Really, how was it possible that Van Cleef and Arpels decided to turn a most spectacular and historical piece of jewelry into this... And yes I agree with you, I must say that at least to my personal taste and understanding of this piece, turquoises were the worst possible choice for a replacement stone. It would look equally stunning to me if they had replaced it with saphires or even rubis, but turquoises realy turned it from an superb piece into an ugly one (in my opinion of course).
--Previous Message-- : It's most unfortunate that the ‚Imperial : emeralds’ don’t exist in this form anymore. : Preserving the original diamonds in their : setting but removing the emeralds to create : other pieces was a particularly strange move : by Van Cleef & Arpels considering such a : historic piece. : Particularly around the bottom, the design : of the tiara (actually a full circlet) : simply does not work without the lustre of : translucent stones, IMHO. : This is how it looks today: : : : : : --Previous Message-- : Wedding present from Napoleon to his second : wife, empress Marie-Louise. The empress left : the parure to archduchess Elisabeth. : It was sold in 1953 by her descendants to : Van Cleef and Arpels who removed : dramatically the emeralds from the tiara to : create new jewels and replaced them by : turquoises. : The tiara was bought later by Marjorie : Merryweather Post for the Smithsonian : Institution of Washington where it's now on : display. : The necklace and earrings have been acquired : by the Louvre, no idea of the whereabouts of : the belt buckle : : : Uploaded with ImageShack.us : : :
on October 14, 2012, 5:11 am, in reply to "