|
There is only one
recorded instance of this stone, and it occurs in Tavernier’s Travels
in India. He described it “as of an egg cut in two”, weighing 279
9/16 carats (after conversion of Florentine to old English carats, and
then to modern carats, yields a weight of 275.65 modern carats. Modeling
used this weight for all calculations.) After this one brief mention,
the stone disappears from history.
Alexander Fersman, a
noted Russian geologist and gemologist of the early 20th
century, studied the Orloff diamond in the Russian Crown Jewels. It too
has a shape that can be described “as of an egg cut in two”, and
surmised that it was cut from the Great Mogul (the Orloff weighs about
189 carats). After extensive studying, he concluded that the two stones
were one and the same, that the Orloff was cut from the Great
Mogul. This makes sense from both a gemological and historical
perspective, as these are the only two diamonds that would match this
general description. The Great Mogul has no definitive end, nor does the
Orloff have a definitive beginning, so it is reasonable to assume one
came from the other.
Others have replicated this stone in a 787
carat version (808.37 modern carats). This seems to be in response to a
Lapidary Journal article from 1969 where the author was
mistaken. Tavernier clearly states that this larger number is the weight
of the rough, not the finished stone. Ball, in his appendix to
Tavernier, has an extensive discussion concerning these weights (p.
331-343). He also relates how this stone’s history could be intertwined
with that of the Koh-I-Noor diamond.
Tavernier’s drawing hardly provides enough
information for easy modeling, as it doesn’t show a consistent
symmetry. Are there 12 primary facets in any given row, or 16, 24, 32,
or perhaps an odd number? What you see in the drawing above is all there
is to work with. My replica was created to emulate the number of facets,
size, and shape as much as possible, plus ensuring the side angles of
the model match the side angles of the drawing. This resulted in a model
with 32 facets in the rows closest to the girdle.
Overlay of FemCad model (black) on Tavernier's drawing (red)
Note the overlay above with the discrepancy in
the angles in the lower left and right where the overlap is not
perfect. I believe this represents where the cutter made the stone a
little off-center when transferring it from the cutting of the bottom to
the cutting of the top. Also, the facet pattern is not exact, but the
model has the same triangular and trapezoidal facets as on the
drawing. The resultant model is the best I could derive to get this
facet pattern, and 16-fold symmetry was required to make sidewall angles
match. Although there are differences, it is the best I could do, and if
someone comes up with a better pattern, please let me know and I would
be happy to put your version on this site with appropriate credits.
And whether the replica is right or wrong, it
is impressively brilliant and scintillating!
|
|
