Leisure hours among the gems

by Augustus C. Hamlin

No amateur will say that the gem has gained any advantage in cutting, when he sums up the arguments in favor of and against the operation. He will not say the Koh-i-noor, exhibited in the London exhibition, was superior in all respects to the time-honored gem displayed among the crown jewels of the Tower of London a few years before. In reality, its appearance in the Crystal Palace was inferior to that of its glass models; and a comparison of its form with the examples offered by Jeffries will at once show its imperfections.

In its spread, as compared with that of a properly proportioned one-hundred-karat brilliant, it is quite one third too large; or, in plainer language, it is now a badly shaped stone, and cannot display its latent splendors unless surrounded by a great number of wax candles.

A comparison with the outlines of the Regent will at once show the want of harmony in its shape so far as development of brilliancy and prismatic display are concerned; and to obtain the display of these properties, without which the diamond is not much better than common limpid quartz, the form of the gem must be invariably of a certain size and depth. A lustreless mass of diamond, no matter how large it may be, is not a choice example of the mineral, in comparison with a smaller stone, radiant with its natural, or rather developed, beauties. Size alone, without special excellence, brings no charm with it, but rather places it among mineralogical curiosities. Therefore, we regret exceedingly the recent cutting of the Koh-i-noor, which has injured its prestige, and reduced its value incomparably.

Had the lapidaries adopted the form of the Sancy, that is, the shape of the almond, with small facets all over it, a far greater brilliancy would have been obtained. Such is the opinion of Babinet and other connoisseurs, who are able to judge on this subject. The Koh-i-noor, before cutting, was submitted by Prince Albert to the examination of several eminent men, amongst whom was Sir David Brewster; and a variety of opinions were expressed upon the subject. It is generally believed that ideas of fashion directed the shape of the stone to be adopted; and that if its form had been left to Coster, the model of the brilliolette would have been copied, and but little of the stone sacrificed in the cutting. However, it is too late to lament the accident or the error; but we hope that the experience acquired will preserve other specimens for the admiration of art, although it availed nought in the case of the Star of the South, another stone admirably adapted for the exhibition of the beauty of the brilliolette model. This form, with numerous small facets, in both instances would have given more luminous points, and therefore produced more splendid effects.

Babinet properly exclaims against the mode of cutting the large gems with large facets, as thereby much of the glory of the gem is lost. Had the Regent, even, been cut with smaller and more numerous facets, its splendors would have been greater. As we have previously stated, the most vivid play of light and color is exhibited in diamonds of about ten karats or less; we may, perhaps, attribute the difference to the violation of some law in optics, as well as to the difference in the laminæ or substance of the larger stones.

Babinet, in defence of his remarks on this interesting subject, states that the beautiful rainbow hues are produced by the light entering the upper surfaces of the gem, and, being reflected backwards from the bottom surfaces, is then refracted, after traversing the side facets. The white light is then decomposed into every variety of hue, the perfection of which depends upon the condition of reflection and refraction. If the facets are too large and the light too voluminous there is danger of neutralization of these colors, and that white light be reproduced.

We doubt very much if this historic gem has been known to history for more than five hundred years. If it is, as it has been alleged, a part of the Great Mogul, its appearance among mankind dates from 1550. Had it been known in the times when Timour so mercilessly attacked India, it could hardly have escaped the rapacity of the Tatar. And the history of this conquest, in the latter part of the fourteenth century, leads us to believe that all, or nearly all, of the great diamonds of Bengal have been discovered since that time. Had this gem been added to the Mogul treasury at Delhi in 1304, from the conquest of Malwa by Ala-ud-deen, it probably would have been known to Timour. The last Tatar invasion, in 1736, under Nadir Shah, found the gem set in the turban of the Great Mogul, and it was carried away to Khorasan by the victorious host, together with all the fabulous wealth which had been garnered up during nearly four centuries of prosperity. From Nadir it was wrested by assassination, and passed from ruler to ruler, with strange vicissitudes, until the Sikh power succumbed to the arms of England; when it passed, in 1850, with other treasures, from the stronghold of Lahore to the jewel-chamber of Windsor Castle.

Ill fortune has always attended the possession of this gem, it is said; and certainly the reduction of the stone in the blind attempt to improve its brilliancy may be classed in this category. The Hindoos have always maintained that it inevitably brought ruin to its possessor; and surely, the history of the Mogul Empire, the reign of Nadir Shah, its conqueror, the Dooranee dynasty, and the rule of the Sikhs give strength to the plausibility of the tradition. In the chapter on the gems of Asia we shall again refer to this stone.

England has had the opportunity, during her Indian conquests, of collecting the most magnificent parure of gems the world has seen. The pride of the French Crown, the matchless Regent, was brought to London by the English Governor, Pitt, and offered to the Royal House; the great Orloff, the boast of the Russian regalia, was brought from India by an Englishman, Earl Effingham; and many other fine diamonds and gems from Hindostan have been brought within the reach of the English Crown before being offered elsewhere for disposition. The neglect to secure these beautiful and matchless treasures is inexcusable even in a commercial view, for a gem paragon is “an empire made portable.”

Among the diamonds brought from India by Englishmen, the Pigott and the Nassac deserve some mention.