Very true. However, the distinction precious/semi-precious is, from a gemologist's point of view, a false distinction introduced by the trade. Jade, is never a semi precious stone. You can be sure jade is not jade when it is cheap. It is either another stone or very heavily treated to appear as gemstone quality jade or both.
--Previous Message-- : All depending on the quality of the jade as : with every (semi) precious stone... : : --Previous Message-- : check the last issue of Royalty, all the : information is in there. The pearls are : still fake. And JohnPete: real jade is one : of the most expensive gem stones on the : market. A necklace made of only jade beads : fetches millions at auctions. : : : --Previous Message-- : I think the pearls are still fake, on the HD : pic by Gert-Jan the craquelures are visible : on the pearls. Or doest that indicate these : are real (I learned pearls loose lustre when : not worn on the skin). : : --Previous Message-- : The pearls were altered for Wilhelmina. The : original version had more pearls but they : looked bad after 58 years so new (real?) : pearls were put on the arches. Just less. : You can see were the small discs on the : arches where the fake pearl of 1840 were : attached. : : --Previous Message-- : Have they ever replaced the fish scale : pearls : and foil-backed glass stones? Or, is the : regalia still made of those materials? : : Of course the Dutch sovereign is not : crowned, but do you suppose Queen Beatrix : could have ever had a private moment with : the regalia where she could handle them? : Perhaps even try it on? I don't think the : crown looks too large to wear, unlike the : Spanish crown which is a massive symbolic : prop. : : --Previous Message-- : Hehe... that took a while to download on my : tablet.... : : An extremely sharp picture. I even see dust : on the crown and there is some polish left : in the fleurons.... : : I see the royal banner is restored, on the : old picture below the banner was clearly in : need of restoration. : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
on March 19, 2013, 6:30 am, in reply to "