QD - 3 Puzzles - Queen Mary necklace/tiara wedding gifts - Surrey and QV

Posted by Nellie on May 28, 2012, 10:14 pm
124.170.1.127

The QD alert is used here because discussion could well stray into QD topics. Pics, repeated for each puzzle, are illustrations from Menkes and the two pics of Queen Mary which I used in a thread below. http://members2.boardhost.com/royal-jewels/msg/1338253778.html I have always distinguished the Surrey tiara/necklace and the QV wedding gift necklace/tiara - first, by the central spikes - Surrey is topped by the “spear” and QV by the solitaire diamond; second, the wedding gift illustrations in Menkes are not entirely accurate but they do show distinct differences at base level as well. The scene is set - now to the three puzzles.

Puzzle 1 - bandeau base added to QV

Posted by Nellie on May 28, 2012, 10:15 pm, in reply to "QD - 3 Puzzles - Queen Mary necklace/tiara wedding gifts - Surrey and QV"

For the Queen Victoria wedding gift necklace/tiara - illustrated on page 191 of Roberts - Queen Mary’s photographic inventory (bless her for doing that!) shows this jewel with the added bandeau base. (Sorry but I will not scan the QD pic.) So we must assume the bandeau base was not “destroyed” for making her fringe tiara. Comments please.

Puzzle 2 - same bandeau base for Surrey and for QV ?

Posted by Nellie on May 28, 2012, 10:18 pm, in reply to "QD - 3 Puzzles - Queen Mary necklace/tiara wedding gifts - Surrey and QV"
124.170.1.127

Did Queen Mary add the same bandeau base to both the Surrey and the QV? Sorry I cannot supply pics of those with added bandeau bases.

Puzzle 3 - photo session switches ?

Posted by Nellie on May 28, 2012, 10:20 pm, in reply to "QD - 3 Puzzles - Queen Mary necklace/tiara wedding gifts - Surrey and QV"
124.170.1.127

Were these pics taken at the same session? If so, did Queen Mary swap her tiara as well as add a necklace? It is not easy to see but the second seems to have the solitaire diamond as the central spike so it could be the QV.

Re: Puzzle 3 - photo session switches ?

Posted by Paisley on May 28, 2012, 11:03 pm, in reply to "Puzzle 3 - photo session switches ?"
71.202.224.198

I vote: Same session Same tiara (my eyes see the spear in both) I think it would be too difficult to get all the other jewelry placed exactly the same for it to be two sessions. I see the feathery corsage-thingy on her left shoulder is more prominent in the standing pic but maybe it was fluffed up when the necklace was added or removed.

Puzzle 4- no bandeau base on the original "Girls" tiara ???

Posted by Nellie on May 29, 2012, 6:17 am, in reply to "QD - 3 Puzzles - Queen Mary necklace/tiara wedding gifts - Surrey and QV"

I am having grave doubts that Queen Mary's Girls of Great Britain and Ireland Tiara [Girls] was originally made with that loznge-pattern bandeau base. I have doubted it over the years, actually. Because it now seems as though one and the same lozenge-pattern bandeau base was added to the Surrey tiara/necklace [Surrey], the QV wedding gift necklace/tiara [QV gift], and the Girls. Page 139 shows the Girls in the photo inventory with the bandeau base and the caption says it is in original form. But I would like to see the design drawing for the Girls which is mentioned in note 1 page 136. The QV wedding gift necklace/tiara shown in the photo inventory on page 191 with a bandeau base added does not seem to be in its original form. Do we know when the photo inventory was started? For alterations made to the Girls in 1914, it says on page 136 - "Either at the same date or possibly later Queen Mary removed the lozenge-pattern bandeau from the base ... " But if it is the same bandeau as added to the Surrey and to the QV gift, then Queen Mary had removed the bandeau from the Girls much earlier than 1914 - or perhaps it was not even attached before then. Queen Mary is wearing the Surrey with the band in the pic dressed in black in mourning for Queen Victoria (much earlier than 1914). See page 194 and below in http://members2.boardhost.com/royal-jewels/msg/1338140726.html.

Re: Puzzle 4- no bandeau base on the original "Girls" tiara ???

