Jump to content

Talk:Fabergé egg/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Videos

older comments

The article discusses only the Imperial eggs. The House of Fabergé also made eggs for the aristocrats. The role of workmasters, especially Michael Perchin should be mentioned, and the extraordinary range of materials and techniques referred to. --Wetman 20:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Redirects

"Faberge egg", "Faberge eggs" and "Fabergé eggs" should redirect here. But I don't know how to do it. Can anyone help?

Done. LeoDV 5 July 2005 17:21 (UTC)

Wording regarding surviving eggs

should "have survived" be changed to something like "are known to have survived"

never know who might be hiding one of the lost eggs in their basement.

Inside

Just a question -- all the Fabergé eggs can be oppened, helding any surprise inside? 201.6.119.5 01:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


Vivian Alexander Site

Please let me know if others consider this a valuable external link. There is a large amount of information on imperial faberge eggs, especially in the knowledge center located at: http://www.vivianalexander.com/knowledge-center.html

This designer's eggs have are also featured in a Smirnoff commercial. These are not replicas and the site should seriously be considered as a valuable external link. Thanks for your consideration and comments.

Done. User:Byorzinski 2 January 2007 09:14 (UTC)
  • Byorzinski, the Vivian Alexander site is a no-go for three reasons: 1. Its primary purpose is to sell stuff, so placing that link here is kind of like advertising; something that the wiki-community super-frowns upon. 2. The eggs sold on the site aren't faberge eggs. they are vivian alexander eggs, inspired by faberge. that would make the products sold on the site, unrelated to this article. 3. The "knowledge section", doesn't appear to have any new information that would warrant it being linked to from an encyclopedia article. Even if it did, I think people would find that 1 and 2 above would outweigh it being placed in this article. Taco325i 15:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

While I think we're all in agreement that commercial links (particularly irrelevant commercial links) have no place in the article, I think placing prior restraints on them and requiring approval (i.e. "Do not add any external links here without first posting them on the talk page for discussion!") appears contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia that anyone can freely edit. We seem to be pretty vigilant in removing crap that's posted, so I think it's unnecessary to discourage people from posting links. Taco325i 14:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed eight unnecessary links before putting that warning up, and I've seen similar warnings on other pages that are frequently spammed. But if you think it's not friendly, that's fine, we'll just watch the page. Tocharianne 00:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the advice on the external links page regarding links to businesses is a little limiting. If the advice on the page was followed fully it would create ridiculous situations; a page on the history of motor cars could have no links to the firm's who made them. Wartski are deeply ingrained into the history of Faberge. They acquired the eggs from the Soviet government. As a compromise I have put a link to their 'About page'. This page outlines their history and mentions their role in buying the eggs. It is not a commercial page and does not link to the other parts of the site

Two Faberge eggs stolen

Hi,

Just saw this on the internet, and maybe it should be updated in the article?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/6471389.stm for info about the robbery.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/6473417.stm that the Police are chasing the robbers.


—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.194.129.105 (talk) 10:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Irrelevant Information

This page tells people who are interested in Fabergé eggs (FE) the following things: 

- What is a FE?
- A short history of the FE
- Which eggs have been made and what's their current location?
- ...
- What kind of silly jokes have been made about FE in the Simpsons?

Why would people want to know what references to FE have been made in the Simpsons - or any other popular form of media? This is wikipedia, not simpsonpedia. Sure, it's information. And who knows it may be true as well. But why mention it? I think we can safely remove this trivial section about FE references in the Simpsons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.194.81.200 (talk • contribs) 12:35, July 12, 2007.

For the record, I agree, but unless others do it's likely to get re-added. Fortunately, this is the place to find out what others think. Tocharianne 22:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree too. All trivia is superfluous unless it has some form of impact upon the subject of the article.Jon1984 (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I basically agree. To appease the Simpson fan community, I would suggest to summarize the Simpson facts into one paragraph, and integrate into the general television paragraph. How does that sound? (Audionaut 11:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC))
Postscript: I've done it (wee). (Audionaut (talk) 09:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

Trivia

Trivia was interesting, especially the the fictional robberies. Perhaps, it will be better to return it back? --Shakko kitsune (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. None of the trivia contributed to the article or told us about Fabergé eggs. Better to link to this article from the relevant episodes...Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

52 or 57?

Lead states there are 50 and 2 unfinished, but body that there were 57 made.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There were fifty eggs made and the two for 1917; the Birch and Constellation eggs were not finished, see 'The Faberge Imperial Easter Eggs', Faberge, Proler and Skurlov (London, 1997). The deleting of the link to Warstki, London I believe weakens the page. The firm purchased a number of the Eggs from the Soviet government and is intimately bound to their history. To understand the eggs and their post Imperial place in the history of decorative arts requires referencing long established dealers such as Wartski, who bought, studied, exhibited and conserved them. Hence I propose putting the link back
Unfortunately that webpage is not about the history of Faberge but is a commercial site designed to sell jewelry. Check out WP:SPAM or WP:EL to see what kind of external links are considered inappropriate. Tocharianne 04:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Were the remains of the two eggs saved, or were they lost to history? --24.21.149.124 (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Russian National Museum,

I can find no mention of such a place on the web, or at the WP Moscow article. Perhaps it does not exist at all? Closest I found was the State Russian Museum, in St Petersburg. Huw Powell (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

FE in culture?

