Posted by Boffer on January 11, 2012, 9:06 am, in reply to "Re: Cullinan VI"
With all due respect, I highly doubt it is the Royal Collection that have got this wrong. The Royal Collection have access to the detailed notes that Queen Mary kept on all key pieces of jewellery in her collection. It's provenance, it's changes etc... This is where they get the vast amount of their detailed information from, as well as the Garrard Ledgers held in the Royal Archives, and private notes, diaries and inventories of jewels. Not to mention the Queen's own knowledge and understanding of her collection and recollections of her grandmother.
Thus I highly doubt with the vast wealth of information and research they can drawn on, the Royal Collection would get something as important as numbering the Cullinan Stones and knowing where they are, I doubt they would it wrong.
Also on the logic that the numbering of the stones is linked to their size. The larger the stone, the lower the number.
The stone suspending from Cullinan VIII in the brooch is 11.5 carats. The stone suspended from the Ladies of India Necklace is 8.8 carats. Thus by logic, the larger stone, suspended from the brooch is Cullinan VI and Cullinan VII is suspended from the necklace.
I trust the Royal Collection on this count.
--Previous Message-- : The Royal Collection is wrong. : Cullinan VII and VIII are this brooch. : Cullinan VI is suspened alongside a : suspended emerald on the emerald necklace : : --Previous Message-- : : The Cullinan VI and VIII brooch : : Probably Garrards : : The marquise pendant of 11.5 carats, : Cullinan VI, purchased by King Edward VII : from Asschers, was set by Queen Alexandra on : her regal circlet. It is now suspended from : Cullinan VIII, an emerald-cut stone of 6.8 : carats given to Queen Mary in 1910 by the : South African Government. Like the Cullinan : V brooch, Cullinan VIII was also designed to : be used in the Delhi Durbar stomacher. The : brooch was inherited by The Queen in 1953. : : : : http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/microsites/dressfortheoccasion/object.asp?exhibs=BPSO2006jewellery&item=13 : : :
on January 11, 2012, 9:06 am, in reply to "