Posted by Laurence on May 29, 2012, 6:35 am, in reply to "Puzzle 4- no bandeau base on the original "Girls" tiara ???"
93.172.14.207

My guess is that the lozenge-pattern bandeau was always removable. Laurence --Previous Message-- : : I am having grave doubts that Queen Mary's : Girls of Great Britain and Ireland Tiara : [Girls] was originally made with that : loznge-pattern bandeau base. I have doubted : it over the years, actually. : Because it now seems as though one and the : same lozenge-pattern bandeau base was added : to the Surrey tiara/necklace [Surrey], the : QV wedding gift necklace/tiara [QV gift], : and the Girls. : : Page 139 shows the Girls in the photo : inventory with the bandeau base and the : caption says it is in original form. : But I would like to see the design drawing : for the Girls which is mentioned in note 1 : page 136. : The QV wedding gift necklace/tiara shown in : the photo inventory on page 191 with a : bandeau base added does not seem to be in : its original form. : : Do we know when the photo inventory was : started? : : For alterations made to the Girls in 1914, : it says on page 136 - : : "Either at the same date or possibly : later Queen Mary removed the lozenge-pattern : bandeau from the base ... " : : But if it is the same bandeau as added : to the Surrey and to the QV gift, then Queen : Mary had removed the bandeau from the Girls : much earlier than 1914 - or perhaps it was : not even attached before then. : : Queen Mary is wearing the Surrey with the : band in the pic dressed in black in mourning : for Queen Victoria (much earlier than 1914). : See page 194 and below in : http://members2.boardhost.com/royal-jewels/msg/1338140726.html : . : : : Laurence

Re: Puzzle 4- no bandeau base on the original "Girls" tiara ???

Posted by Boffer on May 29, 2012, 6:36 am, in reply to "Puzzle 4- no bandeau base on the original "Girls" tiara ???"

I believe that the base for the Girls of Great Britain tiara is in its original form. It can be seen being worn by Queen Mary, with the base very shortly after her wedding. Furthermore, the easy with which the base could be removed is obvious, as this Girls of Great Britain Tiara was also designed to be worn as a necklace (and Roberts notes that it is also photographed as such in Queen Mary's Jewellery inventory, but he doesn't publish the image). Therefore the base, being original to the tiara, would have been easily detachable. And could easily be attached onto other tiaras. All jewels of this era were hugely versatile. As for the wedding necklace/tiara from Queen Victoria. This is in its original form. The added "base" to this necklace / tiara was worn by Queen Mary on various occasions as either a choker of bandeau, which indicate it was originally part of the jewel that she received as a wedding present. This picture of Queen Mary in her turquoise tiara, clearly show the diamond tiara/necklace with its base being worn as a choker by Queen Mary. http://www.royal-magazin.de/england/queen-mary-turquoise-tiara.htm It is also of note that the turquoise tiara is being worn in its original form, indicating that it was soon after the wedding, and thus the jewels are all in their unaltered form. The base of the Queen Victoria's necklace/tiara can also be seen here, being worn as a bandeau with the aigrette, that was a wedding gift from the Duke of York. http://www.royal-magazin.de/england/queen-mary-kensington-brooch.htm Thus, I believe that the representation of this necklace without the base in the Illustrated London News image of Queen Mary's wedding gifts is incorrect; and that Queen Mary's Photographic jewellery inventory provides a true representation. I believe that both these pieces are photographed in their original form in Queen Mary's Jewellery Inventory. After all, if they had been altered, Queen Mary would have noted this, and therefore Roberts would have been able to see that they weren't in their original form, and he would have noted as such. --Previous Message-- : : I am having grave doubts that Queen Mary's : Girls of Great Britain and Ireland Tiara : [Girls] was originally made with that : loznge-pattern bandeau base. I have doubted : it over the years, actually. : Because it now seems as though one and the : same lozenge-pattern bandeau base was added : to the Surrey tiara/necklace [Surrey], the : QV wedding gift necklace/tiara [QV gift], : and the Girls. : : Page 139 shows the Girls in the photo : inventory with the bandeau base and the : caption says it is in original form. : But I would like to see the design drawing : for the Girls which is mentioned in note 1 : page 136. : The QV wedding gift necklace/tiara shown in : the photo inventory on page 191 with a : bandeau base added does not seem to be in : its original form. : : Do we know when the photo inventory was : started? : : For alterations made to the Girls in 1914, : it says on page 136 - : : "Either at the same date or possibly : later Queen Mary removed the lozenge-pattern : bandeau from the base ... " : : But if it is the same bandeau as added : to the Surrey and to the QV gift, then Queen : Mary had removed the bandeau from the Girls : much earlier than 1914 - or perhaps it was : not even attached before then. : : Queen Mary is wearing the Surrey with the : band in the pic dressed in black in mourning : for Queen Victoria (much earlier than 1914). : See page 194 and below in : http://members2.boardhost.com/royal-jewels/msg/1338140726.html : . : : :

Re: Puzzle 4- no bandeau base on the original "Girls" tiara ???

