A New Chapter in the Hope Diamond’s History

The thing isn't broken and it is stunning the way it is. Harry Winston should keep their creative hands off it.

I like it as is , but if your going to change it l vote the "Harry Winston" setting.

If it must be reset please keep as simple as possible. The current setting way overwhelms the size and beauty of the Hope Diamond. Let it speak for itself

I can't pic one of the new designs because they all overshadow the beauty of the Hope. There's beauty in simplicity it seems Pierre Cartier knew that better than the people who created the new designs. It should be left alone. Also let's not forget what tends to happen to people who mess with this particular diamond

All three new designs are much too fussy and detracts from the main diamond itself! Why can't people leave well enough alone?

First - "THE VOTE" nice idea but why wasn't the current design included? My vote was not cast because the option of choosing the current design was not listed. Shame on you Smithsonian for leaving the 'purists' out of the vote.

Secondly -- In this age of computer wizardry the display could have featured all the 'new and improved' designs on a screen. The split screen could have the an image of the present Hope so comparisons could be made. Why wasn't this considered?

Third -- CHANGE is not always for the better, it is simply CHANGE.

LEAVE THE HOPE ALONE. Would one add a new hairdo to the Statue of Liberty in order to see the possibilities? I don't think so.

I saw the Hope Diamond when I was ten. The family vacation in DC was fun but my mom was driven to finally see the Hope and I can tell you we were all impressed.

The Hope's heft and size is displayed admirably by the present setting. Looking at the other settings the Hope becomes an abortion of what it was.

LEAVE THE HOPE ALONE. I, too, didn't vote because the present setting was not a choice....

KISS!

All the designs are fussy. They overshadow the diamond itself. Please don't do this. It's wonderful as it is. Simple and perfect.

If the jeweler who DONATED the diamond to the Smithsonian feels an updated mounting is something worth doing to celebrate the 50th anniversary of their DONATION to the Smithsonian, I think they have the right. Would you be happier if they decided they wanted it back to sell on the open market, or to cut it up for profit ?

Re-setting the gem would destroy a significant part of its historic context. Leave it as it is! I've seen it three times. It's simply (emphasis on simply) awesome. It's like resetting the British Crown jewels. A travesty!

Ms. Eleanor Kidd is a dear friend of mine and was the last person to wear the Hope Diamond before Mr. Winston gave it to the Smithsonian. He had wanted her to have her portrait made wearing it before he donated it. The portrait still hangs in her living room. We spoke about the 50th anniversary plans to reset the diamond. Ms. Kidd is now 94 years old and she can't imagine why you would want to change perfection! Since there's probably no other living person who has worn the diamond, we thought you might like her opinion!

why r people complaining bout the change, its going back to its original setting anyway. i believe its a good thing, with its history it would be a shame to see it stay this same way forever.a new setting will let people see it in a different way

Leave it alone!! Why do you need to change the design? It is a part of history and it is beautiful the way it is now.... Just leave it alone!

cool hope diamond

I am in favor of leaving it just as it is. The settings do not enhance the beauty of the diamond. That cannot be improved upon.

I saw the Hope Diamond in 2000. If it has to be changed, I like #1 better than the others, but really, not all change is for the best. I do not understand why it needs to be reset - this stone in its current setting is already by far the most impressive in the entire Smithsonian collection.

Leave the diamond alone! Why mess with history just for the sake of change. The diamond is set the way it was and should be. To change the setting, even temporarily is to change history and the future! Please leave it just the way it is.

Why change a historical design just because you've had it for 50 years? My son saw the pictures and said, "So, they're going to break it just because they've had it for 50 years?" I think it's criminal to change it. It's beautiful the way it is. I'm not voting for any of the choices.

Seems to me a tremendous waste of money at a time when budget is the issue.

Am I the only person who finds the original setting to be hideous? It does not show this diamond at its best. A simple mounting for such a stone would be more desireable. A plain platinum mounting with a simple surrounding of white diamonds, baguettes mostly would be better.

