Hope Diamond
It's almost the end of the week, and it's August, so I think blogging about Elise Castelli's post on the future of the Hope Diamond is totally fair game. And I sure hope that Harry Winston isn't charging the federal government for putting the famous, and famously cursed, diamond in a new setting. Especially because, wow are those potential setting SERIOUSLY ugly.
COMMENTS
Post a Comment
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Editor in Chief Tom Shoop, along with other editors and staff correspondents, take a fresh look at news affecting the management and operations of the federal bureaucracy.
IS THIS MORE OF THE "CHANGE" WE ARE SUPPOSED TO LOOK FORWARD TO ? IT MAY BECOME ANOTHER CURSE !
MY "HOPE" IS; WHY IS REDESIGNING IT NECESSARY TO BEGIN WITH ? IF IT'S A 'MUST DO'THING, THEN IT SHOULD HAVE A ROW OR TWO OF RUBYS ADDED TO DEPICT "THE RED, WHITE AND BLUE" STRIPES OF OUR FLAG AND COUNTRY ! THE 3 CHOICES SHOWN JUST PLAIN 'SUCK' !!
BOB H. Posted Friday, August 28, 2009 6:37 AMI don't think the proposed settings are ugly. The first two are quite pretty, albeit a bit gaudy. Hey, the current setting is a lot gaudy! The third has a beautiful necklace portion, but the dangles under the diamond ruin it. I don't see how the Hope Diamond would fit in any of them, though. The diamond isn't oval or round or square, it's odd shaped. For that reason, I think the middle one would best compliment the diamond. The concept of "Embracing Hope" in today's world is a good thing.
Been There Seen It Posted Friday, August 28, 2009 7:40 AM