Somebody should write about that subject. At least one of those James Bond movies has FE as a main theme. --juhtolv (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we already have enough trivia sections on Wikipedia. The Bond film you're referencing (Octopussy) only used the egg as a device to move forward the plot. Therefore, a link to this article is appropriate in the film's article as a means of grasping the plot of the film, but a mention of the film in this article doesn't help the reader to understand what the eggs are. ThemFromSpace 05:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Why Kitsch?

Why does this article include Kitsch in the See Also section? Is this not derogatory to the one of a kind craftsmanship of Faberge? I thought I'd ask for another opinion before I remove it. Maybe there's some bit of Faberge history I'm missing? Is it because Faberge has inspired Kitsch-y knock offs?

Also, I have been systematically updating the individual Faberge Egg articles and created a Faberge Egg nav box. You can see my contributions on my user page. I will be continuing this endeavor over the next months so if you notice something wrong in my formatting (regarding infoboxes, headers, etc) please let me know and I'll update accordingly. Romanov Tercentenary should be on the Main Page DYK in the next week. The egg articles need some new, positive attention! I'm a relative newbie so any suggestions are welcome. Thanks so much! HstryQT (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Size

How big are they? I have yet to see a photo that gives any indication of scale, nor any mention of their dimensions. Are they actually the size of a hen egg? --199.246.40.54 (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

In nearly all of the articles I contributed to I added dimensions. The eggs are pretty large. I'd compare them almost to an Ostrich Egg.
An Ostrich egg.
See: Romanov Tercentenary (Fabergé egg) (My first DYK Article :))
Tsarevich (Fabergé egg)
Rock Crystal (Fabergé egg)
Peter the Great (Fabergé egg)
- HstryQT (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Word choice

"Masterpiece" is used quite incorrectly in the first section. A masterpiece is, literally, a work of art -- singular -- marking an artist's transition from journeyman/student to master. Artists only have 'one' masterpiece. R 03:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Recheck your dictionary - the sense you're referencing is just one of several definitions, and not even the most common one nowadays. Stan 06:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the reference in here about Armand Hammer is necessarily true. According to Dossier, his biography by Edward Jay Epstein, he created numerous forgeries of Faberge eggs with tools from the workshop to sell in America to raise funds for Russia. It's unlikely that he actually bought any.

"... is any one of the thousands of jeweled eggs laid by the Peter Carl Fabergé" Laid, really? Was he a chicken? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.23.102.124 (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Imperial Eggs

The descriptions of the eggs do not agree on the number of eggs created. 86.139.161.23 (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Eggs?

I can't see anything which says whether or not a real egg was used in any part of the creation. Should they be called egg-shaped or otherwise more clearly described? 86.139.161.23 (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Dates of Eggs

Over the last couple of days an editor (editing under both an IP and username) has repeatedly changed the dates attributed to some of the eggs. The fact that there is discussion over some of the eggs is included both here on the other pages and is backed up with references.
The proposed dates are only theories and are not universally accepted, however the user is attempting to present them as universally accepted fact. The source he uses to back up his changes even says "Not all Faberge scholars agree with my theory". As I pointed this out to him he has said he will get that website changed. This suggests a COI and also means the "Mieks" Fabergé Eggs website is self-published and can not be considered a reliable source.
As this seemed to be someone new to wikipedia, not familiar with policies regarding neutral point of view etc. etc., I initially was quite gentle. However the editing is increasingly becoming disruptive. The repeated removal of referenced material, the non neutral presentation of disputed theory as universally accepted fact, and now attempts to change an external source in order to back up their claims are all unacceptable. Its vandalism.

I have contacted the user yet again to warn them about such disruptive editing. Any further attempt to vandalise and disrupt the page should be dealt with severely.

--Rushton2010 (talk) 08:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Missing eggs later found?

We know there are still 8 eggs missing. I was wondering, are any of the now-found eggs missing and later (after 40, 50 years, etc) rediscovered? --24.21.149.124 (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

With the recent discovery of the proper 1887 egg, there are now 7 missing. The most likely list is (and hoping none have been destroyed): 1.The Hen with Sapphire Pendant Egg (1885) 2. The Cherub with Chariot Egg (1888) 3. The Nécessaire Egg (1889) 4. The Mauve Egg (1897) 5. The Empire Nephrite Egg (1902) 6. The Royal Danish Egg (1903) 7. The Alexander III Commemorative Egg (1909)

  • The Alexander III Portraits Egg was considered lost, but now that we know the Blue Serpent Clock is the 1895 Egg, that means the Twelve Monograms Egg is not, and so is very likely the Portraits Egg--especially since the Monograms Egg's surprise is missing.69.196.129.38 (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Pointy end down?

