It may be interesting to note the distribution of the rings in seventeen portraits of the Blakeslee Collection, disposed of in New York City, March, 1916, and representing a kind of average for the period from the latter part of the sixteenth century to the beginning of the nineteenth century: Right Hand Left Hand Index finger, 7 Index finger, 4 Middle finger, 1 Middle finger, 0 Fourth finger, 7 Fourth finger, 7 Little finger, 1 Little finger, 6 Thus the index and fourth fingers of the right hand and the fourth and little fingers of the left hand are almost equally favored. An oil-portrait of the Mahârânî of Sikkim, painted in 1908 by Damodar Dutt, a Bengali artist, shows this queen decked out with all her favorite jewel adornments; among them are two gold rings, one set with a turquoise and the other with a coral, on the middle and fourth fingers of the left hand (see Frontispiece). The right hand is concealed in a fold of her mantle, but had there been any rings on it, it would probably have been displayed, to judge from the variety of the ornaments she was pleased to wear at the sittings. She is a full-blooded Tibetan princess, was born in 1864, and became the second wife of the King of Sikkim in 1882, so that she was forty-four years old when the portrait was painted. At this time she and her husband had been held in captivity by the British since 1893. The singular crown is the one adopted by the queens of Sikkim. It is composed of broad bandeaux of pearl, turquoise and coral; the gold earrings are inlaid with turquoise in concentric rings; the necklace has large amber balls, and suspended from it is a _gau_ or charm-box, set with rubies, lapis lazuli and turquoise; on the wrist is a triple bracelet of corals.[110] In the opinion of J. Alden Wier, President of the Academy of Design, New York City, rings can scarcely be regarded as in any sense important accessories of a good portrait, as this does not depend upon the elaboration of such detail. With Popes and Doges, and with some of the higher ecclesiastics, however, rings are significant as insignia of office, and are therefore depicted as marks of individuality.[111] A fifteenth century example of a thumb ring was found in England at Saxon’s Lode, a little south of Upton. The material was of silver, either considerably alloyed, or else plated with a baser metal. In seventeenth century times in England the wearing of such rings was favored by many of the richer, or more prominent citizens, so that they served to differentiate the wearer from those less well-to-do, although he might not have the right to a crest or coat-of-arms. A character in one of the Lord Mayor’s shows given in the reign of Charles II (1664), is described as “habited like a grave citizen,--gold girdle and gloves hung thereon, rings on his fingers, and a seal ring on his thumb,” like Falstaff’s alderman.[112]