Posted by Boris on June 29, 2012, 7:27 am, in reply to "Re: who knows"
Radama, you have to understand that unless there is pictorial evidence or a reliable source presenting evidence, the 'who knows' falls under the category 'pure speculation', and in this case the pure speculation has for the most part proven to be incorrect. The concern of other posters here is IMO that all too easily, a certain piece of jewelry is suddenly described elsewhere as 'said to have belonged to X' or 'altered from piece Y to piece Z', only because of pure speculation; this has happened before, and these kind of myths and false infos are not very helpful for assembling accurate facts.
--Previous Message-- : I 've said : "who knows?" There is : similarity and similarity. Look at the : close-ups in the threads above : when you : have many stones of the same setting (even : the number of diamonds), the same shape and : two jewels of the same design, because of : the family connection it is allowed to make : a link between them. Stones can be removed : and replaced on all jewels. : Telling non sense fits well to you, if you : disagree it's also your total right ! : : --Previous Message-- : It's not because the jewels have : similarities : that they had the same owner. There is : absolutely no evidence. Stop telling : nonsense. : : --Previous Message-- : Same kind of stones and a great similarity : which indicates the same provenance : a : grand parure of turquoises originaly : belonging to the Countess of Flandres who : knows ? : : --Previous Message-- : As you say it's your point of view but the : Luxembourg turquoises have nothing in common : with the turquoises formely belonging to the : countess de Flandres except the same kind of : stones. : : : : : : :