At this point, the Hope Diamond program had aired a few months prior, and I mentioned my affiliation with the Smithsonian and the Discovery Channel in the creation of this program. As a result, a very nice young lady responded as she had seen the show. I inquired whether she could send me pictures of the glass model her firm had made in 1851 prior to recutting the stone. She promptly sent me two pictures, but they didn’t have enough information for an accurate model. We spent a few more days e-mailing back and forth discussing how I could get more and better pictures. Finally, she asked if she could just send me one of the two glass models, one that was slightly damaged. This she did (the conversation took place on a Friday, and by noon the next Monday I had it in my hands. Got to love the Dutch, they are very helpful!).

At this point, I called Dale, and he came out from California to participate in the research process over a weekend. We took about 150 pictures, and my co-researcher from the Hope project, Steve Attaway, made several wax models of the glass model. Dale and I also used a Mirror Facet lap to determine index settings and angles for each of the facets. By the time we got done, we knew more about the stone than anyone.

Once slight problem. There was a conflict in the research between the glass model and a drawing by Bauer. Now it became a question of what to believe. Both a line drawing and a glass model are subject to artist’s interpretation, and therefore could contain errors. Another source had to be found to resolve the discrepancy.

After several months of effort, the appropriate contact was made at the Natural History Museum in London, the depository of two original plaster casts of the KIN created in 1851 before the stone was recut. Being a cast, there is no room for subjective opinion, whatever comes out of the mold is purely objective. This would not only give an accurate rendition of the facet pattern, but also dimensions (accounting for 1-2% difference in size due to the casting process).

Initial contact with the museum was made in March of 2006. After several months of discussion with museum staff, they elected to send one of the plaster casts out for study, and by Aug 2006 it had been received. They were also very generous with their return date, as it could be kept until December. Dale came out again to assist in the research, and over the course of a weekend approximately 600 photos of the stone were taken. These were subsequently analyzed to determine facet size, shape, pattern, placement, angle, and all other possible features so that accurate line drawings could be made. This was accomplished, and modeling started late August.

One thing that became quickly apparent were some “flaws” on the model’s surface. It has been stated in several sources that there were indentations in the side of the stone created so that the stone could be set in a claw-like setting. These are readily apparent as ovals in Dieulafait’s drawing.

However, there are three other areas best described as “rough spots” that create questions. Are they artifacts of a poor casting? Are they the result of a poorly made mold? Are they real? If they existed in the plaster model back at the museum, then they were more than likely a phenomena on the original stone’s surface. If there was a difference between the models, they would be artifacts of a poor casting. This was resolved when the museum was requested to take photos of these areas and send them for analysis. This they obligingly did. These rough spots are identical on both casts, so these are real phenomena.

So, are they the result of a poor casting, or a poorly made mold? Since there would be only this one chance to create an accurate model, it is reasonable to expect the process to be as perfect as possible. If there were a defect in the mold, or in the cast, it would be discarded and the process repeated until the result was an accurate representation. This infers that both casts are accurate representations of a real phenomena, and not defects in the mold or casts.

As of September 2006, research of the model and subsequent modeling is still in progress, and preliminary results are tantalizing! Upon approval of the release of the new findings, I will publish the results here on this Web site.

One last side note: There are some people who believe that the three large faces on the side of the stone are cleavage faces, the result of intentional cleaving by the Indians to damage the stone prior to handing it over to the British. All three are clearly not the result of intentionally inflicted damage, as they contain the indentations used for mounting. These pits have rounded edges; if they were cleavages, they would have sharp edges. If damage by cleavage was performed, then someone would have to go back and grind the edges of the pits to make them round, a somewhat arduous task. Also, the facets around the large faces are reminiscent of the cutter “blending” these facets into a pre-existing surface, not ending abruptly as expected if any face were cleaved and leaving sharp edges. Blending the facets would also be expected of a Mogul-style diamond cutter maximizing weight retention during the cutting process.

