.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
The present necessaire is an exceptional example of the wondrous objects known as toys created by James Cox, the most famous toy maker of the eighteenth century, for export to China. Initially presented to Chinese officials to facilitate Britain’s trade with China, these became incredibly popular and were subsequently acquired by the Emperor and his court. Generally made in pairs, the Chinese being fond of symmetry, the pair to this necessaire is in the Royal Collection Trust (RCIN 6538) scratched with number 1 (the present lot being number 2) and was given by King George V to Queen Mary for Christmas 1925.
NUMBER 2, THE PAIR TO THE ROYAL COLLECTION TRUST NECESSAIRE
This necessaire epitomise the wondrous objects known in the eighteenth century as toys, and described by the Chinese as ‘sing-songs’ who purchased them in pairs. The pair to this necessaire is in the Royal Collection Trust (RCIN 6538) scratched with number 1 (ours being number 2) and was given by George V to Queen Mary for Christmas 1925.
Technically and stylistically, this necessaire is typical of Cox’s work, incorporating standardised elements; the gold cage-work is constructed from bands produced in strips and cut to measure. The watch hidden in the double lid is surrounded by an outer circle set with ten jewelled roundels that spin individually around the watch face as the outer circle rotates. This appears to have been a favoured device, probably made by a specialist workshop, and is found on other watches and clocks by Cox, including examples known to have been sent to China where paste and real stones was a popular feature.
This style of necessaire that doubles as a vanity case with its small cosmetic jars, bottles and implements was very fashionable in the 18th century and is part of a very small group of surviving examples including a version in moss agate with simpler jewelled ornaments but similar watch and automaton, and perfume bottles and implements (Acc. No. 57.128a-o) in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York whose probable pair is in the Louvre Museum, Paris (OA 8022).
The complicated nature of these necessaires would have required the skills of different craftsmen, watchmakers, jewellers, goldsmiths, toy-men and lapidaries who were known to be working in London in the middle of the 18th century. However most remained anonymous as the only visible signature on such mounted wares are on those that incorporate a watch; indeed the name of a maker was required by law to be visible on a watch with an enamelled dial made in London for export. Cox certainly depended upon these skilled craftsmen whose contribution allowed him to produce and deliver from the mid-1760s lavishly ornamented articles for trade with the Far East, first with India and then with China, where they were a success.
THE CHINESE EXPORT MARKET
The present necessaire is an exceptional example of the wares created by English craftsmen in the eighteenth century for export to China. These highly elaborate objects were presented to Chinese officials – including the Emperors, who developed strong fascinations for Western clocks – to facilitate Britain’s trade with China. The insatiable Chinese demand for similar objects, coupled with the immensely lucrative trade which they helped to enable for Britain, led to a burgeoning market for such works in England, and saw the collaboration between highly skilled craftsmen in the realisation of some of the most extraordinary and unusual objects of the eighteenth century.
Clocks have been used since the 16th century as a mean to open trade relations with China. Indeed it was Matteo Ricci (1552-1610) – the first Jesuit missionary given entry to China – who presented Western clocks and works of art as tribute to the Chinese Imperial Court. Ricci quickly realised the Chinese fascination for these European timepieces and objects and how they could be used to gain favour with the Imperial court and open trade relations.
The British East India Company was a major supplier – often via intermediaries – of Western clocks and elaborate works of art to the Chinese Imperial Court. As Britain sought to expand its influence and trade with China, clocks became one of its most important exports to the Far East from the late seventeenth century. The accession of the Emperor Qianlong, who reigned from 1735 to 1795 – during which period the present necessaire was created – marked a zenith in Imperial fascination for such curiosities. London entrepreneur jewellers and clockmakers such as James Cox and Timothy Williamson were responsible for considerable numbers of wildly eccentric and highly entertaining clocks and automata being exported to the Royal Court of China. This growing interest also encouraged the establishment of private merchants in China including John Henry Cox, son of James, who established a firm at Canton in the 1780s. Towards the end of the eighteenth century the trade in clocks declined, but there was a rise in popularity of watches for the same clientele in China. However, the manufacturers of these watches sent out to China were mostly based not in London but in Switzerland.
