• Smithsonian
    Institution
  • Travel
    With Us
  • Smithsonian
    Store
  • Smithsonian
    Channel
  • goSmithsonian
    Visitors Guide
  • Air & Space
    magazine

Smithsonian.com

  • Subscribe
  • History & Archaeology
  • Science
  • Ideas & Innovations
  • Arts & Culture
  • Travel & Food
  • At the Smithsonian
  • Photos
  • Videos
  • Games
  • Shop
  • Art
  • Design
  • Fashion
  • Music & Film
  • Books
  • Art Meets Science
  • Arts & Culture

A New Chapter in the Hope Diamond’s History

The National Museum of Natural History’s most famous gem gets a modern update

| | | Reddit | Digg | Stumble | Email |
  • By Abby Callard
  • Smithsonian.com, August 18, 2009, Subscribe
View More Photos »
Hope Diamond
The diamond’s current setting, once described by Evalyn Walsh McLean as a “frame of diamonds,” was originally created by Pierre Cartier and has remained largely unchanged since the early 1900s. (NMNH, SI)

Photo Gallery (1/7)

Rie Yatsuki Sandrine de Laage and Maurice Galli

Explore more photos from the story


$Header

Hope Diamond

Related Links

  • Vote for your favorite design

More from Smithsonian.com

  • Gem Gawking
  • The Hope Diamond

(Page 2 of 2)

Designer Rie Yatsuki created the third design, Renewed Hope, in which dangling diamonds recall the flow of water in nature, Yatsuki says. "I wanted to give a lot of brilliance to the Hope Diamond to enhance the beauty and the energy," she adds.

The museum announced today that just one of the three Harry Winston settings will be crafted. The Hope will be temporarily housed in the new setting and put on display this spring for a limited time, after which the setting will return to Harry Winston.

But which setting will be chosen? In an unusual move, museum officials say, the selection will be decided by the public, in a first-ever popular vote.

Between now and September 7, visitors will vote for one of the three designs through an online poll, hosted by the Smithsonian Channel, whose new documentary "Mystery of the Hope Diamond" is in production and due out next spring.

Alas, the new setting, unlike the diamond, isn't forever. After a limited-time, the diamond will be returned to its original, historic setting. Even the team at Harry Winston can't argue with that logic. "I think the setting is part of the heritage, it's part of what the Hope diamond is today," de Laage says.

The Hope Diamond wasn't known by that name until the 1830s, relatively late in the diamond's long history, when it was owned by the Hope family in London. The stone's journey began in India more than 300 years ago, when it was purchased by a French merchant. For generations, the stone traveled from France to London to New York and back again and then in 1910 it came to Washington, D.C., where the diamond's so-called curse evolved. It began as a tall tale that jeweler Pierre Cartier concocted to entice the interest of the wealthy and prestigious Evalyn Walsh McLean. She purchased the stone in 1912. Harry Winston bought the stone in 1949, two years after Evalyn's death, and the rest is history.


The Hope Diamond is the crown jewel of the National Museum of Natural History's internationally recognized, 10,000-strong gems collection. Ever since its arrival at the Smithsonian in 1958, visitors have flocked to see the fabled 45.52-carat brilliant blue beauty.

Today marks a new chapter in the history of the famous diamond. The New York-based jeweler Harry Winston, the firm that donated the Hope to the museum, has drafted three new modern settings for the stone. All three designs, exquisitely rendered by two of the firm's top designers, illustrate the Hope enshrined in baguette diamonds.

The decision to reset the diamond came on the heels of the 50th anniversary of Harry Winston's donation. "As we were thinking about the anniversary, we came up with a theme of giving the public a chance to see the diamond in a way they've never seen it before," says Jeffrey Post, curator of gems at the National Museum of Natural History. "How often do you have a 50th? We needed to have a celebration." The celebration, they decided, would be to display the Hope in a new way.