Posted by Nellie on May 29, 2012, 6:56 am, in reply to "Re: Puzzle 4- no bandeau base on the original "Girls" tiara ???"
124.170.1.127

Boffer - would you then assert that all three pieces - Girls, QV gift, and Surrey - were made originally with very very similar (identical?) lozenge-pattern bandeau bases? Here are pics of the QV gift worn as a tiara by Princess May for her wedding. Is there a bandeau base? --Previous Message-- : I believe that the base for the Girls of Great : Britain tiara is in its original form. It : can be seen being worn by Queen Mary, with : the base very shortly after her wedding. : : Furthermore, the easy with which the base : could be removed is obvious, as this Girls : of Great Britain Tiara was also designed to : be worn as a necklace (and Roberts notes : that it is also photographed as such in : Queen Mary's Jewellery inventory, but he : doesn't publish the image). : : Therefore the base, being original to the : tiara, would have been easily detachable. : And could easily be attached onto other : tiaras. All jewels of this era were hugely : versatile. : : As for the wedding necklace/tiara from Queen : Victoria. This is in its original form. The : added "base" to this necklace / : tiara was worn by Queen Mary on various : occasions as either a choker of bandeau, : which indicate it was originally part of the : jewel that she received as a wedding : present. : : This picture of Queen Mary in her turquoise : tiara, clearly show the diamond : tiara/necklace with its base being worn as a : choker by Queen Mary. : : : http://www.royal-magazin.de/england/queen-mary-turquoise-tiara.htm : : It is also of note that the turquoise tiara : is being worn in its original form, : indicating that it was soon after the : wedding, and thus the jewels are all in : their unaltered form. : : The base of the Queen Victoria's : necklace/tiara can also be seen here, being : worn as a bandeau with the aigrette, that : was a wedding gift from the Duke of York. : : : http://www.royal-magazin.de/england/queen-mary-kensington-brooch.htm : : Thus, I believe that the representation of : this necklace without the base in the : Illustrated London News image of Queen : Mary's wedding gifts is incorrect; and that : Queen Mary's Photographic jewellery : inventory provides a true representation. : : I believe that both these pieces are : photographed in their original form in Queen : Mary's Jewellery Inventory. After all, if : they had been altered, Queen Mary would have : noted this, and therefore Roberts would have : been able to see that they weren't in their : original form, and he would have noted as : such. :

Re: Puzzle 4- no bandeau base on the original "Girls" tiara ???

Posted by Nellie on May 29, 2012, 6:58 am, in reply to "Re: Puzzle 4- no bandeau base on the original "Girls" tiara ???"
124.170.1.127

Could be, but I am struggling over just how many such bases there were ! --Previous Message-- : My guess is that the lozenge-pattern bandeau : was always removable. : : Laurence

Re: Puzzle 4- no bandeau base on the original "Girls" tiara ???

Posted by Boffer on May 29, 2012, 7:05 am, in reply to "Re: Puzzle 4- no bandeau base on the original "Girls" tiara ???"

