Posted by Nellie on January 11, 2012, 5:30 pm, in reply to "Re: Cullinan VI"
Thank you Boffer. I have always been a bit confused myself over the smaller drop ones.
Here are some Cullinana pics I've posted before.
--Previous Message-- : 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 :
on January 11, 2012, 5:30 pm, in reply to "
