|
The replicas featured on this site are the result of over 25 years of
off-and-on effort that
grew out of a fascination of seeing quartz replicas at a museum and
wanting a set of my own. Initially, I
created replicas by using the methodologies and data of others. After
five or six replicas, however, it became apparent to me that much of the
previous research by others was flawed. So, I started doing my own
research.
As
technologies became more sophisticated (e.g., improvements in computer
modeling applications), they showed that even my own early research was
imperfect. It then became necessary to set the record straight, not only
for my personal satisfaction, but also to support the requests of other
facetors, hobbyists, and enthusiasts.
Replicas vs. Representations
Most of my early work could be classified as representations, not
replicas. This distinction is very important. A representation is just
that; it is a de facto stand-in for what is being represented. The first
published representation of the Cullinan III shows a squat, pear shaped
stone with a pronounced rounded point, where in fact, the original is an
elegant pear shape with a sharp point. The two are as different as night
and day. Similar faults can be found for almost any other “replica” out
there.
If
you want to call something a duck, it should walk, fly, swim, and act
like a duck. If you want to call something a replica, it should be the
same size, shape, and color of the original. Although we are all
familiar with ducks, and know a fake one when we see it, very few of us
have the interest or knowledge to know what the original Cullinan III,
Dresden Green, or any of the other great diamonds look like. It does a
disservice to an historic diamond to pass off a representation as a
replica. With a representation, the diamond's full beauty, magnificence,
and uniqueness cannot be appreciated.
What is involved in creating a replica and not a representation? The
level of research required has already been mentioned. The rest of the
process is taking the data and converting it into useful information.
Matching size, shape, and facet pattern on a replica to the original is
not an easy task. Even though a facet pattern has been done at 30X and
is accurate down to the pixel, it is very difficult to convert that to a
real object. Anyone who has attempted this knows it is easy to get the
appropriate settings for each facet, but very difficult when other
factors such as a constant girdle line, encapsulating the required
volume for the desired weight, and a host of other very technical
factors. It is a multi-dimensional problem that is extremely difficult
to solve.
Matching color is also difficult. Cubic zirconia has the refractive
index and dispersion closest to diamond. However, it is available only
in limited colors. The lighting surrounding the stone also affects its
color. This is similar to a photograph taken indoors, but the film and
camera is set up for outdoor use. The indoor picture has a distinctly
yellow tint, changing the color of everything in the picture.
A
further complication is that the human eye can distinguish approximately
16,000,000 colors. Since CZ comes in limited colors, and ambient
lighting changes, the human eye will detect extremely minute color
differences. As a result, CZ rough is selected to be as close as
possible to the original diamond’s color, but an exact match is nearly
impossible.
Personal Philosophies
When I create a replica, I do so as accurately as possible. There are a
few areas of contention that others believe in that I don’t. My
philosophies are stated here:
1.
Culet facets should be on a replica. The original cutter put them there
for a reason. To remove them is not representing the correct historical
context. Diamond cuts evolve, and the use or non-use of culet facets has
a legitimate place in the historical record. They must be included to be
accurate.
2.
All dimensions of the replica should be as close as possible to the
stones dimensions, which includes stone depth. Others use the cutting
angles for CZ and not for diamond. This changes stone depth to a small
degree. If a stone is to be 5.57 mm deep, the replicas here are cut to
be 5.57 deep. Using the angles for CZ detracts from this accuracy.
3.
If the original stone is lopsided, the replica must be lopsided. Some
believe that a replica must be idealized, and therefore made
symmetrical. There are plenty of Cullinan I replicas out there that are
symmetrical. How many display the actual asymmetry? At least in the
Cullinan I, the asymmetry is very hard to recognize unless one is
actually looking for it.
4.
Where possible, a mistake the original cutter made should be duplicated
on the replica. A careful analysis of the Hope crown facets shows that
some are undercut and others are overcut. This is emulated as much as
possible for all stones.
Your Challenge
It
has been estimated there exist over 150 diamonds that are generally
considered worthy of note. Ryan Thompson goes into great detail on many
of them, both historic and modern, on his Web site
http://famousdiamonds.tripod.com. Many of these are also
described in books, one of the best being Balfour’s Famous Diamonds. There
are several other books almost as good.
The replicas you will find listed on this site were selected, quite
simply, because they interested me. All are historic in some
context. Most have considerable size. Others are an unusual shape or
color for a diamond. A few have been selected because there is no
documentation showing they’ve ever been replicated before. (There are
many others that I could have selected, but once you cut one large,
colorless pear/ round/ rectangle, you’ve pretty much have cut them
all!)
If
you are a facetor, I recommend you try recreating the 90-carat version
of the Nassak, the 186 carat version of the Koh-I-Noor, or the
Darya-I-Nur. Their complexity is at an entirely different level, and one
that most cutters should attempt. Even more challenging (and fun!) is to
not just duplicate another's efforts (i.e., patterns, cutting
directions), but to perform the original research and embark on a
journey of your own. You won’t be disappointed.
|
|