I believe there were only 2 bases. One for the Girls Tiara and another for Queen Victoria's Necklace/Tiara. I believe that the lozenge base worn with the Girls of Great Britain and Ireland Tiara was made for that Tiara. I believe that the base worn with the Surrey Tiara, was the base from the Girls of Great Britain and Ireland Tiara. (Which was/is easily detachable). In my view, there is no doubt that this base was made for the Girls tiara in its original form, and was occasionally worn with other tiaras. This is what I have in my detailed notes on the Surrey Tiara. And that the base worn with Queen Victoria's Necklace/Tiara was part of the original gift. Whether or not it was worn on the wedding day, I cannot be sure. But it was definitely worn in that image the gift being worn as a necklace, coupled with the fact that it was pictured in that state in the photo inventories, to me indicates that it is part of the original design. Although it would be nice to look at QM's notes to be absolutely sure. --Previous Message-- : : : Boffer - would you then assert that all : three pieces - Girls, QV gift, and Surrey - : were made originally with very very similar : (identical?) lozenge-pattern bandeau bases? : : Here are pics of the QV gift worn as a tiara : by Princess May for her wedding. : Is there a bandeau base? : : : : : --Previous Message-- : I believe that the base for the Girls of : Great : Britain tiara is in its original form. It : can be seen being worn by Queen Mary, with : the base very shortly after her wedding. : : Furthermore, the easy with which the base : could be removed is obvious, as this Girls : of Great Britain Tiara was also designed to : be worn as a necklace (and Roberts notes : that it is also photographed as such in : Queen Mary's Jewellery inventory, but he : doesn't publish the image). : : Therefore the base, being original to the : tiara, would have been easily detachable. : And could easily be attached onto other : tiaras. All jewels of this era were hugely : versatile. : : As for the wedding necklace/tiara from Queen : Victoria. This is in its original form. The : added "base" to this necklace / : tiara was worn by Queen Mary on various : occasions as either a choker of bandeau, : which indicate it was originally part of the : jewel that she received as a wedding : present. : : This picture of Queen Mary in her turquoise : tiara, clearly show the diamond : tiara/necklace with its base being worn as a : choker by Queen Mary. : : : : http://www.royal-magazin.de/england/queen-mary-turquoise-tiara.htm : : It is also of note that the turquoise tiara : is being worn in its original form, : indicating that it was soon after the : wedding, and thus the jewels are all in : their unaltered form. : : The base of the Queen Victoria's : necklace/tiara can also be seen here, being : worn as a bandeau with the aigrette, that : was a wedding gift from the Duke of York. : : : : http://www.royal-magazin.de/england/queen-mary-kensington-brooch.htm : : Thus, I believe that the representation of : this necklace without the base in the : Illustrated London News image of Queen : Mary's wedding gifts is incorrect; and that : Queen Mary's Photographic jewellery : inventory provides a true representation. : : I believe that both these pieces are : photographed in their original form in Queen : Mary's Jewellery Inventory. After all, if : they had been altered, Queen Mary would have : noted this, and therefore Roberts would have : been able to see that they weren't in their : original form, and he would have noted as : such. : : :

Re: Puzzle 4- no bandeau base on the original "Girls" tiara ???

Posted by Nellie on May 29, 2012, 7:17 am, in reply to "Re: Puzzle 4- no bandeau base on the original "Girls" tiara ???"

Thanks Boffer. I'm not as confident over it all as you are. I agree that this Ursula page shows the QV gift, but how can we be sure it was not altered by then? http://www.royal-magazin.de/england/queen-mary-turquoise-tiara.htm I've never seen the top edge as matching these bandeau bases. EDIT: it looks shortened from neckace to choker. Oh well. it will be interesting to read other posters on all this. --Previous Message-- : I believe there were only 2 bases. : : One for the Girls Tiara and another for : Queen Victoria's Necklace/Tiara. : : I believe that the lozenge base worn with : the Girls of Great Britain and Ireland Tiara : was made for that Tiara. : I believe that the base worn with the Surrey : Tiara, was the base from the Girls of Great : Britain and Ireland Tiara. (Which was/is : easily detachable). : In my view, there is no doubt that this base : was made for the Girls tiara in its original : form, and was occasionally worn with other : tiaras. : This is what I have in my detailed notes on : the Surrey Tiara. : : And that the base worn with Queen Victoria's : Necklace/Tiara was part of the original : gift. Whether or not it was worn on the : wedding day, I cannot be sure. But it was : definitely worn in that image the gift being : worn as a necklace, coupled with the fact : that it was pictured in that state in the : photo inventories, to me indicates that it : is part of the original design. : Although it would be nice to look at QM's : notes to be absolutely sure. :

Re: Puzzle 3 - photo session switches ?

Posted by Baxter on May 29, 2012, 7:37 am, in reply to "Puzzle 3 - photo session switches ?"
166.147.112.205

I'm not sure she removed the necklace during the sitting - or had it done afterwards. This is the same shot shown on page 194, except the long necklace has been painted out and her right cap sleeve brought up a bit.

Re: Puzzle 3 - photo session switches ?

Posted by Nellie on May 29, 2012, 7:54 am, in reply to "Re: Puzzle 3 - photo session switches ?"
124.170.1.127

Thank you Baxter !! I agree. And all that tweaking was done before they had computer software. --Previous Message-- : : I'm not sure she removed the necklace during : the sitting - or had it done afterwards. : : This is the same shot shown on page 194, : except the long necklace has been painted : out and her right cap sleeve brought up a : bit.

Re: Puzzle 4- no bandeau base on the original "Girls" tiara ???

