Posted by PJ Kiser on January 15, 2012, 5:37 am, in reply to "Re: Bar Brooches"
Thanks Nellie I will update by book on these brooches. PJ
--Previous Message-- : : 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, 5:37 am, in reply to "