|
The historical record is cloudy at
best, and the Internet has allowed errors to propagate at speeds
unthinkable even a few years ago. This makes accurate research more
difficult at the very time that it is becoming more important.
Less difficult than the verification of
historical facts is the verification of technical facts. Despite this,
it is amazing the quantity of misinformation regarding technical facts
currently posted on the Web. This site addresses technical facts and
fiction since technical facts can be scientifically validated.
What are technical facts? These have to
do with the correct physical descriptions of the stones themselves.
What are some common technical fictions
found on the Web?
Fiction:
The Tavernier Blue weighs
about 110 carats
Fiction:
The Hope weighs 44.5 carats
Fiction:
The Spoonmaker is the world's
third largest diamond
Fiction:
The Cullinan I is 53.2 mm long
Fictions concerning
weights are due in part to the definition of a carat. (Did you know
there were numerous definitions of carats?) An old carat, used prior to
about 1880, is 0.2053 grams. A new carat is 0.2 grams. To compound the
problem, are the old weights in Dutch carats, English carats, or some
other carat form? The use of different
carats is exemplified in the Asscher diary, printed in the back of
Balfour’s book Famous Diamonds, where they list the weights of
the Cullinan diamonds in both Dutch and English carats.
In all instances on
this site, supporting documentation from the best possible sources is
provided when a technical fact is reported. Where documentation is
scanty and facts scarce, I explain the logic I followed in deriving my
conclusions. If you disagree with my conclusions, e-mail me so we can
discuss it in detail. If corrections are warranted, I will post them
with appropriate acknowledgement to the discoverer.
And no, the Cullinan I
is
NOT
the world’s largest
diamond ... |