Posted by jinja on May 29, 2012, 8:09 am, in reply to "Re: Puzzle 4- no bandeau base on the original "Girls" tiara ???"
76.230.225.118

The pictures of the base Boffer posted look different from the base of the Girls tiara. More open, fewer diamonds in the center row. It's interesting to see the Queen Victoria gift tiara as a choker. It doesn't look comfortable, but chokers are well named! jinja

Re: Puzzle 3 - photo session switches ?

Posted by Boris on May 29, 2012, 8:51 am, in reply to "Re: Puzzle 3 - photo session switches ?"
84.131.69.125

Retouching photographs was actually a legitimate profession in itself; some would even say, an art form. It has to be remembered that it determines our (idealized) perception of how Royals actually looked to this very day. All that changed in the last hundred years is the technical process, not the basic effect nor the purpose. --Previous Message-- : : Thank you Baxter !! I agree. : : And all that tweaking was done before they : had computer software. : : : --Previous Message-- : : I'm not sure she removed the necklace during : the sitting - or had it done afterwards. : : This is the same shot shown on page 194, : except the long necklace has been painted : out and her right cap sleeve brought up a : bit. : :

Re: Puzzle 3 - photo session switches ?

Posted by Nellie on May 29, 2012, 9:07 am, in reply to "Re: Puzzle 3 - photo session switches ?"
124.170.1.127

This pic of Queen Alexandra's waistline is one of my favourites for the art of retouching". --Previous Message-- : Retouching photographs was actually a : legitimate profession in itself; some would : even say, an art form. : It has to be remembered that it determines : our (idealized) perception of how Royals : actually looked to this very day. : All that changed in the last hundred years : is the technical process, not the basic : effect nor the purpose. :

Re: Puzzle 3 - photo session switches ?

Posted by Baxter on May 29, 2012, 10:03 am, in reply to "Re: Puzzle 3 - photo session switches ?"
166.147.123.17

And check out these photos from the same sitting: Of course this art form is still very much being used today, especially on celebrities to sell magazines.

Re: Puzzle 3 - photo session switches ?

Posted by Boris on May 29, 2012, 11:04 am, in reply to "Re: Puzzle 3 - photo session switches ?"
84.131.69.125

That's a great example, Baxter! And of course Queen Alexandra's amazing waist as well - I remember how Leslie Field singles out a certain photo of Alexandra in her book as being so rare because it's one of the very few un-retouched ones showing her in older age which have survived. Needless to say, retouching = airbrushing = photoshopping is today not just seen in celebrity pics, but continues to be very much in use for royal portraits... --Previous Message-- : : And check out these photos from the same : sitting: : : : : Of course this art form is still very much : being used today, especially on celebrities : to sell magazines. :

Re: QD - 5 Puzzles - Queen Mary bandeau

Posted by schermsd on May 29, 2012, 3:33 pm, in reply to "QD - 3 Puzzles - Queen Mary necklace/tiara wedding gifts - Surrey and QV"

To add fuel to the fire. Where did this tiara originate? Because look at the bottom of the tiara. The one with the Cambridge emeralds.

Link: Small Tiara

Re: QD - small tiara

Posted by Baxter on May 29, 2012, 3:39 pm, in reply to "Re: QD - 5 Puzzles - Queen Mary bandeau"
166.147.115.21

That's another mystery solved by Roberts. He states on page 181 that Queen Mary purchased it in 1925. The Cambridge Emeralds were detachable.

Re: QD - small tiara

Posted by schermsd on May 29, 2012, 4:02 pm, in reply to "Re: QD - small tiara"
69.133.42.228

Yes, but what exactly did she purchase. She already had the emeralds. Could have the base of the Queen Victoria's necklace be the base of this tiara? Why would she make a tiara with the same base as the Girls of Great Britian tiara. Looking at the book, most of the time the royals supplied the diamonds, emeralds, etc. The jewelry supplied the new design. I don't think the book gave enough info for me to conclude it was a new design, since the emeralds are not new. The book didn't go into specifics on this one.

