genuine, and eliminated them from her collection (learning in the process that not all
Faberg pieces are signed and that all objects signed Faberg are not necessarily
authentic)."
Greenwich House, 1983, page 81: "The flowers are possibly the most sought-after of all
Faberg's works and without doubt among the rarest. They are very occasionally stamped on
the stalk with the initials of Henrick Wigstrm and sometimes even the house name, but the
majority of them bear no marks whatsoever."
From Henry Charles Bainbridge, Peter Carl Faberg Goldsmith and Jeweller to the
Russian Court. Spring Books, 1949, page 139: "Still more, and this is much more disturbing
because it concerns objects made with malice aforethought. I have seen a number of flower
subjects not only attributed to Faberg, but stamped on the gold stem most clearly with his
forged mark, plus the hallmarks of the Russian State, which certainly had never been
made by the Russian Craftman [i.e. Faberg]."
Russian Court. Spring Books, 1949, page 140: "Sometimes only the mark of the workmaster
appears; sometimes only that of the firm."
62
Q.
62
A.
Russian Court. Spring Books, 1949, page 75: "Sometimes it is the name of the firm only;
sometimes the firm's name and State hallmark of fineness; sometimes the initials of the
workmaster and the State hallmark of fineness; sometimes the name of the firm and the
initials of the workmaster, and so on -- there is no regularity. [...] The plain truth is that
marking and hallmarking did not interest Faberg one bit.
If the enamel on an authentic Russian piece is replaced for whatever reason, what is the
effect of [sic] the value of that item?
Depends on what you mean by replaced. If there is slight damage to the point that it is
virtually invisible, the loss in value, the depreciation would be maybe 20 percent. If the
entire surface has been re-enameled, the loss in value might be as much as 60, 70 percent.
62
16
Q.
Okay. Now based on the hypothetical that was occasioned here, where the enamel was fully
replaced, would your opinion be the same on the value?
We are assuming that the object was stripped of its original enamel and re-enameled
completely.
Yes.
62
21
A.
62
24
Q.
62
25
A.
63
Q.
63
11
A.
63
21
Q.
64
A.
If it was visible to the naked eye that such re-enameling, complete re-enameling had taken
place, it would affect the value of the piece substantially.
In your experience, Dr. von Habsburg, when that sort of treatment has occurred, is it
customary for a vendor to advise this prospective purchaser that the enamel has been
replaced?
In the case of complete re-enameling, one would expect a vendor to indicate that in fact it's
one of the points of the -- I mean one of the commands to the vetting committee that any
object that was re-enameled and has been re-enameled can only remain on the stand if it has
been indicated -- if the damage has been -- if the repair has been indicated.
In that situation, if a prospective purchaser in effect purchases the article, makes that sort of
repair or substantially alters the piece, what is your opinion about the obligation that the
original vendor would have to accept the return of the article?
Again, it -- we are assuming that the entire enamel has been replaced.
64
Q.
Yes, sir.
64
A.
Could you kindly repeat that question again?
64
11
Q.
64
17
A.
Yes, sir. What is your opinion, or do you have an opinion on the obligation of the original
vendor to accept the return of an altered piece after it's been altered by the original or the
secondary purchaser?
I must say that is a legal question and I wouldn't know how to answer that.
64
21
Q.
65
A.
65
16
Q.
66
A.
66
Q.
66
12
A.
In your experience, you have indicated that an appropriate or an upstanding vendor would
accept a return of an article if something unusual is discovered about the validity of the
article, and based on that, do you have an opinion as to whether or not this article should
have been returned or the return have been accepted after the enamel was fully replaced?
My comment as to the taking back of something referred primarily to the question of where
the object is a forgery by apposition of later hallmarks. It did not cover the question of
repair to the enamel and as to what affect [sic] that might have on the legal situation.
What -- in that same hypothetical, about embellishment, if an article has been embellished,
do you have an opinion as to whether the original vendor should, as far as custom and
practice in your industry, accept the return or allow the return of the article after it has been
embellished?
I do not recall having been confronted with any such situation previously, so I don't really
have an opinion as to that.
Okay. Dr. von Habsburg, would you in one of your auctions accept a return of a reenameled piece of this nature?
I have to think back as to my auction days.
The answer is no, because in an auction catalog, it is very clearly specified under what
conditions something is taken back, and it has to -- as far as I recall, the wording goes that
the object has to have been proven to be a forgery and only forgeries are taken back.

