It does seem the jewellers preferred to make a suite of pieces and sell them for more than the tiara alone would bring. It probably also meant faster sales too. It's quite likely they had certain customers in mind when creating the pieces.
--Previous Message-- : To add to Nellie's comment about 'someone : badly wanted the emeralds" - IMO : someone wanted more money too : : --Previous Message-- : : I think someone badly wanted the emeralds. : : : --Previous Message-- : : What a mistake. It's puzzling as to the : reason the jewelers felt that the tiara : needed to be changed. To me, jewelry such as : this piece, are historic, just as other : artifacts are regarded as historic. As my : Grandmother used to say, "if it ain't : broke, don't fix it." : : --Previous Message-- : Or aquamarine, garnet or citrine, or heat : treated (blue) topaz. : Any sort of translucent stone would have : suited it, the opacity of the turquoises : drags the energy of the tiara down : considerably. : : --Previous Message-- : You are right, turquoises are an unfitting : option for this tiara. But the emeralds were : remove in order to sell them separately. So : sapphires or especially rubies that size, : would have been so expensive, that there : were no financial advantage for VC&A. But : maybe amethyst would have been affordable? : Imho even glass replacements would have : looked better... : : : : : : : : :
on October 16, 2012, 12:51 am, in reply to "