Re: QD - small tiara

Posted by Boffer on May 29, 2012, 4:45 pm, in reply to "Re: QD - small tiara"

No. This s just complicating matters too much. By 1925 when the bandeau was purchased from Garrards, Queen Victoria's wedding gift had already been broken up and all diamonds used in creating Queen Mary's Fringe Tiara. Roberts quotes the Garrard bill for this bandeau tiara, as having cost £688; which is a high price indicating that this tiara was not commissioned from existing pieces, which was in fact a direct purchase. There is no need to speculate when we have the solid facts; that this was not a commission using Queen Mary's old diamonds, it was a direct purchase from Garrard stock. --Previous Message-- : Yes, but what exactly did she purchase. She : already had the emeralds. Could have the : base of the Queen Victoria's necklace be the : base of this tiara? Why would she make a : tiara with the same base as the Girls of : Great Britian tiara. Looking at the book, : most of the time the royals supplied the : diamonds, emeralds, etc. The jewelry : supplied the new design. I don't think the : book gave enough info for me to conclude it : was a new design, since the emeralds are not : new. The book didn't go into specifics on : this one. :

Re: QD - small tiara

Posted by jinja on May 29, 2012, 5:02 pm, in reply to "Re: QD - small tiara"
76.230.225.118

Whatever the base of the small tiara is, it isn't the base of the Girls tiara. The small tiara, as illustrated by the photo of Princess Alexandra, went to the Kents, the Girls tiara and its base to Princess Elizabeth. When the present Duchess of Kent had the small tiara remade, the base was preserved. Scroll down this link to the Royal Forums and you'll find a good picture of the Duchess wearing the new tiara, which by the way has something of the look of the Queen Victoria wedding gift tiara. http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f20/kent-jewels-6043.html Since Roberts indicates that this small tiara was a new purchase, we could conclude that the tiara base was a standard design, used for all of these fringe and lattice type tiaras. jinja

Re: retouching of pics

Posted by Nellie on May 29, 2012, 6:48 pm, in reply to "Re: Puzzle 3 - photo session switches ?"
124.170.1.127

I imagine this one has not been retouched either. If I recall correctly it was taken the year before Queen Alexandra died. If I may now add a comment, I've often in the past been a tad frustrated at long discussions here over precisely which jewels were depicted in various pics. I for one cannot always detect the retouching but often have my suspicions. --Previous Message-- : That's a great example, Baxter! : And of course Queen Alexandra's amazing : waist as well - I remember how Leslie Field : singles out a certain photo of Alexandra in : her book as being so rare because it's one : of the very few un-retouched ones showing : her in older age which have survived. : : Needless to say, retouching = airbrushing = : photoshopping is today not just seen in : celebrity pics, but continues to be very : much in use for royal portraits...

Re: QD - small tiara

Posted by schermsd on May 29, 2012, 7:12 pm, in reply to "Re: QD - small tiara"
69.133.42.228

Summary of the Cambridge Emeralds: (stated in QD) -QM acquried the emeralds in 1910 from Lady Kilmore -Emeralds were placed on Delhi Durbar Tiara in 1911/1912 -Removed permanently from D.D. tiara in 1922 -The bandeau in question was purchased in 1925/1926, but was upgraded in 1932 to adapt to the emeralds -The bandeau was bequeathed to the Duchess of Kent in 1953 without the emeralds. -1924 QM had the Vladmir tiara adapted to take the emeralds I guess QM really liked to play with her jewelry. I guess she didn't know what to do with the emeralds so she adapted a lot her tiaras to fit with the emeralds. In my post above, I was saying the emeralds were definately supplied by QM. I was suggesting that maybe the bottom of the bandeau came from Queen Victoria's Wedding Necklace. And the rest of the diamonds were purchased from the jeweller. I just guessing because, most of Queen Mary's jewelry was gifts from other people. Most of the time she just re-worked old jewelry. In the book, only the Lover's Knot Bow brooch is a new complete commission. In the book(related to the tiara in question) it doesn't stipulate what specifically QM gave to the jeweller to make this tiara. How do you know it was a "stock tiara?" I think I am missing something.

Re: retouching of pics

Posted by Nellie on May 29, 2012, 7:12 pm, in reply to "Re: retouching of pics"
124.170.1.127

Two more examples. I think the first, Duke of Windsor, was for a Beaton portrait and the second a Wilding - --Previous Message-- : : I imagine this one has not been retouched : either. : If I recall correctly it was taken the year : before Queen Alexandra died. : : If I may now add a comment, I've often in : the past been a tad frustrated at long : discussions here over precisely which jewels : were depicted in various pics. : I for one cannot always detect the : retouching but often have my suspicions. : : : : : --Previous Message-- : That's a great example, Baxter! : And of course Queen Alexandra's amazing : waist as well - I remember how Leslie Field : singles out a certain photo of Alexandra in : her book as being so rare because it's one : of the very few un-retouched ones showing : her in older age which have survived. : : Needless to say, retouching = airbrushing = : photoshopping is today not just seen in : celebrity pics, but continues to be very : much in use for royal portraits... : :

Re: retouching of pics

Posted by Nellie on May 29, 2012, 7:40 pm, in reply to "Re: retouching of pics"
124.170.1.127

And another. I recall reading that the Queen Mother was slimmed down for this Parkinson portrait

Re: Puzzle 3 - photo session switches ?