From the auction catalog of Parke-Bernet Galleries (New York), sale number 2675, 29
March 1968, Conditions of Sale, page [no page number]: "if within twenty-one (21) days of
the sale of any lot, the purchaser gives notice in writing to the Galleries that the lot so sold
is a forgery and, if within fourteen (14) days after such notice the purchaser returns the lot
to the Galleries in the same condition as when sold [...] the Galleries [...] will rescind the
sale and refund the purchase price [...]."
From the auction catalog of Parke-Bernet Galleries (New York), sale number 2858, 10
May 1969, Conditions of Sale, page [no page number]: "if within twenty-one (21) days of
the sale of any lot, the purchaser gives notice in writing to the Galleries that the lot so sold
is a counterfeit and, if within fourteen (14) days after such notice the purchaser returns the
lot to the Galleries in the same condition as when sold [...]."
From the auction catalog of Sotheby Parke Bernet Los Angeles, sale number 187, 7 March
1976, Conditions of Sale, page [no page number]: "if within twenty-one (21) days of the
sale of any lot, the purchaser gives notice in writing to the Galleries that the lot so sold is a
counterfeit and, if within fourteen (14) days after such notice the purchaser returns the lot to
the Galleries in the same condition as when sold [...]."
From the auction catalog of Habsburg, Feldman S.A. (Geneva), sale number 51 -- Antique
Jewellery, Miniatures, Objects of Vertu, Faberg, Russian and Islamic Works of Art, 29
June 1988, Conditions of Sale, 4. Guarantee, page 2: "The buyer must return the object in
question to Habsburg, Feldman S.A. immediately in the same state in which it was
purchased and allow that an impartial expertise may be made."
From the auction catalog of Habsburg, Feldman S.A. (Geneva), sale number 52 -Faberg, Signed Objects of Vertu, Silver, Russian and Islamic Works of Art, 16 November
1988, Conditions of Sale, 4. Guarantee, page 2: "The buyer must return the object in
question to Habsburg, Feldman S.A. immediately in the same state in which it was
purchased and allow that an impartial expertise may be made."
From the auction catalog of Sotheby's (New York), sale number 5797 -- Faberg Russian
Works of Art, Objects of Vertu and Silver, 15 December 1988, Terms of Guarantee, page
[no page number]: "if within five (5) years from the date of sale of any lot, the original
purchaser of record tenders to us a purchased lot in the same condition as when sold
through us, and it is established that the identification of authorship [...] is not substantially
correct [...] the sale of such lot will be rescinded and the original purchase price refunded."
From the auction catalog of Christie's (New York), sale number 8640 -- The Kazan
Collection of Works of Art by Carl Faberg, 15 April 1997, Limited Warranty, page 9:
"This warranty is conditioned upon the buyer returning the lot to Christie's, 502 Park
Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10022, in the same condition as at the time of sale."
From the auction catalog of Christie's (New York), sale number 9588 -- Faberg, Russian
Works of Art and Objects of Vertu from The di Portanova Collection, 25 October 2000,
Limited Warranty, page 106: "This warranty is conditioned upon the buyer returning the lot
to Christie's, 20 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, New York 10020, in the same condition as
at the time of sale."
From the auction catalog of Christie's (New York), sale number 1157 -- Important Works
of Art by Carl Faberg from the Forbes Collection, 19 April 2002, Limited Warranty, page
83: "(vi) The buyer must return the lot to the Christie's sale room at which it was purchased
in the same condition as at the time of sale."
From the auction catalog of Sotheby's (London), sale number LO4111 -- The Russian Sale,
1 December 2004, Sotheby's Authenticity Guarantee, page 300: "To be able to claim under
this Guarantee, the buyer must [...] (ii) return the item to Sotheby's in the same condition
as at the date of sale [...]."
From the auction catalog of Christie's (London), sale number 7288 -- Important European
Furniture, Sculpture and Carpets including The Beit Collection of Early European Bronzes,
7 December 2006, Conditions of Sale, 5. Limited Warranty, page 436: "(vi) The buyer must
return the lot to the Christie's sale room at which it was purchased in the same condition as
at the time of the sale."
68
20
Q.
69
A.
Looking at the chasing on the item, you have mentioned that the cross [sic] anchors
apparently appear under the chasing and the Henry Wigstrom, "HW," appears above the
chasing. Is that an indication of something that you would notice regarding authenticity?
I don't recall ever having mentioned that either of the hallmarks were under the chasing..
What is customary in both with the assay mark and with the workmaster's mark is that they
are actually applied to the object once the object is finished and therefore they will be on
top of the chasing and not under the chasing and that is so for both the St. Petersburg
hallmark and the Henry [sic] Wigstrom mark.

