Home › Introduction › Introduction: India

Introduction: India

All things considered, the actual number of diamonds over 30 carats in weight now existing in every part of the world cannot safely be estimated at much more than 100, of which probably about 50 are in Europe, and the remainder in Persia, India, and Borneo. This number may no doubt be subsequently increased by fresh discoveries in Brazil, South Africa, India, Borneo, Australia, and elsewhere. But the supply of such large specimens from these sources must always be extremely limited; while the experiments recently conducted by Mr. J.B. Hannay, in Glasgow may be taken as clearly proving that none such will ever be made by artificial means. Those said to have been produced in Mr. Hannay's laboratory by a process doubtless analogous to that followed by nature herself are excessively minute, with a marketable value of scarcely five shillings, the production of which probably cost the speculative experimenter about five pounds each. While the number of small-sized gems will go on accumulating, those of very large magnitude will probably remain, to a great extent, stationary; their intrinsic value will tend to grow rather than diminish, and apart from the romance of their history, the interest felt in the world's most famous gems will be enhanced as the development of national wealth adds to the ranks of those who are rich enough to compete for their possession. Hitherto our Transatlantic kinsmen have scarcely appeared in the market as serious bidders for their possession. They are great buyers of stones of medium size. American gentlemen wear diamonds in the States almost as generally as the ladies do. It is quite a common thing to see pins and studs of 10 to 15 carats worn in all classes of society; and in the streets of the great cities the majority of well-dressed women wear diamond earrings. But in spite of the American love of diamonds, the notable and historic stones are still found outside the pale of the Great Republic. It is only natural to conclude, however, that the day is not far distant when the peerless gem-- "Fair as the star that ushers in the morn." will attract the attention of the princes of Wall-street and the Bonanza mine-owners of California. Then the present quotations for exceptionally fine and large stones, usually regarded as somewhat fanciful in price, will, no doubt, be readily commanded by such princely houses as may be willing to replenish their exhausted coffers at the sacrifice of a few brilliant but non-productive heirlooms.

A full account of the origin, nature, properties, and habitat of the diamond will be found in Precious Stones and Gems. In the present treatise which may be regarded as a sequel to that work, it is proposed to embody, in a succinct form, the information scattered over many volumes, in diverse languages, and from private family and official manuscripts kindly placed at our disposal for the purposes of this work, regarding all the known specimens weighing from 30 carats and upwards. The extraordinary interest felt in these rarer gems, many of which are associated with strange intrigues and disastrous wars, induces constant inquiry to be made regarding them, their history, their owners, and their whereabouts. Kluge truly remarks that, "of the few large diamonds hitherto extracted from the earth each has, so to say, its own story, in many instances made up of crimes and outrages." The romantic element plays a large part in these records, which in some cases date back to remote times. Unfortunately the extant accounts are often of the most contradictory character. The incidents associated with some particular stone are constantly transferred to another object. The very identity even of the most famous historical gems is often an open question. To this day it has remained somewhat uncertain whether, for instance, the "Great Mogul" and the "Koh-i-Nur" are one stone under two names, or really two distinct diamonds, as they certainly appear to be. Errors in the various accounts have often crept in through the ignorance or carelessness of writers, copying from each other, without taking the pains to verify references. A curious instance of this is afforded by Murray, otherwise a good authority, who, in speaking of the "Pitt" or "Regent," says that, "this diamond, it has been stated, was found in Malacca, in the famous mine of Porteal, in the Kingdom of Golconda." In this short sentence there are no less than three gross blunders, for Golconda is not a kingdom, but only a fortified station in the Nizam's territory, formerly a noted depot for the gems found in the surrounding districts. Nor is the Porteal, or rather Parteal, mine anywhere near Golconda. It lies many miles further south on the lower Kistna river. And lastly, neither Golconda nor Parteal are in Malacca, but in Cisgangetic India. As Malacca is not known to be a diamond field, its mention in this connection can be explained only by supposing that Murray is here blindly copying from Mawe, who makes the remarkable statement at page 42 of his already quoted work, that, "the 'Pitt' or 'Regent' diamond is said to have been found in Malacca. It was purchased by Mr. Pitt, then Governor of Bencoolen, for less than pound 20,000." Here is another rich crop of errors, for Mr. Pitt, that is Thomas Pitt, founder of the illustrious house of that name, was Governor, not of Bencoolen, which lies in the south of Sumatra, but of Madras, on the Coromandel or east coast of India. By following up the scent from Mawe backwards to earlier accounts, each embellished in the copying, it is ultimately found that Malacca gets mixed up in the story by some incidental reference to Malachite, confounded by some ignorant amanuensis with the geographical region in question, which reminds one of the story of the Parliamentary reporter who contrived to convert an interrogation about Cowes in the Isle of Wight into an agricultural question. Take again the "Gani" mine, of which we read so much in connection with the "Great Mogul," but which has really no existence at all. Tavernier tells us that this mine was called "Gani" by the natives, and Colare or Coulour by the Persians, and, of course, the statement has been scrupulously reported by all subsequent writers on the subject. But nobody has ever yet succeeded in identifying such a place as "Gani," and the word would appear to be simply a corruption, or possibly a collateral form of the Dravidian Kan, which means not any particular mine, but a mine in general. On the other hand Coulour seems undoubtedly to be, not the Gan-i-Parteal, that is, the Parteal mine on the Kistna, as is usually supposed, but Kollur, still known by that name, also on the Kistna, but some 25 miles further west, in lat. 16 deg 42' N., and long. 80 deg 5' 10'' E. Therefore in Gani-Kollur, and not in Parteal, was found the "Great Mogul" of Tavernier. In the following account of all the great historical diamonds, every effort will be made to rectify these and other current errors regarding them, and, where possible to reconcile the numerous conflicting statements met with in popular treatises on their origin, history, and identity. Many of the great diamonds are known to Mr. Streeter, who possesses models of them. In the course of a short time he will complete his collection of crystals, cut for the purpose from the gems themselves, or from models designed on the lines of the best possible descriptions of them that can be obtained.

The carat being the universal standard of weight and size for the diamond, a few remarks on this unit of the measure may here be found useful. The original meaning of this term has afforded subject for much controversy. Mawe cuts the matter short by asserting that the carat is an Indian denomination of weight. One hundred and fifty carats and a quarter are equal to an ounce troy (Op. cit. p. 2). But the carat, which is a Greek word, could not have been originally used as a denomination of weight in India, where the rati seems to have been the most general, though by no means a uniform standard. It fluctuated in different times and places between 1.86 & 2.25 grains, whereas the carat has the great advantage of being very nearly a constant factor everywhere. It is equivalent to 4 grains avoirdupois, five of which are equal to 4 grains troy, so that one carat is equal to 3.174 grains troy, and 151 1/2 carats to one English oz. The actual value of the carat in different countries, in milligrams, is as under:-- England 205.4090 France 205.500 Berlin 205.4400 Vienna 206.1300 Holland 205.044 Spain 205.3930 Portugal 205.7500 Brazil 205.7500