I look back with mixed feelings at things I wrote before mid 2017, roughly my first year and a half studying the VM. At the time I was convinced that the VM included elements from an unknown ancient document, integrated into an adaptive medieval copy. Allowing for such possibility has the effect that anything goes, because well, you don't know what was in the source material. From that perspective, the activity I was doing was not much better than finding the best visual match without attempting to explain any connection.
However, as you say, it is true that the VM crown, as presented to us, looks more like the ancient Persian one. And the different types of aphrodites are abnormally close to the other nymph+crown. So the question is, do we want to take the VM image literally, or do we tweak it to accommodate a more "reasonable" match. This is also a dangerous activity, because before you know it your crown becomes an armadillo.

In short, if we take the lines as they are in the VM literally, we are presented with a historically unlikely scenario. But if we tweak the lines, we enter the realm of speculation.
People are also taking liberties with the third crown. If we really take it as it is presented to us, this is a crown with
one overhead band, topped by a cross.
There is likely no fabric in the middle since we can see the back row of spikes.
The type of crown with one overhead band preceded the one with the crossed bands. This seems like an important consideration.
While tracing this crown, I noticed that the artist had attempted to draw "wiggles" at the edges, but the small scale did not bring those out well. I believe this may be the reason why two crowns got done again later with a different ink.