Russian Court. Spring Books, 1949, page 139: ""Now to my mind the more indistinct the
marks, provided they are clear enough to be recognised, the greater their value. Their
indistinctness is almost certain proof of their authenticity and for this reason. They are
almost invariably stamped on objects of gold and silver when they are in the rough, and
before they are in a finished state, enamelled, chased, etc., a good deal of work has to be
done, and in the course of this finishing the marks are subjected to wear and may quite
easily in some cases be nearly polished out altogether."
Greenwich House, 1983, page 147: "When an object is stamped with a false mark, this can
often be detected by careful examination of the metal, which rolls up perceptibly round its
margin; the original marks are always quite flush with the metal -- they were, in most cases,
stamped before the object was assembled and finished.
I want to mention that one of Bainbridge's positions was that hallmarks were -- should not
be used to establish authenticity. Do you agree with that statement.
Yes.
70
11
Q.
70
17
A.
71
23
Q.
72
A.
72
15
Q.
[plaintiff's attorney] Just a few follow-up questions, Dr. von Habsburg.
A.
Examining the enamel on this piece, would you say that Antique Enamel Company had an
excellent job of enamel repair done on this piece?
The answer is yes. I must say that I was not apprised of the fact that the object had been reenameled and it was not obvious to me that the piece had been re-enameled. Therefore, in
my opinion the enameling was good.
72
21
[...] Is it possible that this article that we are talking about, this piece, this cane handle or
parasol handle was a Britzin?
That it originally was and carried the hallmarks of Britzin which have been altered since,
the answer is, yes, it theoretically could have been made by Britzin.
73
Q.
73
10
A.
73
11
Q.
73
20
A.
[plaintiff's attorney] All right. Now, you mentioned earlier that because of the run-up in
prices, run-up in demand primarily because of the amount of Russians who were purchasing
Faberge beginning around 2004, that prices went up astronomically. Is that correct?
That is correct.
[plaintiff's attorney] Did you not also testify that because of that fact that if a piece is
authentic Faberge but is -- has some damage to the enamel, an excellent repair job would
not be a negative factor on the retail -- resale value?
I don't think I said that.
73
21
Q.
74
A.
[plaintiff's attorney] All right. Well, is it your opinion that if this piece were, first of all, if it
were an actual authentic Faberge, that its value was affected by a repair of the enamel in
which you have just testified is an excellent job?
It would depend on whether the vendor disclosed the repair or whether the buyer became
aware of the repair.
74
Q.
[plaintiff's attorney] All right.
74
A.
74
13
Q.
74
21
A.
75
Q.
75
25
A.
If neither was the case, then the object would have retained its -- would theoretically have
retained its value because the buyer was not apprised of the fact that it was -- had been reenameled.
[plaintiff's attorney] Well, taking this piece, and based upon your knowledge of the market
as it existed in 2006, is it your opinion that the piece could have been sold at retail for
$30,000 or -- or some lessor [sic] amount?
Again, I think I have to go back to what I said before. In perfect -- invisibly [sic] what
seemed to have been perfect condition, the object would have had -- would have retained its
full value if it had been accepted as genuine and if the re-enameling had not been disclosed
or discovered.
[plaintiff's attorney] All right. If the re-enameling was disclosed, what would be your
opinion as to the value of the piece at retail in 2006, assuming, assuming it were an
authentic Faberge?
[...] -- a great collector will not touch an object that has been -- that either is repairable or
has been completely re-enameled. So the number of buyers for any piece that has had either
of those two things, restoration or complete re-enameling would go back even further than
just 50 percent. [...]
[Continues below. Please keep scrolling.]
76
23
Q.
77
A.
78
Q.
[plaintiff's attorney] And you've stated that this was an excellent job or re-enameling,
correct?
Yes. If, as I said, I was not apprised of the fact that the object had been re-enabled..
Can you see any difference between the old or the original enameling and the new
enameling on the right side?
78
A.
78
13
Q.
79
13
A.
A [sic] I have said, and I can only repeat that I cannot see the original damage and I cannot
see any repair. Certainly not on the images that I have.
Let me suggest to you that the damage may not show on both of those, but I was asking
primarily with regard or your opinion with regard to the quality of the enameling on the left
side versus the quality of the enameling on the right side of that article, which I will
represent to you on the right side is the new enameling. Can you see any difference in that?
If I may say so, unfortunately the quality of the photograph for the third shot [...] is not
really good enough because there is a reflection covering almost all the entire enameled
surface, so I cannot really say what the original damage looked like on that and I can't say
whether the quality of that image is comparable to the quality on the image -- on the other
images.
DEPOSITION of Valerie Ivory in the case of John Jaffa Antique Enamel Company vs.
CAUSE NO. 2007-30278

