Talk:Fabergé egg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate Fabergé egg is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
November 2, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry / Jewelry  (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gemology and Jewelry articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Jewelry subpage.
WikiProject Russia / Technology & engineering / Visual arts / History (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the visual arts in Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.


older comments[edit]

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)

Two Faberge eggs stolen[edit]


Just saw this on the internet, and maybe it should be updated in the article? for info about the robbery. that the Police are chasing the robbers.

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

Vivian Alexander Site[edit]

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:

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)


"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)

Word choice[edit]

"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 (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


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

External links[edit]

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

52 or 57?[edit]

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? -- (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant Information[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 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[edit]

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)

Missing eggs later found?[edit]

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? -- (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. (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Russian National Museum,[edit]

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?[edit]

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?[edit]

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)


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? -- (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)

List of Imperial Eggs[edit]

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


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? (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Dates of Eggs[edit]

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)

Pointy end down?[edit]

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 (talk) 04:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Excessive non-free content?[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


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)