Home › The Abbas Mirza › The Abbas Mirza: Koh-i-Nur

The Abbas Mirza: Koh-i-Nur

At the meeting of the British Association in 1852, Section B., Chemical Science, Professor Tennant, as reported in the Athenaeum of Sept. 25, 1852, expressed his opinion that Dr. Blake's view was correct. "He had made models in fluor spar, and afterwards broken them, and obtained specimens which would correspond in cleavage, weight, and size with the 'Koh-i-Nur.' By this means he was enabled to include the piece described by Dr. Blake, and probably the large Russian diamond, as forming altogether but portions of one large diamond. The diamond belongs to the tesselar crystalline system, it yields readily to cleavage in four directions, parallel to the planes of the regular octahedron. Two of the largest planes of the 'Koh-i-Nur,' when exhibited in the Crystal Palace, were cleavage planes; one of them had not been polished. This proved the specimen to be not a third of the weight of the original crystal, which he believed to have been a rhomboid dodecahedron; and if slightly elongated, which is a common form of the diamond, would agree with Tavernier's description of it bearing some resemblance to an egg. Sir D. Brewster made some observations, and stated that the English translation of Tavernier's work left out the minute details which were fully given in the original. Sir David expressed his satisfaction with Mr. Tennant's illustration, which clearly proved the diamond to be only a small part of a very large and fine stone."

Brewster's remark that the English translation of Tavernier's work omitted the minute details given by that writer is very significant in the present connection. Had those details, as set forth in our account of the "Great Mogul," received proper attention, subsequent writers could never have fallen into the mistake of confounding that stone with the "Koh-i-Nur." Nor would Dr. Beke have here suggested that the slab found at Cucha might be a portion of the "Koh-i-Nur." The remarks made both by Tennant and Brewster, evidently show that they refer this fragment not to the "Koh-i-Nur," but to Tavernier's "Great Mogul." Its weight being 138 carats, it could not be described by them as forming "only a small part" of the "Koh-i-Nur," which was never known to weigh more than 186 carats altogether. Hence, Brewster's "very large and fine stone" must necessarily refer to the "Great Mogul," which was the only other stone of which the Cucha slab could be described as "a small portion." In his account of the "Great Mogul," the reader will remember that Tavernier remarks: "if Hortensio knew his business well, he would have taken from this large stone sone fine pieces, without wronging the king, and without having so much trouble to grind it down." The question here arises whether Borgio may not have adopted this very obvious course, concealing the fact to escape punishment, and secretly disposing of the fragments on the first favourable opportunity. In this case the Cucha slab may well have been one such fragment, and the very circumstances attending its origin would then also sufficiently account for the mystery in which it is involved. Having been fraudulently obtained and secretly sold "for a song," to the first comer, it may have easily remained in the hands of obscure and ignorant persons, unacquainted with its true value, and have thus been ultimately "found in the possession of a poor man," in whose family "it had been employed for the purpose of striking a light against a steel," and have thus "sustained injury by constant use." Since its discovery in 1832, the "Abbas Mirza" has probably remained in the possession of the Persian kings, although we have failed to find any direct allusion to it in the public descriptions of the Shah's regalia.