Posted by Paisley on May 29, 2012, 9:48 pm, in reply to "Re: Puzzle 3 - photo session switches ?"

The artistry of retouching aside - I think there were several poses and photos made during this sitting. There are many subtle differences between this (Baxter's) photo and the one in QD page 194. Agreed, though, the retouchers were masters of their art and we can probably never discern what changes they made. It's a good lesson. --Previous Message-- : : I'm not sure she removed the necklace during : the sitting - or had it done afterwards. : : This is the same shot shown on page 194, : except the long necklace has been painted : out and her right cap sleeve brought up a : bit. : : : : :

Re: Puzzle 4- the original "Girls" tiara ???

Posted by Paisley on May 29, 2012, 10:02 pm, in reply to "Re: Puzzle 4- no bandeau base on the original "Girls" tiara ???"
71.202.224.198

If I may shoe-horn in another question about the Girls of Great Britain and Ireland Tiara - QD page 138 shows the Girls on a "small coronet frame." It's a very small circumference at the top of QM's head. Would it be just part of the tiara? More of the built-in versatility?

Re: Puzzle 4- the original "Girls" tiara ???

Posted by jinja on May 29, 2012, 10:11 pm, in reply to "Re: Puzzle 4- the original "Girls" tiara ???"
76.230.225.118

Doesn't the Roberts text say that there is a coronet base as well as a tiara base for the Girls tiara/necklace? jinja

Re: QD - small tiara

Posted by jinja on May 29, 2012, 10:25 pm, in reply to "Re: QD - small tiara"
76.230.225.118

I think the best evidence is the design of the base of the small tiara, in both its forms. It doesn't look like the base of the Queen Victoria necklace/tiara. It looks much more like the removable base of the Girls tiara, but we know it is not that base. If it were the base of the Victoria piece, diamonds would have to have been added to make it look the way it does. Why do that for such a small tiara? jinja

Re: retouching of pics

Posted by jinja on May 29, 2012, 10:31 pm, in reply to "Re: retouching of pics"
76.230.225.118

And not very well, since her arm is blue and part of the wainscoting is missing! jinja

Re: Puzzle 4- the original "Girls" tiara ???

Posted by Paisley on May 29, 2012, 11:34 pm, in reply to "Re: Puzzle 4- the original "Girls" tiara ???"
71.202.224.198

Yes; I guess inherent in that is meant that only a portion of the piece is used. --Previous Message-- : Doesn't the Roberts text say that there is a : coronet base as well as a tiara base for the : Girls tiara/necklace? :

Re: Puzzle 4- the original "Girls" tiara ???

Posted by Nellie on May 30, 2012, 12:13 am, in reply to "Re: Puzzle 4- the original "Girls" tiara ???"
124.170.1.127

- or it forms a complete circle. --Previous Message-- : Yes; I guess inherent in that is meant that : only a portion of the piece is used. : : : : : --Previous Message-- : Doesn't the Roberts text say that there is a : coronet base as well as a tiara base for the : Girls tiara/necklace? : : :

QD - 6 - those pesky bands

Posted by Nellie on May 30, 2012, 12:24 am, in reply to "QD - 3 Puzzles - Queen Mary necklace/tiara wedding gifts - Surrey and QV"

OOPS - it beat me to the post! As Jinja has suggested, those bands could have been a standard type of design used at the time. I have been thinking that the wedding gifts to Princess May (Queen Mary) which are designated tiara/necklace or necklace/tiara might have been supplied with such a band. With band, the piece would be more rigid as a tiara. Without the band, the piece would be more flexible as a necklace. Here is the coronet pic. The coronet does not appear to include the band. EDIT: see next for a better detailed pic.

Re: QD - 6 - those pesky bands

Posted by Nellie on May 30, 2012, 12:42 am, in reply to "QD - 6 - those pesky bands"
124.170.1.127

I numbered the pieces some years ago but there are more pieces to identify than are numbered.

