Posted by Nellie on January 15, 2012, 3:31 am, in reply to "Re: Bar Brooches"
PJ - there are some things to understand about the sources we can use for British royal jewels.
As Boffer mentioned in another thread it is most likely that the Royal Collection will have the better information when they have access to so many sources.
There have been times here when we have discussed the work of Leslie Field, and Suzy Menkes, and we have found erroros in the work of both.
However, it is important to consider just how much assistance or co-operation any author on royal jewels has received from the various owners of the jewels. Mostly very little.
We have had lengthy discussions on this board over that topic.
Further, some authors have had access to some jewellers' records, or partial records to some extent and others not. And so on.
I must add that various well respected authors on British jewels published the best available information at the time.
Here are two pics of Queen Victoria, first wearing her two five-diamond brooches and then the ten.
--Previous Message-- : Leslie's book page 65 says QV's is 14 not 10. : PJ : : --Previous Message-- : : I believe Queen Victoria's was 2 x 5 = 10 : diamonds. : : Link - : : http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/eGallery/object.asp?category=285&pagesize=80&object=250006&row=41&detail=about : : Queen Mary's was 7 x 2 = 14 diamonds. : : So the Queen Mother continued to wear Queen : Victoria's, if it was 10. : : : --Previous Message-- : I know the one from QV is 14 stones. But I : seen QEQM wearing one with 10 stones. Which : is which or is one shortened? : : : : :
on January 15, 2012, 3:31 am, in reply to "
