Jewels Created for Princess Diana Going up for Auction in New York
3 min
A diamond and South Sea pearl necklace and pair of matching earrings created for the late Princess Diana—and worn by her just once, at a 1997 English National Ballet performance—will go up for auction in June and could fetch as much as US$15 million.
The auction will take place not long after the coronation of Diana’s ex-husband, Charles, who will become king in a ceremony on Saturday at Westminster Abbey in London.
New York-based auctioneers Guernsey’s will oversee the sale at Manhattan’s Pierre Hotel on June 27, according to a news release. The jewels were speculated to have been commissioned by Dodi Fayed, Diana’s paramour, before the couple perished in an August 1997 car crash, a Guernsey spokesperson said.
Along with its clusters of pearls and 178 diamonds, the necklace is significant because of Diana’s mystique—and the scarcity of her possessions on the market, according to Arlan Ettinger, president and founder of Guernsey’s.
“This is the only major jewellery of Diana’s that will ever be sold,” Ettinger says. “The family is not about to start parting with treasured items from their late mother.”
The prized jewels are being sold by Mark Ginzburg, a Ukrainian real-estate developer who bought them in 2009 at Guernsey’s and now is being forced to sell because of the war against Russia
Guernsey’s declined to disclose how much Ginzburg for the set.
One report, however, said Ginzburg paid US$632,000, which Penta couldn’t independently confirm.
“The family’s success in Ukraine enabled them to buy the jewels, but their business has been largely devastated by the war,” Ettinger says. “This is a motivated sale.”
The Crown Jeweller, which has created baubles for the Royal Family for centuries and at the time was the venerable British jeweler Garrard, designed the necklace for Diana after meeting with her in early 1997, according to Guernsey’s. Two years after Diana’s death, her family authorised the Crown Jeweller to sell the necklace.
Diana “didn’t have much in the way of jewelry while she was princess,” Ettinger says. “Most of what she wore was jewellery owned by the crown, given for an occasion, but not permanently.” Once Diana divorced then-Prince Charles, “she emerged as her own woman, and the fact that the Crown Jeweller created this for her is a big deal.”
Once the necklace was completed, Diana wore it to a June 3, 1997, premiere of Swan Lake by the English National Ballet. She returned the necklace to the jeweller after the ballet so he could complete a set of matching earrings, although Diana never had a chance to wear them, Guernsey said.
“It has been said that the Princess of Wales—who was also England’s Patron of Dance—was photographed more often on that occasion than at any other time of her life, with the exception of her wedding day,” according to Guernsey’s.
Next month’s sale will mark the third time the necklace has changed hands. Ettinger handled the first sale in 1999; the buyer was Houston furniture magnate James McIngvale. Ten years later, McIngvale put the necklace up for auction with Ettinger and Guernsey’s, which is when Ginzburg bought it.
The diamonds and pearls on their own “are intrinsically worth at least US$1 million to US$1.5 million,” Ettinger says. “But what they’re worth on the market is hard to predict.”
He estimated the necklace may sell for anywhere from US$5 million to US$15 million, though there was no official range provided by the auction house.
“This is connected to someone who was one of the most admired and accomplished women in the world,” Ettinger says.
Copyright 2020, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. LEARN MORE
Chris Dixon, a partner who led the charge, says he has a ‘very long-term horizon’
Americans now think they need at least $1.25 million for retirement, a 20% increase from a year ago, according to a survey by Northwestern Mutual
Competitive pressure and creativity have made Chinese-designed and -built electric cars formidable competitors
4 min
China rocked the auto world twice this year. First, its electric vehicles stunned Western rivals at the Shanghai auto show with their quality, features and price. Then came reports that in the first quarter of 2023 it dethroned Japan as the world’s largest auto exporter.
How is China in contention to lead the world’s most lucrative and prestigious consumer goods market, one long dominated by American, European, Japanese and South Korean nameplates? The answer is a unique combination of industrial policy, protectionism and homegrown competitive dynamism. Western policy makers and business leaders are better prepared for the first two than the third.
