>I think the amount was greatly exaggerated as the later auction price seems to indicate. The press often improved on the cost of luxury items to make them seem more exclusive and outrageous.
Perhaps. Although there is the possibility that there was something about that strand that made them exceptional (unusual size, luster, roundness, etc.) The later auction price, some say, was caused by the fact that by 1957 the process of culturing pearls had been perfected. Cultured pearls were the answer to Chanel's faux pearls that she made famous that you refer to. Why the price of natural pearls deflated, was because it was very difficult then (and still is without taking the strand apart) to tell cultured pearls from natural (unnucleated) pearls - so people became much more cautious buying strands of natural pearls.
(I stand corrected on Lucile's success, BTW)
>One account claimed Lucile’s (Lady Duff Gordon’s fashion house) sold fur coats priced at $60,000. That was a sum inflated about 10 times -- even sable and ermine seldom went for more than between $11,000 and $14,000.
I wouldn't be surprised by a price hike like that at all, honestly. Aren't there purchase receipts from the fashion house somewhere in an archive? I would imagine so, as receipts of purchase still exist from Samuel Bing's "L'Art Nouveau" store. I suspect, however, that the fashion that is so prevalent today with many women no matter where they stand financially for brand names, was also prevalent among those who would shop Lucile's - and that she (Lucile) probably charged more than what is usually charged because of name 'prestige'. Jean Patou could do it and so could Chanel - and they still do today.