JAMES COX (CIRCA 1723-1800), ENTREPRENEURIAL GENIUS
James Cox remains the most famous of these toy-makers. Born circa 1723, he was apprenticed in the Haberdashers Company to Humphrey Pugh, goldsmith of Fleet Street who appears to have been himself a ‘toyman’. Cox, nonetheless subsequently registered as a goldsmith and later on specialised as a jeweller.
In 1745 he set up shop in Racquet Court, Fleet Street until 1756. His elaborate trade card bearing the London address At the Sign of the Golden Urn, written in French, English and German, claimed that he is a goldsmith who “Makes Great Variety of Curious Wares in Gold, Silver and other METALS. Also, Amber, Pearl, Tortoiseshell and Curious Stones.” Sadly little is known of that early period.
In 1756, he entered into partnership with Edward Grace and moved to 103 Shoe Lane where they appear to have been already in the export trade. However by 1758, the business was bankrupt. After being discharged from bankruptcy in 1763 he fully resumed his activities at Shoe Lane with financial backing. His output consisted by then of musical clocks, miniatures cabinets or bureaux made of agate with gold cage-work decorated with animals, birds, pagodas, and Chinese figures, snuff-boxes, watch-cases and automata. To produce these he relied on a large group of craftsmen and suppliers which he claimed in 1773 amounted to " eight hundred to one thousand workmen”.
A great entrepreneur, if not a businessman, James Cox was exporting £750,000 worth of goods between 1766 and 1772 which must have been the majority of his production, to adorn the palaces of the Chinese Emperor and Indian Maharajas as well as the Tsar of Russia and the Ottoman Kings.
In 1772, the St. James's Chronicle reported that “a large collection of his work nicknamed ‘sing-songs’ struck the Chinese with so much Astonishment, that the whole was purchased for the Emperor, and no other was then admired”.
However by then Cox was already in financial difficulties, largely caused by oversupplying and over exporting, and by a ban on the shipment of his luxury goods to China imposed by the East India company in the late 1772.
To create cash flow he had some of his stock auctioned at Christie's in 1772. Furthermore to dispose of the larger pieces, he organised a paying exhibition held at the Great Room in Spring Garden opened in February 1772 accompanied by the publication of two editions of A Descriptive Catalogue of the Several Superb and Magnificent Pieces of Mechanism and Jewellery, Exhibited in Mr. Cox’s Museum. It was a huge success and attracted a thousand visitor a week who marvelled “at sumptuous gilded musical cabinets and clocks with elaborate chiming mechanisms… Three times a day, the musical automata sprang into brilliant sound, a mechanical gala concert…” (Romanticism and Music Culture in Britain, 1770-1840: Virtue and Virtuosity). A year after the opening, Cox petitioned the House of Commons for permission to hold a lottery and published in 1773 and 1774 two enlarged editions, A Descriptive Inventory of the Several Exquisite and Magnificent Pieces of Mechanism and Jewellery. However, the tickets having failed to sell well, the lottery was postponed to June 1775 and the museum finally closed in December 1775.
Although he claimed to have cleared some of his debts, the loss of reliable trade with China, the failure in Russia, together with the fact that Cox never achieved royal patronage and suffered from the ill effects of the American Revolution on British foreign trade, precipitated his second bankruptcy in 1778. A second stock sale was organised at Christie’s on 3 March 1779. The remaining stock from Canton, China, was sold in London at Christie’s on February 16, 1792. In the meantime Cox and his sons, one in Canton and the other in London, resumed business and again began sending watches to China, this time mostly made by the Swiss firms such as Jaquet-Droz & Leschot. James Cox continued working at 103 Shoe Lane until 1795, he died in 1800.
COMPARATIVE LITERATURE:
A. Chapuis, La Montre Chinoise, Neufchatel, 1919.
I. White, English Clocks for the Eastern Markets, English Clockmakers Trading in China and the Ottoman Empire 1580-1815, Ticehurst, 2012.