The challenge, then, was to create a modern design that improved the way the diamond looked. To give the Hope an updated look for its golden anniversary, the team at Harry Winston started with dozens of preliminary sketches, and eventually winnowed them down to three finalists: Renewed Hope, A Journey of Hope and Embracing Hope.

The designs, says Sandrine de Laage, vice president of design at Harry Winston, create a "very interesting contrast between the deep blue of the diamond, the brilliance of the diamond and the cooler aspects of the baguette diamonds."

Trained in France and born to a family of jewelry designers, Maurice Galli has worked for the firm for nearly two decades and is the only designer to have worked with Harry Winston, who died in 1978.

Galli says his first design, A Journey of Hope, symbolizes the American experience. In it, the stone asymmetrically joins strands of baguettes. Galli calls it a crossroad, "uniting hope and opportunity."

In Galli's second design, Embracing Hope, a ribbon of three rows of baguette diamonds hugs the Hope Diamond at the center. "The idea there was to create the very strong contrast between the brilliance, the life of the Hope itself and the look of the baguettes," he says.

Designer Rie Yatsuki created the third design, Renewed Hope, in which dangling diamonds recall the flow of water in nature, Yatsuki says. "I wanted to give a lot of brilliance to the Hope Diamond to enhance the beauty and the energy," she adds.

The museum announced today that just one of the three Harry Winston settings will be crafted. The Hope will be temporarily housed in the new setting and put on display this spring for a limited time, after which the setting will return to Harry Winston.

But which setting will be chosen? In an unusual move, museum officials say, the selection will be decided by the public, in a first-ever popular vote.

Between now and September 7, visitors will vote for one of the three designs through an online poll, hosted by the Smithsonian Channel, whose new documentary "Mystery of the Hope Diamond" is in production and due out next spring.

Alas, the new setting, unlike the diamond, isn't forever. After a limited-time, the diamond will be returned to its original, historic setting. Even the team at Harry Winston can't argue with that logic. "I think the setting is part of the heritage, it's part of what the Hope diamond is today," de Laage says.

The Hope Diamond wasn't known by that name until the 1830s, relatively late in the diamond's long history, when it was owned by the Hope family in London. The stone's journey began in India more than 300 years ago, when it was purchased by a French merchant. For generations, the stone traveled from France to London to New York and back again and then in 1910 it came to Washington, D.C., where the diamond's so-called curse evolved. It began as a tall tale that jeweler Pierre Cartier concocted to entice the interest of the wealthy and prestigious Evalyn Walsh McLean. She purchased the stone in 1912. Harry Winston bought the stone in 1949, two years after Evalyn's death, and the rest is history.


Single Page « Previous 1 2

    Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.


Related topics: National Museum of Natural History Diamonds Museums The Mall


| | | Reddit | Digg | Stumble | Email |
 

Add New Comment


Name: (required)

Email: (required)

Comment:

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until Smithsonian.com has approved them. Smithsonian reserves the right not to post any comments that are unlawful, threatening, offensive, defamatory, invasive of a person's privacy, inappropriate, confidential or proprietary, political messages, product endorsements, or other content that might otherwise violate any laws or policies.

Comments (62)

I thought the 'Journey of Hope' setting was the best of the three choices. Have seen the Hope Diamond displayed with the Crown Jewels while in Ontario, CN, when I was a teen. Have also seen the Hope Diamond at the Museum of Natural History in DC many times too. Looking forward to seeing it in its new setting soon. Wonder if they'd let me see it up close and personal since I am related to Evalyn Walsh McLean? Perhaps I should write to Harry Winston about that.

Posted by Maria New on December 11,2010 | 02:26 AM

You guys are obsesed with the hope diamond but they shouldn't change it i guess.

Posted by sanbiotch on December 2,2010 | 06:43 PM

No product endorsements? Shame on the Smithsonian decision makers and HW! Those who never heard of them certainly know who they are now and where they do business. Why couldn't they have hosted a fund-raising celebration instead of this huge waste of time and money? Maybe then the Smithsonian could have developed a better, less crowded venue for the Hope Diamond. Of the MANY times I have brought out of town guests to see the Hope, none have ever complained about its setting...only about the suffocating small venue which causes much pushing and shoving. Last summer, an elderly friend from Texas was shoved hard enough to make her fall except for the kindness of the people waiting behind us who caught her.