Re: QD - 6 - those pesky bands

Posted by joye on May 30, 2012, 12:51 am, in reply to "Re: QD - 6 - those pesky bands"
125.168.48.209

The bracelet looks like QEII's pearl bracelet left to her by Princess Maria Louise called a pearl and diamond honeycomb bracelet page 117 Fields --Previous Message-- : : I numbered the pieces some years ago but : there are more pieces to identify than are : numbered. : : :

Re: Puzzle 4- the original "Girls" tiara ???

Posted by Paisley on May 30, 2012, 12:57 am, in reply to "Re: Puzzle 4- the original "Girls" tiara ???"
71.202.224.198

Yes - and in that pic, it looks to be quite a small circle vs. the full tiara, even given the open space in back. So I guess we don't know whether all is used on the coronet frame or only a part.

Re: Puzzle 4- the original "Girls" tiara ???

Posted by jinja on May 30, 2012, 8:23 am, in reply to "Re: Puzzle 4- the original "Girls" tiara ???"
76.230.225.118

Take a piece of ribbon and wrap it around your head to find the length of an open backed tiara. Then loop that length into a circle. You'll find the circle is quite small, like the coronet. Other than having a removable base, I don't see any suggestion that the Girls tiara comes apart into separate pieces. It can be worn in three ways, as tiara, as coronet, and as necklace. I wish someone had been photographed wearing it as a necklace. jinja

Re: QD - small tiara

Posted by Boffer on May 31, 2012, 4:02 am, in reply to "Re: QD - small tiara"

Simply, it is the price that is the tell tale sign that it was purchased from Garrard stock. Seeing as it only cost a fraction of the cost to create large substantial pieces for Queen Mary using her stones (eg. Queen Mary's Fringe Tiara and Queen Mary's Lovers Knot Tiara; both only cost around £200 each and they are substantially larger pieces). This to me, indicates this small tiara was purchased from stock, with the augmented prices indicating that no stones were provided. Furthermore, the simple fact that Roberts often states when Queen Mary had pieces remodelled into new pieces, as do the Garrard bills, whereas the notes on this piece indicate that it was not remodelled, it was in fact purchased. Another example, other than Queen Mary's Lover's Knot Brooch, of Queen Mary purchasing items from Garrard stock, is the first of the chain bracelets was also purchased from stock. And the second chain bracelet was commissioned, but all stones were provided by Garrard (other than the detachable brooch). --Previous Message-- : Summary of the Cambridge Emeralds: : (stated in QD) : : -QM acquried the emeralds in 1910 from Lady : Kilmore : -Emeralds were placed on Delhi Durbar Tiara : in 1911/1912 : -Removed permanently from D.D. tiara in 1922 : -The bandeau in question was purchased in : 1925/1926, but was upgraded in 1932 to adapt : to the emeralds : -The bandeau was bequeathed to the Duchess : of Kent in 1953 without the emeralds. : -1924 QM had the Vladmir tiara adapted to : take the emeralds : : I guess QM really liked to play with her : jewelry. I guess she didn't know what to do : with the emeralds so she adapted a lot her : tiaras to fit with the emeralds. : : In my post above, I was saying the emeralds : were definately supplied by QM. I was : suggesting that maybe the bottom of the : bandeau came from Queen Victoria's Wedding : Necklace. And the rest of the diamonds were : purchased from the jeweller. I just : guessing because, most of Queen Mary's : jewelry was gifts from other people. Most of : the time she just re-worked old jewelry. In : the book, only the Lover's Knot Bow brooch : is a new complete commission. In the : book(related to the tiara in question) it : doesn't stipulate what specifically QM gave : to the jeweller to make this tiara. How do : you know it was a "stock tiara?" : I think I am missing something. :

Re: QD - small tiara

Posted by jinja on May 31, 2012, 7:35 am, in reply to "Re: QD - small tiara"
76.230.225.118

In the interest of complete clarity, Boris, you meant that it was *not* remodeled? jinja

Re: QD - small tiara

Posted by Boffer on May 31, 2012, 11:11 am, in reply to "Re: QD - small tiara"
86.146.68.16

Yes sorry Jinja, I (Boffer) meant to say that it was not remodelled from old pieces, this bandeau was a completely new purchase from Garrard in 1925. I apologise for the typos and errors in that post, I was posting in a hurry from my iPad. I have edited it accordingly. --Previous Message-- : In the interest of complete clarity, Boris, : you meant that it was *not* remodeled? :

Re: QD - small tiara

Posted by jinja on May 31, 2012, 3:38 pm, in reply to "Re: QD - small tiara"
76.230.225.118

Obviously, you were not the only one typing too fast and making mistakes! Mine was worse. jinja