These eggs seems all to have been designed with the pointy end down, while most decorative eggs nowadays has the pointy end up. Is this a style that was popular at the time or it more a unique element of the Fabergé design? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.97.209 (talk) 04:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Excessive non-free content?

I see that this article has been tagged as having excessive non-free content; User:Future Perfect at Sunrise specifically noted that it relates to images. While I admit that the number of non-free images is large in absolute terms, I think given the content the amount of non-free images is acceptable. To wit, this is an article about items of jewelry/works of art, many of which are in private collections and of which there are in many cases relatively few, if any, free images. It is not, to my understanding, unreasonable to have pictures of all the Fabergé eggs on the page about Fabergé eggs, so the casual reader can take a look and get a feel for what these things look like without having to click through to the page on any individual egg. I'd like some discussion on the subject, but I'd say that given the subject, we are using just as much non-free content as necessary, and no more. Lockesdonkey (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion about this is at WP:NFCR#Fabergé egg. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Original costs of the eggs

It would be really nice to have the equivalent cost of the eggs in today's currency (fixed to a year, say, 2015). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.204.72 (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Italicized?

Since the eggs are individually named works of art it seems that their names should be italicized. Before unboldly doing so, thoughts or discussion? Thanks. Randy Kryn 10:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fabergé egg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Hen Egg material repeated

The first two paragraphs of 'History' contain similar descriptions of the Hen Egg. This needs tidying. Mdrb55 (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Primefac (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

pop culture novel

Clive Cussler: The Romanov Ransom (2017) turns around the lost eggs. see The_Romanov_Ransom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.71.13.193 (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not overly convinced we need to list every instance of the eggs appearing in pop culture, especially if it's in a grouping of "oh here's a bunch of Romanov stuff and there happen to be some eggs". Primefac (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
no, the eggs are prominent in the novel - they appear in the prolog and are described thoughout the book until the epilogue. Much more important than a "collectible card" in some computer game...!
Furthermore, I would like to bring to notion that at least two "rediscovered eggs" are disputed, the "third imperial" and the "Empire Nephrite" (dispute stated on its page, but not here). For example, the Faberge Museum states both are forgeries: www.faberge-museum.de/show.php?news=&nid=92&lang=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.71.52.246 (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Number of missing eggs

I'm confused by the first sentence of the "Location of eggs" section. It reads, "Of the 69 known Fabergé eggs,[note 1] 57 have survived to the present day." First, the footnote for that sentence presents a tally of 65 eggs, not 69. Second, the sentence implies that there are 12 lost eggs, but the lists within the article only mention 6 lost eggs -- what are the rest? Zagalejo (talk) 04:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Without being able to immediately comment on the crux of this question (i.e. "how many eggs"), I suspect this is a case of every number being edited separately and over time no one has noticed that the values have drifted apart. It might be a good idea to find one reference that gives the total number of each type (total, found, missing) and use that same reference for every instance so that they don't drift again. Primefac (talk) 08:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Impertinent Paragraph

This factoid seems extraneous and off-topic:

"In M. J. Rose's 2021 novel The Last Tiara, the main character discovers a Fabergé tiara in her late mother's apartment. This discovery sets her off on a journey to discover how the tiara came into her mother's possession and if her father, a Fabergé workman, was involved."

This appears to describe a Fabergé tiara and not a Fabergé egg and thus should more appropriately be included in the article on the House of Fabergé, but not in this article dealing specifically with Fabergé eggs. I did not, however, wish to unilaterally delete someone else's work without seeing if others agreed with my assessment. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Valuations

I think it'd be helpful to include, perhaps parenthetically, inflation-adjusted values in today's currency. At the very least, I would suggest inclusion of USD equivalents for £ amounts. I don't wish to appear ethnocentric with this suggestion as a "stereotypical American" who thinks the world revolves around the US, but disregarding USD values seems unnecessarily exclusionary and limits accessibility which, if I'm not mistaken, is the opposite of the inherent goals and objectives of Wikipedia itself. USD is used worldwide, far beyond the borders of the nation of origin, so its inclusion would be more ecumenical than provincial. Just a request for anyone able to calculate the USD values. Thank you. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Surprise

Do all Fabergé eggs contain a surprise? That is, are they always hollow inside and hold some other object(s) within their shells? Or are some solid throughout like a stone? The article does not make this clear either way, but many of the pictures fail to show the interior of the Fabergé eggs and so the issue is further obfuscated. If anyone knowledgeable could shed some light on this and include the information in the text of the article, it would be appreciated. Thank you. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fabergé_egg/Archive_1&oldid=1181763513"