J. Roberts, Royal Treasures, A Golden Jubilee Celebration, 2002, p. 328, No 292.
C. le Corbeiller, 'James Cox: A Biographical Review', The Burlington Magazine, June, 1970, pp. 351-358.
NUMBER 2, THE PAIR TO THE ROYAL COLLECTION TRUST NECESSAIRE
This necessaire epitomise the wondrous objects known in the eighteenth century as toys, and described by the Chinese as ‘sing-songs’ who purchased them in pairs. The pair to this necessaire is in the Royal Collection Trust (RCIN 6538) scratched with number 1 (ours being number 2) and was given by George V to Queen Mary for Christmas 1925.
Technically and stylistically, this necessaire is typical of Cox’s work, incorporating standardised elements; the gold cage-work is constructed from bands produced in strips and cut to measure. The watch hidden in the double lid is surrounded by an outer circle set with ten jewelled roundels that spin individually around the watch face as the outer circle rotates. This appears to have been a favoured device, probably made by a specialist workshop, and is found on other watches and clocks by Cox, including examples known to have been sent to China where paste and real stones was a popular feature.
This style of necessaire that doubles as a vanity case with its small cosmetic jars, bottles and implements was very fashionable in the 18th century and is part of a very small group of surviving examples including a version in moss agate with simpler jewelled ornaments but similar watch and automaton, and perfume bottles and implements (Acc. No. 57.128a-o) in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York whose probable pair is in the Louvre Museum, Paris (OA 8022).
The complicated nature of these necessaires would have required the skills of different craftsmen, watchmakers, jewellers, goldsmiths, toy-men and lapidaries who were known to be working in London in the middle of the 18th century. However most remained anonymous as the only visible signature on such mounted wares are on those that incorporate a watch; indeed the name of a maker was required by law to be visible on a watch with an enamelled dial made in London for export. Cox certainly depended upon these skilled craftsmen whose contribution allowed him to produce and deliver from the mid-1760s lavishly ornamented articles for trade with the Far East, first with India and then with China, where they were a success.
THE CHINESE EXPORT MARKET
The present necessaire is an exceptional example of the wares created by English craftsmen in the eighteenth century for export to China. These highly elaborate objects were presented to Chinese officials – including the Emperors, who developed strong fascinations for Western clocks – to facilitate Britain’s trade with China. The insatiable Chinese demand for similar objects, coupled with the immensely lucrative trade which they helped to enable for Britain, led to a burgeoning market for such works in England, and saw the collaboration between highly skilled craftsmen in the realisation of some of the most extraordinary and unusual objects of the eighteenth century.
Clocks have been used since the 16th century as a mean to open trade relations with China. Indeed it was Matteo Ricci (1552-1610) – the first Jesuit missionary given entry to China – who presented Western clocks and works of art as tribute to the Chinese Imperial Court. Ricci quickly realised the Chinese fascination for these European timepieces and objects and how they could be used to gain favour with the Imperial court and open trade relations.
The British East India Company was a major supplier – often via intermediaries – of Western clocks and elaborate works of art to the Chinese Imperial Court. As Britain sought to expand its influence and trade with China, clocks became one of its most important exports to the Far East from the late seventeenth century. The accession of the Emperor Qianlong, who reigned from 1735 to 1795 – during which period the present necessaire was created – marked a zenith in Imperial fascination for such curiosities. London entrepreneur jewellers and clockmakers such as James Cox and Timothy Williamson were responsible for considerable numbers of wildly eccentric and highly entertaining clocks and automata being exported to the Royal Court of China. This growing interest also encouraged the establishment of private merchants in China including John Henry Cox, son of James, who established a firm at Canton in the 1780s. Towards the end of the eighteenth century the trade in clocks declined, but there was a rise in popularity of watches for the same clientele in China. However, the manufacturers of these watches sent out to China were mostly based not in London but in Switzerland.