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

Plaintiff
vs.
Defendants.
EXCERPTS FROM THE

ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
VALERIE J. IVORY
[PLAINTIFF'S EYEWITNESS]
AUGUST 8, 2008
Page
Line
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Would you state your name for the record, please, ma'am?
Valerie Ivory.
Ms. Ivory, where is your residence?
New York City. Long Island, New York.
Okay. Do you have an address there?
602 Pacing Way, Westbury, New York.
And the ZIP is?
11590
Do you have a business address also, Ms. Ivory?
Same address. I don't have an open store.
21
Q.
5
6
6
24
1
2
A.
Q.
A.
Thank you. Will you tell me a little bit about yourself, Ms. Ivory? For example, what is the
nature of your business?
I'm an antique dealer. I do mainly antique shows.
And what sort of antiques?
I sell what they call in the business smalls, the bronzes, ivories, enamels, Vertus.
15
15
15
15
5
6
7
9
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
When was this when you first met Mr. Jaffa?

I would say probably about 30 years ago.
Have you had any further dealings since that original meeting with Mr. Jaffa?
Yes. We -- you know, I see him at antique shows. I didn't see him for the period I was out
of the business. I had no contact with him then. But when I came back into business, I
bought from the same people and sold to the same people.
16
10
Q.
So you basically don't have any recollection of 2007, any contact with Mr. Jaffa; is that
right?
http://www.crazytrial.com/depositionofvale.html[08-08-2014 19:23:59]
16
16
12
14
A.
Q.
16
16
16
18
A.
Q.
16
20
A.
No, that's not right. I just have to look at a calendar.

Well, your contact -- how would they have evolved from going to a show together or that
sort of thing?
We go to a show together. We go for dinner. We are colleagues. We have a friendship.
Uh-huh. Was that the same sort of relationship you had when you came to the HADA show
in 2006, September?
I had a friendship with John, but I had a friendship with a half of dozen other dealers there.
I sort of -- show people sort of were [sic] mostly independents. And so I've got like, a little
nucleus of friends that we sort of support each other, help each other out. I'm in a booth
alone.
My friend Muriel was doing a show, and she has a partner named Patty. And Muriel would
come and stay in my booth. I could maybe wander off. We also were staying -- Muriel,
Patty and I and another dealer, Susan [last name withheld], we were all staying at the same
hotel at Luxington Inn; and we would, like, carpool and drive in together.
So, I mean, it's a little paternity [sic] sort of thing. But we do have friends, I've got other
friends that I went out for dinner with and groups.
19
Q.
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
6
7
11
12
14
16
18
19
21
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
20
20
13
15
Q.
A.
21
21
3
4
Q.
A.
21
21
7
8
Q.
A.
23
13
Q.
23
16
A.
26
Q.
26
26
26
4
5
6
A.
Q.
A.
27
27
27
27
27
27
6
8
10
11
12
13
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Okay. How did you happen to come here today, Ms. Ivory? In what way. How did you
travel?
Oh, I flew.
And did you -- were you compensated for your travel here?
Not yet.
Okay. Is it your understanding that's going to be paid?
I think if he wins the lawsuit I'll be reimbursed.
And if he doesn't win the lawsuit, you won't be; is that correct?
I don't know.
Okay. It's fair to say that's your understanding, though; is that correct?
Yeah. If he wins the lawsuit, I will be just reimbursed for expenses. But I'm not being paid
to be here. I'm not doing it -- you know.
As far as enamels, do you have any specific interest or trade in enamels?
I've always sold enamels. I think I first met John because then I was selling 18th Century
English enamels, Battersea, Billston -Does your business extend to Faberge items?
I have sold Faberge items in the past; but I haven't told [sic] Faberge items for probably
about 25 years, 20 years.
Why?
Why? Because -- because they've gotten more expensive. They've gotten out of my price
range. And because it's increasingly difficult to know which ones are correct.
Tell me where you were standing in relation to the booth itself whenever you heard this
conversation you've talked about.
Well, I was at John's desk. I think I'd -- actually, I think I had gone over to get a drink of
vodka. That's why I went. I knew he had some vodka there.
Did you discuss this transaction or this prospective transaction for Mr. Jaffa before Mr.
Englefield came over?
No, I didn't know about it.
What happened at that meeting, then?
John asked me if he thought his customer would like it because I knew -- I met his customer
at a show that I was doing in Hillsboro several years ago. And I knew that -- that he sold
her some things in the past. He was looking for what he called gemmy (spelled
phonetically) cane handles for her. And he asked if I thought he would like -- if she would
like it. I expressed concern about the damage, if he could get it repaired expertly.
Okay. You mentioned damage. Can you tell me what damage you saw?
There was -- it was -- the enamel had a split all the way down.
Would it be fair to describe that as a seam?
Yes. Probably a seam that opened.
Did you consider that a defect?
Major defect.
Enlargements of various exhibits showing 360 degrees of the original enamel.
27
27
14
16
Q.
A.
27
19
Q.
27
22
A.
27
28
25
1
Q.
A.
28
28
10
11
Q.
A.
28
20
Q.
28
28
28
28
28
22
23
24
25
2
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
34
Q.
34
A.
34
34
9
11
Q.
A.
Was that damage, or was that basically a construction failure?

