Not much here for you if you ain't a tit man! I happen to be a lover of the other end, with equally close scrutiny!!!!!

Yola. If the point of the shoot was the earring, why wasn't she asked to wear one?. It is not sensible to refer to an earring if it doesn't appear in any of the pictures. Vermeer's painting would not have the title it does if it depicted a milkmaid with her ears hidden by a bonnet. Would a set titled 'Springtime Beauty' make sense if - because it hints at the dark realm of Pluto where Persephone went - all it shewed was a dimly lit subterranean cave?. Is every photoset of Alma going to call her 'the girl with the pearl earring' just because she has some perceived facial resemblance to the original model and has a few holes in her earlobes?. That would be nonsensical type-casting and most unfair to Alma herself. As anyone with eyes can see, Alma is in the set for more reasons than her face. So the shoot could have been more appropriately titled 'Blonde Beauty', 'Bare Beauty', 'Curtained Contrast', or anything else relevant to what is actually in the pictures.

I see the likeness to the girl in the original - so why no earring? Very odd.

If the member had read your intro it would have made perfect sense. And whether you compare Alma to the original painting or to Scarlett Johansson from the award winning movie she deserves it. And not every set "must" have the models butterfly to examine which you have already given us in June with "Explicit". And yes She has a classical look, the kind of beauty that was once worshipped by aristocrats and artists during the Renaissance. And still to this day here...(I hope!)

It's not about an earring, it's a reference to the famous Vermeer painting of the same name. Alma is a dead ringer!