Posted by Carmen Wood on November 10,2010 | 06:01 AM

Great info! Just curious if this takes into account the period of time between Marie Antoinette’s beheading and the resurfacing of the Hope Diamond 20 years later. It is my contention that I know who ran off with it and why. You see my ancestor was the one behind the reappearance of the famous stone that started the War of 1812. COME VISIT MY BLOGSITE http://crystalperigord.wordpress.com/

Posted by Crystal on November 2,2010 | 03:05 PM

who were the past owners?

Posted by dominic on October 20,2010 | 01:00 PM

Does anyone knows about the result of this competition? I participated in it because the set up is going to be TEMPORARY only. Does anyone have any idea of how many competitors participated in this competition?

Posted by ELIANE BOECHAT on May 27,2010 | 04:10 PM

Hi! I participated in the Smithsonian Competion regarding "Create Your Own Set For The Hope Diamond" and now I can't find out any link connecting to this Competition to find out who won this competition. Could you assist me with that? Thanks in advance, Eliane

Posted by ELIANE BOECHAT on May 6,2010 | 02:21 PM

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

Posted by joe price on November 3,2009 | 05:53 AM

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...

Posted by Em on September 17,2009 | 09:43 AM

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Nitemare on September 16,2009 | 06:48 AM

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

Posted by Barbara Fornalik on September 15,2009 | 04:00 PM

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

Posted by Big Diamond on September 14,2009 | 02:42 PM

WHY?

Posted by MONA STENBERG on September 12,2009 | 10:54 AM

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.

Posted by Dee McHose on September 11,2009 | 09:57 PM

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.

Posted by Lydia Mazer on September 11,2009 | 11:05 AM

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.

Posted by Jody on September 9,2009 | 11:09 AM

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.

Posted by Margaret Lawson on September 8,2009 | 07:26 AM

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

Posted by louis weller on September 7,2009 | 07:38 PM

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.

Posted by Mummiet on September 7,2009 | 06:37 PM

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

Posted by ronald g linn on September 6,2009 | 06:51 PM

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!

Posted by B. McBryde on September 6,2009 | 06:46 PM

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!

Posted by Jones on September 6,2009 | 05:23 PM

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

Posted by Ed Johnson on September 6,2009 | 06:23 AM

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

Posted by retire05 on September 5,2009 | 11:41 PM

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?

Posted by Laura on September 5,2009 | 09:12 PM

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.

Posted by Wells Oyster on September 5,2009 | 08:49 PM

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.

Posted by joanann walther on September 5,2009 | 08:02 PM

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

Posted by KATHLEEN on September 5,2009 | 05:35 PM

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.

Posted by Griselda on September 5,2009 | 05:30 PM

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!

Posted by Mary Gregson (Jackie) on September 5,2009 | 02:09 PM

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.

Posted by Terri on September 5,2009 | 01:58 PM

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?

Posted by D Sawyer on September 5,2009 | 01:29 PM

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.

Posted by Sandi on September 5,2009 | 01:09 PM

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.

Posted by Shana on September 5,2009 | 12:54 PM

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.

Posted by Nancy Killoran on September 5,2009 | 12:36 PM

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

Posted by Lynne on September 5,2009 | 12:25 PM

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.

Posted by DEBBIE on September 5,2009 | 12:05 PM

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.

Posted by Ruth Fischel Smith on September 5,2009 | 11:55 AM

I would leave as is.

Posted by Leona Olson on September 5,2009 | 11:36 AM

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!

Posted by Linda Andrews on September 5,2009 | 10:49 AM

And who is paying for all of this?

Posted by Judy on September 5,2009 | 09:42 AM

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!