The diamond itself is history not the setting. I think the new design would be wonderful to add more to the story of the diamond. After all isn't that the real reason people go the see the diamond!

And who is paying for all of this?

I think you should leave the Hope Diamond in the current setting. Why change it? It is perfect the way it is. Change for change sake is not always good. I am not voting for any of the changes!

I would leave as is.

Having seen the Hope Diamond several times, and being the daughter of a Jeweler/Gemoligist, the breath-taking beauty of the Hope Diamond should never be changed. Its' timeless beauty is unique. It is truly one of a kind.

I also agree that the present setting has the contrast of the white diamonds to set it off, and leaves the blue of the diamond to be the focal point.
After all it is the blue clarity of the Hope diamond that is unique and should not be overpowered.

I feel that the current setting of the hope diamond should not be altered in any way after all it was donated the the way it is now and was meant to stay that way. It is a work of art like any other valuable painting or artifact. It is a beautiful piece of history that should remain for posterity.
Mrs. M

I vote for the Journey of Hope design, the offset one. It is the only setting that shows the diamond independently, and not surrounded closely by other stones.

I think this is a very nice idea. It's only for a limited time. It will go back to the original setting, so those worried about that can calm down.

I didn't vote because I don't care for any of the new designs, it's spectacular the way it is. I am very happy to learn that the new setting will be a temporary change and that it will return to it's current setting after the anniversary.

I think it should be left the way it is. The current setting far outshines newer, flashier and, (in my opinion) cheaper looking settings. Besides, what's the point?

The suggested settings definitely take away from the diamond.
I say, LEAVE THE HOPE ALONE. What's wrong with Cartier? In the midst of a deep recession, this seems wasteful.

One of the highlights of my youth, I'm now 83,- I WORE THE HOPE. During World War II Evelyn Walsh McLean gave parties for service men at her house in Georgetown. I was dating a paratrooper and he took me as his guest. Dinner, swimming in the pool, dancing to a band, champagme and later Mrs. M asked the girls if they would like to wear her jewerly, I was lucky enough to get the Hope Diamond with it's diamond necklace and wore it until another girl decided it was her turn. My sister gave me the Smithsonian copy later and I show it off every now and again. If they are going to change the setting I'm glad I have a copy of the one I wore.
My claim to fame!

Leave the Hope Diamond alone...please! There must be another way to celebrate 50 years without disturbing the original setting. The three new designs are over the top and atrocious. They simply overshadow the Hope Diamond. I would think one would want to celebrate the Hope Diamond and not the new designs.

I vote to leave it in it's original setting. Why tamper with perfection?

I wish they wouldn't change the setting. It's a gorgeou setting. The designs that are being considered are very, very hollywood and not at all appealing. I know if they change it I won't be going back to see it anymore. It's a shame to ruin such a storied piece.

Is the purpose of this redesign to emulate the diamond or the designer? Having viewed the stone on three different occasions I felt that the mounting and the necklace was overwhelming the stone.

Did no one READ this article? The new setting is TEMPORARY -- something to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Harry Winston's donation of the Hope Diamond to the Smithsonian. It will call new attention to the Diamond, and be a reason for people to go see it again or for the first time. Then it will be reset in its usual setting. I expect that Harry Winston is underwriting the cost of resetting the piece, so what on earth is all the controversy about?

Why the change? Some things are better left alone. Change the setting and you change the history of the Hope diamond.

Modern kitsch detracts from the stone - all three designs' attempts at glory should be judged hopeless. Leave it alone.

I agree with Merri. I always thought the circle of diamonds detracted from the Hope itself. I think a simpler version of the first new design would be nice - the idea of a message of hope is powerful and one we need in this day and age.

I think the idea is to attract new eyes to the hope diamond by using the press of changing the setting. As a history teacher, I think it important to continue to find ways of bringing new generations to our nation's museums.

