[Valeria101]

Well, the new necklace might have been loosely inspired by the old.

But was Anthonis Mor so blind to the color and shape of Mary Tudor's jewel? One could make a copy of the setting with as much detail as given in the painting, but hardly recognize the size and color of the enormous pearl in Liz Taylor's necklace.

Could these possibly be one and the same? What do you make of it?

Links to source for portrait.

Link to source for necklace picture. (Thanks Caitlin!)

The relevant detail:



Click on the thumbnail image below for the screen-full... (oops for the adds!)

[knotty panda]

How accurate were painters, but I guess that's your Peregrination question . I always thought there was no doubt the pearls were one and the same without the portrait evidence. Now this description says differently. Interesting. Another pearly mystery? As a side note, the hem of her bodice appears to be trimmed in black pearls and the cuffs in white. I wonder if that's accurate as well.

[Valeria101]

Originally Posted by knotty panda

As a side note, the hem of her bodice appears to be trimmed in black pearls and the cuffs in white. I wonder if that's accurate as well.

Right. There are hardly any black pearls in portraits anywhere.

I've been researching the pearling story of the alleged source of the Peregrina - the Gulf of Panama. Haven't had time to actually read the sources, but there are decent reports regarding the type of pearls, production, species. The whole shebang.

I doubt I could ever find out more than the famous sellers and buyers of the pearl had. No way. But since no sources are cited for a few centuries of history gap on this pearl... 'sounds like even a rookie could have fun with the story!

For once, I am surprised that there are no pear growers there now.

[Satine De La Courcel]

Originally Posted by knotty panda

How accurate were painters, but I guess that's your Peregrination question . I always thought there was no doubt the pearls were one and the same without the portrait evidence. Now this description says differently. Interesting. Another pearly mystery? As a side note, the hem of her bodice appears to be trimmed in black pearls and the cuffs in white. I wonder if that's accurate as well.

Knotty,

At this time in history the painyters were very accurate. and did the best withdetail their skills would let them especially in England, also many sources on teh web are incorrect withtheir descriptions. I have notices, look for several sources not just one.. its safer that way.

Yes I believe these pearls are one in the same. the same, What you see as black pearls I see as Gemstones, I base it on other necklaces form this era there are some portraits of Balck pearls but not many and very few writtien accounts of black pearls. they were not as popular as the "whites/creams" so were not iused as much.. look at portrait os QEI in the Ermine portrait you wil lsee Black pealrs and in her Armada portrait on the crown in the background has black pearls as well.

I am not at home nor will I be for two weeks.. so when I get home I will try to look up the links to other portraits with what I believe are pearls of color.. Please send me a reminder okay... So I do not forget

Cheers

Ash

[knotty panda]

You know, Ash, now that you mention it, the reason I said black pearls is because what I see is dark and I see a round shape. My mind says pearls to that since I saw no faceting. You're right, they could be cabs. It would have been so much easier if photography had been invented earlier in history.

[Valeria101]

I'm betting on pearls; not sure if a series of high done gray cabs would have been likely, and then, dark pearls should have been all the rage consistent with the Pearl Island source. Besides, Peregrina is reported as 'gray' here and there... wonder what source could that bit of description be from.

If this was Victorian or Arts & Crafts jewelry, a row of gray moonstone cabs wouldn't have been a surprise. As is... not s sure.

I don't know any good reference for 1550s British jewelry online. Do you?

[Slraep]

Originally Posted by Valeria101

Besides, Peregrina is reported as 'gray' here and there... wonder what source could that bit of description be from.

Hi Ana,

Do you think that after La Peregrina was "peeled", the colour might have changed? That it was greyer before?

Slraep

[Valeria101]

Hm... that, only the pearl knows by now, I would think.

Between the long 'cucumber' shape of the pearl in the painting and the fat pear of the Liz necklace, it must have been chopped off rather then just peeled! At least to me, the difference of shape seems very large.

Now, obviously the painter may have taken some licence, or it may be that the pearl was simply caught from a different angle and the difference between the two images is not material... Just writing what I see

However, Antonio Morro owed his numerous international royal commissions particularly to the accuracy of his portraits - that's pretty much all he did for a career, and was knighted for achieving particularly that one (part of a series after the same sitting). Basically, I'd bet he took as much care of the queen's outstanding jewel as of her face.

That's pretty much what I had in mind.

I sort of remember that there were doubts about the attribution of the Liz pearl before. Do you remember who-what-when by any chance ?

[Caitlin]

I see black pearls alternating with gemstones that match the gem in the corsage prat of the jewlery when I click through to the larger version. I think those are black, or at least silver pearls on her sleeves too. they are distinctly different in color than the other white pearls in the painting.This portrait shows an austere Queen Mary and the black pearls seem appropriate. This is also the Queen Mary that gave the pink pearl freshwater necklace to the Duke of Norfolk 400 years ago (if I got my Dukes straight!) Anyway those pearls are sti;lll in perfect condition. I am looking for the link..........

One reason black pearls may not have been as popular is their scarcity-in that case royality would snap them all up because their beauty is undeniable. Remember many of the pearls back then were from the new world, the Bay of Cortez, in particular, and we have all seen Douglas' pearls. Back then Bay of Cortez pearls would have looked the same, but would have been solid nacre natural pearls.

17.56x25mm 202.28 grains is 50.6 carats. Weight and measuremnets given in the accompanying text. Now to find some measuresments for Liz's pearl- which looks like it may be larger. I found some measurements that are identical to the above. Therefore I do not think the measurements were taken of the pearl in the picture, but from the current holder of the title- if they are different pearls- and the eye certainly says so.

[Valeria101]

Originally Posted by Caitlin Williams

Back then Bay of Cortez pearls would have looked the same, but would have been solid nacre natural pearls.

Naughty Caitlin! Those are dangerous things to talk about ... Don't you have no mercy ?

Originally Posted by Caitlin Williams

17.56x25mm 202.28 grains is 50.6 carats. Weight and measurements given in the accompanying text. Now to find some measurements for Liz's pearl- which looks like it may be larger.

Those are for the pearl in Liz Taylor's necklace. Ooops for the confusion..

[Caitlin]

I like to mention this necklace when Queen Mary comes up because it shows 400+ year old pearls still in exquisite condition

Link
Necklace of Mary, Queen of Scots
Natural freshwater pearls, gold
Scotland, 1550–1587

This necklace includes 34 natural pearls from the River Tay, in Scotland. While imprisoned by Queen Elizabeth I, Mary, Queen of Scots, presented it to the Duke of Norfolk, who would have become her fourth husband if the marriage had taken place.
By kind permission of His Grace The Duke of Norfolk KG

[Caitlin]

Those are for the pearl in Liz Taylor's necklace. Ooops for the confusion

They are also the measurements in the text of the photo. So my statement was, unless it is the same pearl as Liz'- and the eye certainly says not- those would not be the correct measurements.

On the other hand the photo of La Peregina seems to show a bulge in front. I am wondering it it were 3/4 view, it could look the same as the one in the portrait.

They seem to be phographing it from its best angle while the painter, (is it Anthony Mor van Doshorst? Can't quite read it) showed the pearl from an angle that makes it unique and identifiable.

[knotty panda]

Now why would the Smithsonian display a pearl attributing it to Queen Mary if it were not so?

[Caitlin]

Look what I found: Queen Isabella and La Peregrina in 3 different views.

Guess where I found it? Douglas' website. Perlas.com.

[Caitlin]

I have two more. Here is the first: Queen Mary again