It doesn't matter what you call it. To anybody that's buying it, it's damaged. I mean, whether
-- the semantics of it doesn't really matter.
Well, my question really was about -- was this condition that you saw a function of impact
or some failure of some sort of trauma to the piece?
I don't know how that would have happened -- or how it happened. It was just -- it was a
split. It had come apart.
So it actually had started coming apart, then.
No. It was a complete split down -- it was completely split. It was -- it was damage. I mean,
from my understanding it was being sold as a damaged piece; and my concern to John was
that if he could get it fixed, because it was white enamel; and white, from my experience, is
very difficult to fix. Doesn't leave much, you know -What -And it wasn't plain. It wasn't like you can cover it with flowers or -- you know.
Did you have occasion to learn that this was allegedly a Henrick Wigstrom piece at the
time?
Yes. I looked at the marks.
So you investigated it at that time?
Yes.
Okay. You did not learn about the Henry [sic] Wigstrom stamp after that day; is that right?
No. No. There's a few marks I do know; and Wigstrom is one of the marks I know. His is
easier because it's not in ceramic [sic].
Going back to the actual transaction of the conversation that occurred between Mr. Jaffa and
Mr. Englefield, can you tell me the best recollection you have of what Mr. Englefield said?
I didn't hear every word because I was just, you know, eavesdropping. So I just sort of
wanted to get the gist of what was going on.
Well, you heard what Mr. Jaffa said about the piece afterward, did you not?
I heard what he said to me.
34
34
12
14
Q.
A.
34
19
Q.
34
34
34
22
23
25
A.
Q.
A.
35
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
5
6
9
10
12
13
14
16
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Okay. Have you seen the piece since -I saw it in [name withheld]'s office.
When was that?
Yesterday.
Oh, okay. And so you saw it after it had been completely repaired?
Uh-huh.
And the enamel was completely replaced? Do you understand that?
I didn't understand that, no.
34
21
Q.
34
24
A.
What's your understanding about the effect on an article of -- an antique, if you will, when it
has been modified like that?
If it's professionally restored, then it makes it sellable.
36
Q.
36
36
36
36
36
13
15
16
17
18
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
37
37
37
4
6
8
Q.
A.
Q.
37
10
A.
37
14
Q.
37
16
A.
37
21
Q.
37
23
38
38
2
9
Q.
A.
38
38
18
19
Q.
A.
41
21
Q.
41
41
42
23
25
8
Q.
A.
43
20
43
23
A.
Did you hear what he said to Mr. Englefield exactly?

