Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2020 at 15:34:22 (UTC)
Reason
Just large enough to meet the FP criteria, good quality for a painting from 1500. Essential for the article since it's both the earliest visual representation of the jewel, and the only drawing of it by itself.
Given the actual object isn't known to still exist, Support. Speculating, I think we have that rather awkward white goache-darkens-over-time effect going on with the pearls, but... not much that can be done there. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs19:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, didn't know that gouache does that. Might there have been a convention of painting pearls darker than normal? I know something similar was done with diamonds in pre-18th century painting. -- Arcaistcontribs• talk21:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an expert in 15th century painting, and it's possible it's not gouache in the first place, or that the darkening only applies to the 19th century gouache that I keep facing in opera set designs. Paint can change over time, though; that said, it should not affect promoting this. It's very encyclopedic, even if the pearls look a bit darker. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs01:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]