Thank you all for your input – especially Nellie. I did not think that the original necklace was so long. I guess it is accentuated by HM youthful and graceful neck. Even the short version of the necklace seems shorter now.
I must admit though, I do think that the setting of this necklace is particularly elegant – more so than “regular” collets. The faceting and dazzle is quite impressive. I can see why HM considers them her “best diamonds”.
I have included a couple of pictures of both the shortened (15 brilliants) necklace and the bracelet (7 brilliants). The “extra” diamond, shown in the center of Nellie’s 1st post above was used as the centerpiece for the new bracelet (thus the total of 22 brilliants).
The Queen – always the consummate hostess, has worn these items at South African events such as the 2 state dinners shown below
Cheers! Bryce
--Previous Message-- : : Oh yes they know! Some use it and have : posted findings here! : : --Previous Message-- : Thank you for this Nellie. What a wonderful : source Trove is. I wonder if our fellow : posters are acquainted with Trove. : For those who do not know about Trove, it is : an Australian recourse which allows people : to search across numerous media items,free : of charge. : : --Previous Message-- : : Beth - I quoted direct from The Queen's : Diamonds , as I intimated. : That work was published in 2012. : However, I recalled the much earlier work : stating that the 21 stones were given unset : and decided to add that footnote. : Those authors were highly reputable in their : field. : : The later QD was a Royal Collection : publication having been researched by them : from original sources. : So the QD version carries a lot of weight. : Though the book was found to contain some : errors. : : What is the precise necklace story I do not : know. : : Someone might like to look at The Times of : 4 March 1947 for a report of many diamonds : being presented to the royal family. : : Edited: searching Trove produces better : results, I found, and the articles do : suggest that the diamonds for Princess : Elizbeth were unset, and that she also : received many baguettes. : Princess Margaret received 17 diamonds. : : : --Previous Message-- : Thank you Nellie. I am still a bit confused. : The information you have supplied seems to : suggest that the necklace was presented to : the Princess Elizabeth complete with the 21 : large diamonds as well as the smaller : diamonds Am I correct in thinking that? : : --Previous Message-- : : : …from The Queen's Diamonds : : The gift from the Government of the Union of : South Africa consisted of a long chain of 21 : graduated brilliants - the largest of 10 : carats - each separated by a baguette and : two small brilliants." : The necklace was presented in this : configuation on 21 April 1947. : : The detachable snap-piece was added later : using a 6 carat stone given to her by the : Chariman of De Beers on 18 April. : : The necklace was exhibited in this form with : her wedding presents. : : In my earlier pic the Queen wears the : necklace on a visit to Paris in May 1948. : : Five years later the necklace was shortened : to 15 large stones and a bracelet made from : the six removed and the snap-piece. : : Edit: Footnote - According to Charlotte : Gere and John Culme with William Summers in : "Garrard The Crown Jewellers for 150 : Years 1843 1993", : the 21 diamonds were presented to Princess : Elizabeth unset, then Garrard made the : necklace in London. : : : : : : : : : : : : : :