JAMES COX (CIRCA 1723-1800), ENTREPRENEURIAL GENIUS
James Cox remains the most famous of these toy-makers. Born circa 1723, he was apprenticed in the Haberdashers Company to Humphrey Pugh, goldsmith of Fleet Street who appears to have been himself a ‘toyman’. Cox, nonetheless subsequently registered as a goldsmith and later on specialised as a jeweller.
In 1745 he set up shop in Racquet Court, Fleet Street until 1756. His elaborate trade card bearing the London address At the Sign of the Golden Urn, written in French, English and German, claimed that he is a goldsmith who “Makes Great Variety of Curious Wares in Gold, Silver and other METALS. Also, Amber, Pearl, Tortoiseshell and Curious Stones.” Sadly little is known of that early period.
In 1756, he entered into partnership with Edward Grace and moved to 103 Shoe Lane where they appear to have been already in the export trade. However by 1758, the business was bankrupt. After being discharged from bankruptcy in 1763 he fully resumed his activities at Shoe Lane with financial backing. His output consisted by then of musical clocks, miniatures cabinets or bureaux made of agate with gold cage-work decorated with animals, birds, pagodas, and Chinese figures, snuff-boxes, watch-cases and automata. To produce these he relied on a large group of craftsmen and suppliers which he claimed in 1773 amounted to " eight hundred to one thousand workmen”.
A great entrepreneur, if not a businessman, James Cox was exporting £750,000 worth of goods between 1766 and 1772 which must have been the majority of his production, to adorn the palaces of the Chinese Emperor and Indian Maharajas as well as the Tsar of Russia and the Ottoman Kings.
In 1772, the St. James's Chronicle reported that “a large collection of his work nicknamed ‘sing-songs’ struck the Chinese with so much Astonishment, that the whole was purchased for the Emperor, and no other was then admired”.
However by then Cox was already in financial difficulties, largely caused by oversupplying and over exporting, and by a ban on the shipment of his luxury goods to China imposed by the East India company in the late 1772.
To create cash flow he had some of his stock auctioned at Christie's in 1772. Furthermore to dispose of the larger pieces, he organised a paying exhibition held at the Great Room in Spring Garden opened in February 1772 accompanied by the publication of two editions of A Descriptive Catalogue of the Several Superb and Magnificent Pieces of Mechanism and Jewellery, Exhibited in Mr. Cox’s Museum. It was a huge success and attracted a thousand visitor a week who marvelled “at sumptuous gilded musical cabinets and clocks with elaborate chiming mechanisms… Three times a day, the musical automata sprang into brilliant sound, a mechanical gala concert…” (Romanticism and Music Culture in Britain, 1770-1840: Virtue and Virtuosity). A year after the opening, Cox petitioned the House of Commons for permission to hold a lottery and published in 1773 and 1774 two enlarged editions, A Descriptive Inventory of the Several Exquisite and Magnificent Pieces of Mechanism and Jewellery. However, the tickets having failed to sell well, the lottery was postponed to June 1775 and the museum finally closed in December 1775.
Although he claimed to have cleared some of his debts, the loss of reliable trade with China, the failure in Russia, together with the fact that Cox never achieved royal patronage and suffered from the ill effects of the American Revolution on British foreign trade, precipitated his second bankruptcy in 1778. A second stock sale was organised at Christie’s on 3 March 1779. The remaining stock from Canton, China, was sold in London at Christie’s on February 16, 1792. In the meantime Cox and his sons, one in Canton and the other in London, resumed business and again began sending watches to China, this time mostly made by the Swiss firms such as Jaquet-Droz & Leschot. James Cox continued working at 103 Shoe Lane until 1795, he died in 1800.
COMPARATIVE LITERATURE:
A. Chapuis, La Montre Chinoise, Neufchatel, 1919.
I. White, English Clocks for the Eastern Markets, English Clockmakers Trading in China and the Ottoman Empire 1580-1815, Ticehurst, 2012.
J. Roberts, Royal Treasures, A Golden Jubilee Celebration, 2002, p. 328, No 292.
C. le Corbeiller, 'James Cox: A Biographical Review', The Burlington Magazine, June, 1970, pp. 351-358.