|
The majority of the research for this diamond is taken
from a Gem and Gemology article written in 1969 by a trio of Canadian
researchers who had a chance to study the Iranian Crown Jewels. It is
because of this work that the creation of the Great Table, Darya-I-Nur
(DIN), and Nur-Al-Ain (NAA) diamonds was made possible. To get the
complete story, go to the Reference tab and look for the article written
by V. B. Meen, plus his book The Crown Jewels of Iran. These references
recount an excellent piece of detective work to determine the fate of
the Great Table, and origins of the DIN and NAA.
The Great Table diamond was first reported by Tavernier
in 1642. It is mentioned again by Sir Harford Brydges in 1791, a British
diplomat hired by the Shah of Persia to sell some diamonds to raise
funds so he could wage war on a neighbor. At this time, Brydges reported
that the stone was exactly as Tavernier had described. This is the last
known reference to this stone.
The Great Table Diamond as drawn by Tavernier
In 1969, three Canadian gemologists went to Iran to
inventory the Iranian Crown Jewels. They became interested in two large
pink stones, the Darya-I-Nur and Nur-Al-Ain diamonds, and noticed that
they were virtually the same color and clarity. Being somewhat familiar
with ancient diamonds, they wondered if these two stones might not be
two pieces of the Great Table. After some in-depth analysis, they
concluded that somewhere between 1794 and 1834 the Great Table had been
broken into two pieces. The larger of these became the DIN, the smaller
the NAA.
The gemologists concluded that the stone was a rough
diamond crystal in cubic form, and the small angular side was a
dodecahedral face. This greatly aided the modeling, as it now
established most of the index settings for cutting the stone. But what
angle were the bevel facets? Using the original crystallographic
assumptions, these should be at the angle between octahedral faces, or
about 54.75 degrees.
Fixing length, width, and depth needed a more in-depth
study of the Great Table, DIN, and NAA together. The original
discoverers calculated that the Great Table was 56.3 x 29.5 x 12.15 mm,
fixing the depth at the measured depth of the DIN. However, they did not
have access to computers, so they had to create individual models of
each stone and iterate these models to fit the two stones into one. This
is a very time-consuming process, and contains inaccuracies inherent in
creating the models. Could modern technology yield something a little
more precise?
The process involved placing Tavernier’s original drawing
of the GT into Adobe Illustrator and generating a scalable line drawing.
Line drawings of the DIN and NAA were then generated from photographs.
Since the dimensions of these two stones are known, their line drawings
were fixed to their specified dimensions. To independently verify the
previous study, all that needed to be done was to alter the position of
the DIN and NAA in Illustrator and adjust the dimensions of the Great
Table line drawing accordingly to fit both stones. The goal was to
determine the minimum size of the Great Table necessary to accommodate
the volumes of the other two stones. This was considered the constraint,
since it would be reasonable to assume that the largest stones possible
would be cut from the two cleaved pieces.
A top down view was generated to determine the overlap of
the two stones. Initially, no overlap was assumed. Scaling the GT
drawing showed that the size of the GT had to be inordinately large, so
it was decided to build on the assumptions of Meen et al that there was
some degree of overlap between the DIN and NAA (Figure 1). Since the
Great Table was assumed to be dropped and broken, a side view was also
generated, with a line representing the cleavage plane (Figure 2). The
angle of cleavage was set assuming Meen’s assumptions that the GT was a
rough diamond crystal exhibiting dodecahedral characteristics. The
thickness of the Great Table at this point was fixed to equal the depth
of the DIN. Also, the DIN was originally fixed in place so the only
variable was placement of the NAA.
Figure 1
Figure 2
The drawing of the NAA was rotated and tilted through
dozens of iterations to determine placement within the Great Table. It
eventually became apparent that the length and width of the Great Table
must be increased about 3 mm in length and/or width to accommodate both
stones. At this point, the amount of waste during recutting was becoming
exorbitant. Rather than increase length and width, increasing stone
depth by approximately 1 mm satisfied all variables and seemed
reasonable from a stonecutter’s perspective. Final dimensions of the
Great Table were determined to be 59.42 x 33.51 x 13.25 mm, and the
length:width ratio is consistent with Tavernier’s drawing.
Figure 3: Replicas of the Great Table (top), and the
Darya-I-Nur and Nur-al-Ain (bottom),
showing their approximate orientation
Per GemCad, a diamond of these dimensions would weigh
380.38 carats (using an average specific gravity of 3.51 g/cc for
diamond). Meen et al estimated the Great Table to weigh 299 carats. The
difference between the Meen model and my model is due to size, as he
reported the dimensions as 56.3 x 29.5 (at the middle) x 12.15 mm (the
density value he used is not recorded). These dimensions are not
consistent with the length to width ratio in Tavernier’s drawing. Due to
the better tools at my disposal, I believe my dimensions to be more
accurate, but further research by the part of others might come up with
different and better dimensions.
Tavernier reported the weight as 242 5/16 old carats, or
248 ¾ modern carats. The weight discrepancy with the more modern
calculations is discussed by Meen in sufficient detail that it won’t be
covered here.
Figure 4: Replicas of the Great Table,
Darya-I-Nur, and Nur-Al-Ain |