I also read a study recently that said when arts institutions, like theaters and museums, try to stay the same in hard times, they lose a lot of donations and patrons, and are much more financially worse off in the end. I appreciate the creativity of the Smithsonian and hope it will help the institution to continue to thrive!

Why? If the change will return to the historic setting why risk damage to the Hope Diamond. The Hope Diamond is one of the most popular items at the National Museum of Natural History. It was given to the museum as is and is recognized in the setting and design by people all over the world. Why do you need to change or update it. Would you change the Wright brother's plane or some piece of equipment from NASA just because it had been in the museum for fifty years? How foolish to even think about it! Have the drawings or design sketches to show but don't fool with the Hope diamond. There are more important things that need to be done. Celebrate but be sensible, please!

Please leave it alone, it is a classic as is.
All three designs look contrived and cheap.

I think the current setting is too gaudy and overshadows the Hope's beauty. Let the Hope stand alone without detractions. I vote for the simpler the better design, which does not cover any of the current choices.

I saw the hope diamond when it was first displayed.nothing you do could improve the image only distract from this beautiful stone.

The designs are fine but what is the problem with everyone trying to change things that do not need changed. It would be nice 100 years from now that people can see the Hope Diamond they way it was originally designed.

It will no longer be the true Hope Diamond if it is changed.
I perfer to leave it as the magnificent piece of art that it is.

I don't understand the point of resetting the Hope at considerable expense, only to return it to its former setting. If Harry Winston wants to commemorate and modernize the gem, he should put his creative genius to work on a complementary pair of earrings and donate them to the Smithsonian's permanent collection. Seems like a better use of money and talent to design something new that will become historically important in its own right.

I feel resetting the Hope Diamond is like doing redesigning the White house, Independence Hall, Statue of Liberty, etc. The history of the Hope Diamond is of a stone in its current setting not in a modern setting. Even if the setting is temporary, there will be still be pictures on file and everyone who see both the photos of the old and new setting will still keep comparing them and therefore detract the history of the diamond. Also, how would this effect the "curse" of the Hope, it has been pretty quiet up to now.

I took a look at the three proposed designs and liked the waterfall effect necklace the best. With that being said I have to agree with the majority....leave it alone. The stone's beauty is so incredible it would be hard to make it look any better than as it is right now. Perhaps the design proposals could be just that.....ideas, fantasies, proposals, and let it go with that. It seems there is always someone somewhere who can find a way to spend more money on something that does really need it. This most assuredly applies to the Hope diamond.

WHY?

I think the current setting looks like a broken molar tooth in my mouth.

I vote for leaving it the way it is. It is history just as it is!

LEAVE IT ALONE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why change something that isn't broken just to change it.
I hope the The Smithsonian listens to the people and not there own interest of change after all it is displayed for the PEOPLE in Our museum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here's my two cents...and I have to ask and repeat this quote "And who is paying for all of this? Judy, Sept. 5th"

I did not see where it mentioned who would pay for this little finacial fling in the article so forgive me if I it was metioned.

Why does Laura ("I expect that Harry Winston is underwriting the cost of resetting the piece, so what on earth is all the controversy about?" Laura, Sep. 5th) expect that HW is footing the bill. I strongly suspect my taxes are paying for this fiasco.

And I believe the "Hope Diamond" is the sum of its totality. Whether I like the setting or not is not the issue. If a fuss is being made for the "50th" then highlight the real thing and lets not get caught up in the false representation (which would confuse a generation of kids who would expect the HOPE Diamond to look like the image the Smithsonian shows of it only to be confused when they later visit it and it is not what was represented) I might also add this would be free advertising for Harry Winston. Would HW be paying for the advertising? A contribution to the Smithsonian comes with financial benefits to the contributor so I do not believe the Smithsonian "owes" anythign to HW. The tax benefits HW enjoys as a result of the donation is plenty of "thanks".

I did not think I had much to say but...

the hope diamond......more power to you!