A 392-Carat Sapphire Could Fetch $12 Million Christie's New York Sale
'The Blue Belle,' a 392.52-carat Ceylon sapphire with an estimate of $8 - $12 million
A fancy pink diamond with French Imperial provenance, Indian Mughal jewels and a 392.52-carat Ceylon sapphire are among the highlights of Christie's New York Magnificent Jewels auction on June 17.
An historic jewel of exceptional provenance is one of the premier lots of the sale at Christie's Rockefeller Center headquarters. The 'Marie-Thérèse Pink Diamond' has a storied past that has passed through French, Bavaria and Austrian imperial and royal families and may be linked to Queen Marie Antoinette.
The rare 10.38-carat kite-shaped fancy purple-pink diamond with SI1 clarity is believed to date to the mid-18th century, Christie's said.
As the story goes, Marie Antoinette entrusted her jewels to her coiffeur on the eve of her failed escape from Paris in 1791, hoping to one day reclaim them. The jewels were then passed down to her only surviving child, Duchess Marie Thérèse de Angoulême, and later to her niece, Duchess Marie Thérèse de Chambord. Though not known for certain, it is likely that this pink diamond was part of this inheritance, Christie's said.
The 'Marie-Thérèse Pink Diamond' with an estimate of $3 million - $5 million
FEATURED | Frase ByForbes™
Unscramble The Anagram To Reveal The Phrase
Pinpoint By Linkedin
Guess The Category
Queens By Linkedin
Crown Each Region
Crossclimb By Linkedin
Unlock A Trivia Ladder
'Generations later,' Christie's said, a will identified the diamond's next known owner as Queen Marie Theresa of Bavaria, who referred to it as 'a pink solitaire diamond from Aunt Chambord.' The gem was stored in a velvet case containing a hat pin bearing the Austrian Imperial Warrant—likely dating to 1868—the diamond's provenance reflects its imperial legacy, Christie's said. The gem last appeared at auction in Geneva in 1996, offered by a member of a European royal family. Since that sale it has remained out of public view.
In addition to its likely imperial provenance, the diamond has been set into a contemporary platinum ring paved with diamonds designed and crafted by famed American-Parisian jeweler Joel Arthur Rosenthal, better known as JAR.
The estimate for the fancy pink diamond ring is $3 million - $5 million, making it the number two lot in the auction.
The top honor in the 139-lot sale goes to a necklace featuring a 392.52-carat unheated Ceylon sapphire with a modified mixed-cut called 'The Blue Belle.' It is one of the largest known sapphires in the world. (top photo)
Like the fancy pink diamond, this massive sapphire has a history shrouded in mystery.
The gem was unearthed in 1926 at Pelmadula, Ratnapura ('The City of Gems') in Ceylon, but the size and shape of the gem in its rough form is unknown, Christie's said. It had a 'highly prized peacock blue color and excellent clarity,' according to the documentation Christie's uncovered. It was owned by the well-known gem and jewelry dealers Macan Markar in Colombo.
'The Blue Belle,' a 392.52-carat Ceylon sapphire with an estimate of $8 - $12 million
Acquired in 1937 by British motor magnate Lord Nuffield. It is believed he planned to give it to Queen Elizabeth (later The Queen Mother) on King George VI's coronation. Instead, the jewel was sold privately and passed through several owners before appearing at Christie's Geneva auction in 2014 where it sold for $17.3 million.
The sapphire is the centerpiece of an elaborate 18k white gold necklace covered in round and oval shaped diamond. Its estimate is $8 million - $12 million.
In addition, the New York auction will offer three gem-set necklaces with historic Indian Mughal provenance.
A Mughal Antique Carved Emerald Necklace with an estimate of $2 million - $3 million
The first is a Mughal carved emerald necklace consisting of three carved Colombian hexagonal and two carved pear-shaped Colombian emeralds with an approximate total weight of 1,150 carats. The largest emerald of approximately 470 carats is inscribed with the name 'Ahmad Shah Durr-I Durran,' founder of the Durrani Empire of Afghanistan and northwest India. Its estimate is $2 million - $3 million.
A Mughal antique multi-gem and emerald necklace with an estimate of $2 million - $3 million
Similar to the first piece, is a Mughal multi-gem and emerald necklace featuring four Colombian emeralds weighing nearly 800 carats. The necklace is further adorned with a drop-shaped spinel bead, a baroque ruby bead and baroque natural pearls. Its estimate is $2 million - $3 million.
A Mughal three-strand spinel and natural pearl necklace with an estimate of $1 million - $2 million
The third piece is a Mughal three-strand spinel and natural pearl necklace with eight inscribed stones, in the Mughal tradition of memorializing gemstones to record their royal provenance. These spinels bear the names of some of the most powerful figures in history, including Muhammad ibn Tughluq-Shah, the Sultan of Delhi, the first Mughal emperor, Babur, and emperors Jahangir and Shah Jahan, Christie's said. The spinels have an approximate total weight of more than 2,000 carats. The estimate for the necklace is $1 million - $2 million.