Because of these factors, and lack of contrary evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that all surface “defects” are the result of natural processes and not some contrivance of man. No intentional damage was inflicted.

The past year has been spent further investigating the Koh-I-Noor plaster model. In January 2007, the model was sent to Belgium to get laser and Xray scanned, then returned to the museum. Scanning was done by the grateful participation of Sergei Sivovolenko, President, Octonus Corp., Paul Van Der Steen, Matrix Diamond Technologies, Antwerp, Belgium (laser scanning), and Dr. Alexander Sassov, SkyScan R&D Director, Kontich, Belgium (Xray scanning). They donated the use of their machines to accurately capture the model's surface topology using the latest in scanning technology. Their equipment is normally used in the diamond trade for evaluating diamonds, and I was truly amazed at the capabilities of both the hardware and software (DiamCalc). Gary Holloway of Gary Holloway Diamonds in Australia provided instruction for using the DiamCalc software to reduce the 5047 planar surfaces from the scan data into the 169 facets on the replica. This data was subsequently used to create a CZ replica of the historic version of the Koh-I-Noor.

December 2007
My wife, Karen, and I traveled to London for the opening of the “The Vault” exhibit at the Natural History Museum in London. The second to last day there, Alan, the Curator of Gems and Minerals, gave us a tour of what we referred to as "The Attic." This was an area of the museum not open to the public. These rooms contain specimens not currently on display. Alan showed us the cabinets of specimens, and also a drawer or two of famous diamond replicas. Some replicas were glass, others lead or plaster.

Once we finished ogling all this, he said, "I have something I would like you to see." He promptly led us through a rabbit warren of back rooms and stairs and ushered us into a rather well-lit room. He pointed to a blue velvet display stand with glass diamond replicas around its perimeter.

Photo by Scott Sucher

At the top of the display were what appeared to be four gilded brass posts, with cup-like stone holders near the top. The outer pairs of posts had glass replicas of what appeared to be the side diamonds from the original armband mounting of the Koh-I-Noor diamond. (Having visited the Tower of London the previous day, and spending a lot of time staring at the original, I knew exactly what the replicas were.) The two middle posts had a cupped stone-holder each, indicating there should be a larger central stone.

Alan asked me what I thought the display was. I said that it looked like the original display stand from Queen Victoria's Great Exhibition of 1851, the one that held the original Koh-I-Noor diamond before it was re-cut. He concurred with my hypothesis. He then added that the only way to prove that it was the original display would be to take a CZ replica of the original Koh-I-Noor and to place it between the two posts. If the replica fit, it would be conclusive. (And if it didn't fit, it would be equally conclusive!)

What Alan didn't know was that my wife and I always "carry backup" when we go on trips such as this. We had brought with us replicas of the three blue diamonds (for the museum in France), plus the pink Great Table replica. I also had packed my replica of the Koh-I-Noor in the event the museum’s replica were to become damaged prior to going into the exhibit.

So, as soon as Alan had posed the challenge, I looked across the room at my wife. Karen caught my eye, and just smiled and nodded. Without a word, she took the backpack off her back, pulled out the Tupperware container with the five replicas, and then unwrapped the KIN replica and put it in my hands.

As Karen and Alan stood wide-eyed in anticipation, I gently placed the replica between the posts of the display and pressed down ever so slightly. The replica snapped right into place! It fit like a glove. It was as if the posts were custom-made for it.

Photo by Scott Sucher

All three of our jaws dropped to the floor. All we could do was just point and stare until – finally -- we all started talking at once with lots of excitement and animation.

Photo by Scott Sucher

The gist of the cacophony was “there could be no doubt” and “what a perfect fit.” We agreed that this was conclusive proof that the blue velvet display, the one that had been stored in obscurity for more than a century in “The Attic” of the Museum of Natural History, London, is in fact the original display stand for the KIN used over 150 years ago, and seen by Queen Victoria herself.