Start with industrial policy—the use of government resources to help favoured sectors. China has practiced industrial policy for decades. While it’s finding increased favour even in the U.S., the concept remains controversial. Governments have a poor record of identifying winning technologies and often end up subsidising inferior and wasteful capacity, including in China.
But in the case of EVs, Chinese industrial policy had a couple of things going for it. First, governments around the world saw climate change as an enduring threat that would require decade-long interventions to transition away from fossil fuels. China bet correctly that in transportation, the transition would favour electric vehicles.
In 2009, China started handing out generous subsidies to buyers of EVs. Public procurement of taxis and buses was targeted to electric vehicles, rechargers were subsidised, and provincial governments stumped up capital for lithium mining and refining for EV batteries. In 2020 NIO, at the time an aspiring challenger to Tesla, avoided bankruptcy thanks to a government-led bailout.
While industrial policy guaranteed a demand for EVs, protectionism ensured those EVs would be made in China, by Chinese companies. To qualify for subsidies, cars had to be domestically made, although foreign brands did qualify. They also had to have batteries made by Chinese companies, giving Chinese national champions like Contemporary Amperex Technology and BYD an advantage over then-market leaders from Japan and South Korea.
To sell in China, foreign automakers had to abide by conditions intended to upgrade the local industry’s skills. State-owned Guangzhou Automobile Group developed the manufacturing know-how necessary to become a player in EVs thanks to joint ventures with Toyota and Honda, said Gregor Sebastian, an analyst at Germany’s Mercator Institute for China Studies.
Despite all that government support, sales of EVs remained weak until 2019, when China let Tesla open a wholly owned factory in Shanghai. “It took this catalyst…to boost interest and increase the level of competitiveness of the local Chinese makers,” said Tu Le, managing director of Sino Auto Insights, a research service specialising in the Chinese auto industry.
Back in 2011 Pony Ma, the founder of Tencent, explained what set Chinese capitalism apart from its American counterpart. “In America, when you bring an idea to market you usually have several months before competition pops up, allowing you to capture significant market share,” he said, according to Fast Company, a technology magazine. “In China, you can have hundreds of competitors within the first hours of going live. Ideas are not important in China—execution is.”
Thanks to that competition and focus on execution, the EV industry went from a niche industrial-policy project to a sprawling ecosystem of predominantly private companies. Much of this happened below the Western radar while China was cut off from the world because of Covid-19 restrictions.
When Western auto executives flew in for April’s Shanghai auto show, “they saw a sea of green plates, a sea of Chinese brands,” said Le, referring to the green license plates assigned to clean-energy vehicles in China. “They hear the sounds of the door closing, sit inside and look at the quality of the materials, the fabric or the plastic on the console, that’s the other holy s— moment—they’ve caught up to us.”
Manufacturers of gasoline cars are product-oriented, whereas EV manufacturers, like tech companies, are user-oriented, Le said. Chinese EVs feature at least two, often three, display screens, one suitable for watching movies from the back seat, multiple lidars (laser-based sensors) for driver assistance, and even a microphone for karaoke (quickly copied by Tesla). Meanwhile, Chinese suppliers such as CATL have gone from laggard to leader.
Chinese dominance of EVs isn’t preordained. The low barriers to entry exploited by Chinese brands also open the door to future non-Chinese competitors. Nor does China’s success in EVs necessarily translate to other sectors where industrial policy matters less and creativity, privacy and deeply woven technological capability—such as software, cloud computing and semiconductors—matter more.
Still, the threat to Western auto market share posed by Chinese EVs is one for which Western policy makers have no obvious answer. “You can shut off your own market and to a certain extent that will shield production for your domestic needs,” said Sebastian. “The question really is, what are you going to do for the global south, countries that are still very happily trading with China?”
Western companies themselves are likely to respond by deepening their presence in China—not to sell cars, but for proximity to the most sophisticated customers and suppliers. Jörg Wuttke, the past president of the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China, calls China a “fitness centre.” Even as conditions there become steadily more difficult, Western multinationals “have to be there. It keeps you fit.”
Chris Dixon, a partner who led the charge, says he has a ‘very long-term horizon’
Americans now think they need at least $1.25 million for retirement, a 20% increase from a year ago, according to a survey by Northwestern Mutual