I think he said -- I think he took the piece and was thinking about it. You know, it was the
general impression. I mean, I know he hadn't made the deal to buy it. I know he was -- he
had it in his possession, and he was considering it.
Do you consider your overhearing that conversation eavesdropping? Is that what you
referenced to?
Yes.
So, you didn't hear exactly what the words were, but you just heard -I heard part of the words. I mean, I heard -- yeah. I heard -- you hear key words. You hear
certain things, you know. I heard things I was interested in like ivory figure. I would have
been -- you know.
I'm unclear about the damage you've talked about because I interpret what you're saying as
there was a split, which indicates a fracture in the enamel. Is this what you saw?
Yeah. I saw a split down -- yeah.
So this would be something that would be obvious to just the passerby, if you will?
Yes.
Okay.
You wouldn't need a loupe to see it. You know, you could just -Have you ever had experience with returning articles?
I've returned some, yes. I've had very few returned to me.
Is there any specific procedure or condition that you have to follow in order to return an
article?
No. What I've done is, if I bought a piece that's not right, then I try to take it back to the
person and ask for a refund or a credit or whatever.
Is there any requirement that the article be in the same condition that it was in when it was
purchased for you to return an article?
Well, I wouldn't expect to have dropped it on the floor on the way, no. But sometimes I
might have -- be a piece of silver, I might have polished it and found out, you know, there
was something wrong with it and returned it.
But as far as general condition of the article, it would have to be in the same condition,
would it not?
[plaintiff's attorney]: Objection, form. And the question is not specific as to whether there
were terms of a contract or whether you're referring to some convention in the trade.
(By [defendant's attorney]) You can answer.
For me to take it back? I take back just because if somebody is not happy, I would just take
it back, because it's just not worth the hassle for one. Small transaction, take it back.
I generally -- you know, right now I'm selling some things on [name withheld], a few
things. Okay? Some things are expensive. Some things are not. But to make myself stand
out, I put "bid with confidence," you know. I stand behind everything I sell.
Okay.
I say, "Bid with confidence." I guarantee that everything is, you know authentic, as I said. If
somebody, if somebody didn't like anything, then I take it back. I mean, it's just not worth it.
Do you have any understanding or opinion about the effect of modifications of an authentic
antique, what happens -[Plaintiff's attorney]: Objection. Go ahead.
-- what happens to the value of an authentic antique if it's modified?
I sell ivories. I -- sometimes I've had to have a piece recarved, you know. I think people
would rather have -- if it's well done and it's still in the original style, would rather have the
hand put back on than sell a one-handed ivory.
[Plaintiff's attorney:] A little earlier you testified that you expressed concern on that
Saturday when you first saw the parasol or cane handle about the seam or crack.
Uh-huh.
53
43
A.
64
64
65
65
23
25
1
2
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
65
Q.
65
65
65
9
10
12
A.
Q.
A.
65
65
65
18
19
20
Q.
A.
Q.
65
23
A.
66
Q.
66
13
A.
66
66
17
18
Q.
A.
70
22
Q.
70
71
71
25
2
3
A.
Q.
A.
[Plaintiff's attorney:] All right. There was no doubt in your mind that [Mr. Englefield] was
representing the piece to be a Faberge.
No. There was no doubt in my mind, because John had conversations with me; and there's
no doubt in my mind that anyone who is offering a piece at $12,000 -- which is a substantial
amount of money.
When you repair an article, do you inform the buyer that it's been repaired?
I personally?
Yes, ma'am.
Most of the -- if I know -- most of the times. To be -- if I'm honest, most of the times.
Sometimes, if I know the person, absolutely I do. If it's a very good repair and it goes
undetected, I might not always say.
In the case of this parasol handle we're talking about -- and you've seen it yesterday, as I
understand.
Uh-huh.
-- do you think it appropriate to tell the buyer of that article that the enamel was replaced?
I would never have known it was replaced. I thought that you -- the way you did it was you
fixed it. So obviously I don't know how -- I wouldn't have known it was replaced. I would
have -- I wouldn't have known it was replaced. That's -- if I had seen it -- with the naked
eye, you can't tell it's replaced.
My question was: Would you tell the buyer?
I don't know. Depends on the day. I don't know.
Assuming we're talking about an authentic hundred-year-old antique, Russian antique,
would you tell the buyer that you had replaced the enamel on that unit?
Well, let me explain this. If I had given it to a restorer to have done, I wouldn't have known
the process of how they did it. I wouldn't have known if they just did a fill in. I wouldn't
know how they did it. I just know if either it looked good or it doesn't look good. I would
not have known the process. I -- you know, the restorers don't show you how they do things.
It's their tricks of the trade. So I don't really know how the restorer that -- the only
difference I do know is between hard enamel and soft enamel.
Well, I understand; but that's not my question. My question is: If you had an article of this
nature, a Russian antique, that you're going to try to sell for $35,000, would you tell them
that the enamel had been replaced?
It depends on who I was selling it to. If it was a customer who had bought 10,000 things,
yes, I tell them. If it was a person that I haven't seen at a show who's just buying it, I might
not.
Do you -You know.
In the conversations that you heard between Mr. Englefield and Mr. Jaffa, did you hear
complete sentences or did you just hear the word "Faberge"?
I heard a few words and hear -- you know, just pick up things that you perk [sic] up.
Yeah.
Things like -- you know -- if he says, "I'm buying a ham sandwich," I wouldn't be as
interested as if he said, "I have an ivory figure," or, you know, something that's in your
realm.
Selected Exhibits from the case of John Jaffa Antique Enamel Company vs.
CAUSE NO. 2007-30278