In addition, the New York auction is featuring a collection of jewels from the estate of Anne Hendricks Bass, an American investor, documentary filmmaker, and art collector who was the former wife of billionaire oilman Sid Bass. The collection consists of 26 personal jewels that feature examples from Van Cleef & Arpels, Bulgari, Cartier and JAR.
Van Cleef & Arpels diamond pendant earrings with an estimate of $1.2 million - $1.8 million
The top lot in this group is a pair of Van Cleef & Arpels earrings featuring pear brilliant-cut D-color diamonds of 11.93 and 11.83 carats, marquise, pear-shaped and round diamonds, platinum and white gold. Its estimate is $1.2 million - $1.8 million.
JAR sapphire, emerald and diamond necklace with an estimate of $200,000 - $300,000
The Bass collection also includes 11 jewels by JAR, led by a necklace featuring 22 drop briolette emeralds with rows of faceted sapphire beads and round diamonds set in platinum and 18k white gold. Its estimate is $200,000 - $300,000.
In a break from recent trends, colorless diamonds will play a significant role in Christie's June 17 auction. Among the standouts are:
A 66.74-carat unmounted diamond with an estimate of $3.2 million - $4.2 million
A 66.74-carat unmounted round brilliant-cut diamond with D color, VVS1 clarity and 'excellent cut, polish and symmetry,' according to the reports. The Type IIa diamond has an estimate of $3.2 million - $4.2 million.
A platinum necklace with a 25.45-carat pear brilliant-cut flawless, D-color diamond with an estimate ... More of $1.5 million - $2 million
A platinum necklace centered with a 25.45-carat pear brilliant-cut flawless, D-color diamond with an estimate of $1.5 million - $2 million.
Harry Winston diamond pendant necklace with an estimate of $1.2 million - $1.8 million
A platinum and 18k white gold necklace by Harry Winston featuring a 17.50-carat pear brilliant-cut diamond of D color and VVS1 clarity, 5.01-carat round brilliant-cut diamond D-color and SI1 clarity. The remainder of the necklace is covered with round, pear, emerald and marquise diamonds. Its estimate is $1.2 million - $1.8 million.
A Harry Winston diamond diamond ring with an estimate of $1.2 million - $1.8 million.
A platinum Harry Winston ring centered with a 23.26-carat internally flawless emerald-cut diamond with D-color flanked by shield-shaped diamonds. Its estimate is $1.2 million - $1.8 million.
All 139 lots in the Christie's New York Magnificent Jewels auction will be on view at the auction house's Rockefeller Center headquarters from June 12 through June 16.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
14 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Direct pay to college athletes starts July 1. Some key dates tied to implementation of settlement
It took five years for the $2.8 billion antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA and five major conferences to reach a settlement. Now comes the process for implementing it. Following are significant dates: Settlement approved; settlement-related NCAA rules are effective, as adopted by the NCAA Division I Board on April 21, 2025. NIL Go portal launches. Opt-in deadline for non-defendant schools to fully commit to revenue sharing. First date for direct institutional revenue-sharing payments to student-athletes. Opt-in schools must 'designate' student-athletes permitted by the settlement to remain above roster limits. With the exception of the 'designated' student-athletes, fall sports must be at or below roster limits by their first day of competition. With the exception of 'designated' student-athletes, winter and spring sports must be at or below roster limits by their first day of competition or Dec. 1, whichever is earlier. ___ AP college sports:
Forbes
15 minutes ago
- Forbes
Musk Follows Harvard In Biting The Hand That Feeds
Elon Musk and Harvard Both Bite the Governmental Hand that Feeds Them From an early age, children are taught essential lessons: do not play with fire, do not pet strange dogs, and if one cannot swim, stay out of the deep end. Another timeless rule—often forgotten by those in positions of immense wealth and influence—is this: do not bite the hand that feeds you. This lesson, while simple, has profound implications in the real world. It applies just as readily to billionaires and institutions as it does to children on a playground. Yet recent actions by both Elon Musk and prominent academic institutions—most notably Harvard, but also Columbia, MIT, and others—suggest that even the most successful individuals and organizations are capable of ignoring foundational wisdom. Harvard set the tone. Amid growing political scrutiny and a shifting cultural landscape, the university has drawn intense criticism over its handling of campus protests, particularly those involving slogans such as 'from the river to the sea.' The administration's decision to defend even the most controversial speech—widely viewed by many as antisemitic—has triggered investigations and jeopardized billions in tax-exempt status and government research funding. This raises a critical question: is this truly the hill worth dying on? Is preserving the right to controversial protest slogans worth risking Harvard's institutional future? It is doubtful that most students and faculty would knowingly trade funding, grants, and prestige for this fight. Elon Musk, the world's richest man, has now followed suit—this time turning his attention toward President Donald Trump, with whom he has launched a high-profile and personal feud. What makes this move especially striking is that President Trump is not a distant figure or a fading influence. He is once again sitting in the White House, wielding executive authority over regulatory agencies, defense contracting, and infrastructure initiatives—all areas that directly affect Musk's companies. Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI have flourished in part because of government partnership. SpaceX alone holds multibillion-dollar contracts with NASA and the Department of Defense. Tesla has benefitted from years of energy subsidies and EV tax incentives. Picking a fight with the sitting president—regardless of personal conviction—puts this entire ecosystem at risk. And again the question must be asked: is this battle worth the damage? Whatever principle Musk may be defending, the consequences extend far beyond himself. Shareholders, employees, and retail investors—many of whom placed their trust and savings in his leadership—are the ones left exposed. The parallel between Harvard and Musk is striking: both have been immensely successful, aided in large part by government funding, favorable regulation, and public goodwill. And both have, for different reasons, chosen to confront the very institutions and leaders that have helped sustain their growth. There is precedent for how this ends. Jack Ma, once the most powerful entrepreneur in China, famously criticized the Chinese government. The backlash was immediate and absolute. His companies were dismantled. His IPO was cancelled. His wealth and influence evaporated almost overnight. Even in less authoritarian systems, the lesson holds: those who antagonize the systems that support them may not survive the consequences. While Musk's personal net worth has dropped from nearly $450 billion to approximately $300 billion, the impact is more symbolic than practical for him. But for millions of investors, employees, and stakeholders, these battles matter. Market volatility, regulatory backlash, and reputational risk all come with tangible financial costs—costs borne not just by Musk himself, but by those who have trusted and invested in his vision. The same applies to Harvard and peer institutions. Their leadership may believe they are standing on principle, but the price of alienating government agencies and key financial backers could reshape the long-term trajectory of these universities. The erosion of public trust, the loss of bipartisan support, and the potential withdrawal of federal funding pose existential threats. Leadership—whether in business or academia—requires more than conviction. It requires judgment, timing, and the discipline to separate personal ideology from institutional responsibility. Founder-led companies often outperform when leaders are focused, visionary, and measured. But when ego replaces strategy, the consequences can be swift and severe. No one is demanding absolute political alignment or silence in the face of controversy. No one is asking Elon Musk to wear a MAGA hat. But his recent actions have been so volatile, so self-destructive, that investors may soon be tempted to hand him something else entirely—a MEGA hat: Make Elon Great Again. In today's polarized environment, the margin for error has narrowed. And for those who owe much of their success to public support—whether in Silicon Valley or the Ivy League—biting the hand that feeds is not just unwise. It is unsustainable. ---------------------------------- Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Please refer to the following link for additional disclosures: Additional Disclosure Note: The author has an affiliation with ERShares and the XOVR ETF. The intent of this article is to provide objective information; however, readers should be aware that the author may have a financial interest in the subject matter discussed. As with all equity investments, investors should carefully evaluate all options with a qualified investment professional before making any investment decision. Private equity investments, such as those held in XOVR, may carry additional risks—including limited liquidity—compared to traditional publicly traded securities. It is important to consider these factors and consult a trained professional when assessing suitability and risk tolerance.
Fox News
16 minutes ago
- Fox News
Aaron Rodgers officially signs one-year contract with Steelers worth over $13 million: report
Aaron Rodgers is officially headed to Pittsburgh next season. The four-time league MVP officially signed a contract with the Pittsburgh Steelers on Saturday and will address the media on Tuesday for the first time following the team's first minicamp practice, the Steelers' senior director of communications Burt Lauten announced on X. Rodgers, 41, signed a one-year deal worth up to $19.5 million with incentives, which includes a $10 million guarantee, ESPN reported, citing sources. The news, first reported on Wednesday, ended months of speculation as to whether Rodgers would return for another NFL season or enter retirement after a failed two-year stint with the New York Jets. Rodgers addressed the rumors about his decision and his time with the Jets, during an appearance on "The Pat McAfee Show" in April. He said he had spoken to several teams, including New York Giants head coach Brian Daboll and Minnesota Vikings coach Kevin O'Connell, whom he is in regular contact with. "I'm open to anything and attached to nothing. Retirement could still be a possibility, but right now my focus is and has been and will continue to be on my personal life … there's still conversations that are being had." Ultimately, the veteran NFL quarterback decided Pittsburgh would be where he would play his 21st season. Rodgers' arrival solves the Steelers' quarterback problems – at least for now – after Russell Wilson and Justin Fields both signed with New York Teams. Now Rodgers will battle Mason Rudolph, who signed a two-year contract in March, for the starting position. Follow Fox News Digital's sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.