Posted by Dianna on September 5,2009 | 09:34 AM

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.

Posted by Merri on September 3,2009 | 10:43 AM

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

Posted by Jon on September 2,2009 | 12:57 AM

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.

Posted by Judi Stull on September 2,2009 | 05:39 PM

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.

Posted by Raymond Merrick on September 2,2009 | 05:05 PM

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.

Posted by Robert Black on September 2,2009 | 03:53 PM

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.

Posted by Barbara Steele on September 2,2009 | 03:48 PM

cool hope diamond

Posted by Amber bolen on September 1,2009 | 08:18 AM

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!

Posted by Jill on August 30,2009 | 02:17 PM

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

Posted by amanda evans on August 28,2009 | 07:05 AM

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!

Posted by Dawn on August 27,2009 | 08:12 PM

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!

Posted by LMG on August 24,2009 | 06:05 PM

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 ?

Posted by patrick on August 24,2009 | 01:04 PM

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.

Posted by Donna on August 23,2009 | 01:00 PM

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....

Posted by Michael on August 22,2009 | 08:47 AM

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.

Posted by gloria on August 22,2009 | 08:42 AM

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

Posted by Fiona on August 19,2009 | 02:48 AM

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

Posted by Phil on August 19,2009 | 11:01 PM

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

Posted by Claire Davis on August 19,2009 | 07:02 PM

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

Posted by paul Leonard on August 19,2009 | 12:57 PM

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

Posted by kate on August 19,2009 | 11:59 AM



Advertisement


Most Popular

  • Viewed
  • Emailed
  • Commented
  1. Never Underestimate the Power of a Paint Tube
  2. TKO By Checkmate: Inside the World of Chessboxing
  3. The Story Behind Banksy
  4. Will the Real Great Gatsby Please Stand Up?
  5. A Brief History of Chocolate
  6. Teller Reveals His Secrets
  7. The Saddest Movie in the World
  8. When Did Girls Start Wearing Pink?
  9. Real Places Behind Famously Frightening Stories
  10. The Revolutionary Effect of the Paperback Book
  1. Never Underestimate the Power of a Paint Tube
  2. Teller Reveals His Secrets
  3. The Revolutionary Effect of the Paperback Book
  4. Creole Gumbo Recipe From Mrs. Elie

View All Most Popular »

Advertisement

Follow Us

Smithsonian Magazine
@SmithsonianMag
Follow Smithsonian Magazine on Twitter

Sign up for regular email updates from Smithsonian.com, including daily newsletters and special offers.

In The Magazine

May 2013

  • Patriot Games
  • The Next Revolution
  • Blowing Up The Art World
  • The Body Eclectic
  • Microbe Hunters

View Table of Contents »






First Name
Last Name
Address 1
Address 2
City
State   Zip
Email


Travel with Smithsonian




Smithsonian Store

Stars and Stripes Throw

Our exclusive Stars and Stripes Throw is a three-layer adaption of the 1861 “Stars and Stripes” quilt... $65



View full archiveRecent Issues


  • May 2013


  • Apr 2013


  • Mar 2013

Newsletter

Sign up for regular email updates from Smithsonian magazine, including free newsletters, special offers and current news updates.

Subscribe Now

About Us

Smithsonian.com expands on Smithsonian magazine's in-depth coverage of history, science, nature, the arts, travel, world culture and technology. Join us regularly as we take a dynamic and interactive approach to exploring modern and historic perspectives on the arts, sciences, nature, world culture and travel, including videos, blogs and a reader forum.

Explore our Brands

  • goSmithsonian.com
  • Smithsonian Air & Space Museum
  • Smithsonian Student Travel
  • Smithsonian Catalogue
  • Smithsonian Journeys
  • Smithsonian Channel
  • About Smithsonian
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising
  • Subscribe
  • RSS
  • Topics
  • Member Services
  • Copyright
  • Site Map
  • Privacy Policy
  • Ad Choices

Smithsonian Institution