Plaintiff
vs.
Defendants.
SELECTED EXHIBITS
from
THE DEPOSITIONS
Invoice to Antique Enamel Company for the replacement of the enamel
http://www.crazytrial.com/selectedexhibits.html[08-08-2014 19:24:11]
Invoice to Antique Enamel Company for the purchase of the parasol handle showing Mr. Jaffa's signature
Antique Enamel Company's check to Bonaparte Antiques, showing Mr. Jaffa's signature
Photograph of a display at Bonaparte Antiques during a party featuring Faberg, showing the parasol handle

Deposition of Geza Von Habsburg in The Case of John Jaffa Antique Enamel Company

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Deposition of Geza Von Habsburg in The Case of John Jaffa Antique Enamel Company

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

DEPOSITION of John Jaffa Antique Enamel Company

CAUSE NO. 2007-30278

ANTIQUE ENAMEL COMPANY, LTD.

HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

BONAPARTE ANTIQUES, INC.,

BRUCE BANES AND DALE ENGLEFIELD

269TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

EXCERPTS FROM THE

Have you ever been a plaintiff or a party to a lawsuit before?

[...] what do you understand is the definition of an antique?

DEPOSITION of John Jaffa Antique Enamel Company

Enlargement of Exhibit D-8.

In my opinion, it would increase the value.

Enlargement of Exhibit Jaffa #5.

DEPOSITION of John Jaffa Antique Enamel Company

And not because of the replacement of the enamel?

Well -- no, not because of the replacement of the enamel.

Well, can you sell that piece now?

About the value?

About the effect of that repair --

You did not?

Have you had any experience repairing enamel pieces before?

I may have repaired 10,000 pieces over the last 30 years.

DEPOSITION of John Jaffa Antique Enamel Company

And that repair, was that done on antiques?

Am I a specialist in Russian antiques?

So you've studied hallmarks. Is that correct?

So you wouldn't even attempt to sell --

I don't sell fakes.

-- I don't sell fakes.

Thank you. You would not even offer it for sale?

DEPOSITION of John Jaffa Antique Enamel Company

Maybe it's on the other side --

And this looks in good shape to me.

DEPOSITION of John Jaffa Antique Enamel Company

So you can't tell?

Okay. That's fine.

So it's not identifiable is what you're saying?

As far as I can't identify it.

Do the hallmarks on this piece make it a fake?

Yes. The mark -- the hallmarks are fake.

MATERIAL EXTRANEOUS TO THE DEPOSITION

DEPOSITION of John Jaffa Antique Enamel Company

I do not claim to be an expert in Russian hallmarks.

Well, I don't deal in them.

CAUSE NO. 2007-30278

ANTIQUE ENAMEL COMPANY, LTD.

HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

BONAPARTE ANTIQUES, INC.,

BRUCE BANES AND DALE ENGLEFIELD

269TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

EXCERPTS FROM THE

Have you published other books on Faberge?

Now, if you examine the piece -- please look at the enamel.

Do you buy and sell Faberge items yourself?

mean by that that this is of the period, approximately 1903?

Well, an obvious end of one layer and beginning of another.

MATERIAL EXTRANEOUS TO THE DEPOSITION

"Three categories of fakes can be said conclusively to exist:

c) Complete forgeries [...]."

make it more valuable?

MATERIAL EXTRANEOUS TO THE DEPOSITION

Could you kindly repeat that question again?