|
The
Spoonmaker’s diamond has an uncertain history, but since the early
1800’s has been in possession of the Turkish government. It is currently
on display at the Topkapi Palace and Museum in Istanbul.
There is a discrepancy in the historical record concerning the weight of
this diamond. It is reported as 86 carats, yet documentation from the
early 1800’s state that it is the third largest diamond in the world.
This would not be accurate, as the Orlov (189.6 carats),
Darya-I-Nur/Great Table (a minimum of 175 carats), Koh-I-Noor (estimated
at 186 carats), Florentine (137.27 carats), Nassak (90 carats), and Shah
(88.6 carats) would be bigger, making it at least seventh. (All carats
used here are old carats to avoid confusion with the historical record.)
There is some question concerning the cut of this stone, which affects
modeling and hence its weight. When modeled as a double Dutch rose cut,
where the top is cut identically to the bottom, a diamond
42 x 35 x 16 mm weighs 153.5 carats as a minimum, or 258.9 carats
CZ weight. The CZ replica weighs 270 carats, accurate to fractions of a
millimeter in reported dimensions. Therefore, the difference of 11
carats between the calculated CZ weight and actual weight could be due
to the variability of the dimensions.
The stone has been reported as a bizot cut (Balfour), but he gives no
definition of this term, nor is one to be found. It is possible that it
means the back is perfectly flat, and only the top is faceted. There is
anecdotal evidence that this is possible, as Balfour and others also
report that silver foil has been known to be placed on the back to
improve brilliance. This is also corroborated by the CZ replica, as this
replica is very brilliant with no need to improve it., leading me to
believe the back should be flat.
Modeling of the flat back is ongoing, however the data suggest that it
is even heavier than a stone symmetrically cut.
Modeling this stone is somewhat problematic, as the reported dimensions
of
42 x 35 x 16 mm have considerable variability, as any dimension
could vary ± 0.5 mm. It could be as small as
41.5 x 34.5 x 15.5 mm or as large as
42.5 x 35.5 x 16.5 mm. In a stone this large, this variability is
as much as 14 carats if cut with a flat back. Additionally, there is no
girdle depth mentioned. The difference in weight between a 1.0 mm
girdle and 2.0 mm girdle is significant. These inaccuracies make any
attempt at accurate modeling very difficult.
Also, the reported stone size makes it a very large diamond. It is hard
to imagine a diamond
42 x 35 x 16 mm with a specific gravity approximately of 3.51
g/cc to weigh 86 carats. The 90 carat version of the Nassak measures
only
23.35 x 21.73 x 11.51 mm. It is hard to believe that the much
larger Spoonmaker has a similar weight.
Spoonmaker (left) reportedly weighs 86 carats
and Nassak (right) reportedly weighs 90 carats.
There is a disconnect somewhere!
What does this mean? The stone weight has been under-reported for over
200 years! Due to the variability in dimensions, girdle depth, and
multiple solutions to the modeling problem caused by insufficient
information, the actual diamond could weigh as much as 186 carats.
Somewhere in the last 200 years, someone dropped the leading digit!
This would not be hard to believe if the historical record is correct.
The Orlov and Darya-I-Nur/Great Table are certainly bigger. The old
version of the Koh-I-Noor (186 carats) is close enough to the possible
weight of the Spoonmaker that the latter could be larger by a fraction.
Now it is the third largest diamond and agrees with this part of
history.
So, what is the real weight of the Spoonmaker? Is the reported weight
of 86 carats to be believed? Or has it been misreported, and it is
closer to 186 carats? This stone is a part of the Turkish Crown Jewels
and is on display at the Topkapi Museum and Palace in Istanbul. Several
attempts have been made through the Turkish consulate in Los Angeles,
the Turkish Ministry of Culture, and a letter to the museum itself to
request contact information of the stone’s curator to resolve this
problem. Unfortunately, as of October of 2006, none have replied.
Efforts are ongoing, and when a definitive answer is known, it will be
published here.
|
