No CrossRef data available.
The larger Diamonds of South Africa
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 March 2018
Extract
The inquiry that I have recently made into the weight of the ‘Cullinau’ diamond has led me to clear up, as far as possible, various discrepancies in the published statements respecting the other large diamonds of South Africa. Although a knowledge of the exact weights of these stones is a matter of only trivial scientific importance, yet it is desirable to place on record any definite facts that may still be gathered respecting them. Much valuable information in this direction has been freely given to me by Messrs. Wernher, Beit & Co., through whose hands several of the larger stones have passed ; without their help the present notes could not have been written, and I therefore desire to express to them my hearty thanks.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Mineralogical magazine and journal of the Mineralogical Society , Volume 16 , Issue 74 , October 1911 , pp. 140 - 148
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1911
References
Page 140 note 1 Spencer, L. J., ‘Notes on the weight of the “Cullinan ” diamond, and on the value of the carat-weight,’ Mineralogical Magazine, 1910, vol. xv, pp. 318–326 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
Page 140 note 2 Supplied by Messrs. De Grave, Short & Co., of Hatton Garden, London. Compare Mineralogical Magazine, 1910, vol. xv, p. 821.
Page 141 note 1 This statement having been copied either directly or indirectly from Dr. G. F. Kunz's Report on Precious Stones for 1900 (Mineral Resources, United States Geol. Survey, 1901, p. 18 of the preprint, but not in tile bound volume as issued).
Page 141 note 2 Bauer, M., ‘Edelsteinkunde,’ 2nd edit., 1909, pp. 320–321 Google Scholar.
Page 142 note 1 For the photographs for figs. 1, 8, and 4. my thanks are due to Mr. Frank Stevens.
Page 142 note 2 The same weight, 634 carats, is given by de Launay, L., ‘Lea Diamants du Cap,’ Paris, 1897, p. 61 Google Scholar. Other accounts give 640 (G. F. Kunz, Annual Report on precious Stones for 1895, 17th Ann. Rep. United States Geol. Survey, 1896, part iii, p. 898), and 655 carats (M. Bauer, ‘Edelsteinkunde,’ 1st edit., 1896, pp. 240, 243, and English translation by L. J. Spencer, 1904, pp. 208, 210, 254).
Page 143 note 1 A glass model of this brilliant, acquired in 1908 from a German dealer, measures 4.29 × 3.68 × 2.84.
Page 144 note 1 G. F. Kunz (Science, New York, 1887, vol. x, p. 69) gives the dimensions as 3.95 × 3.0 × 2.3 cm. A glass model supplied in 1910 by Dr. F. Krantz, of Bonn, measures 3.9 × 3.14 × 2.47 cm. : it incorrectly shows the table facet too small, and the flattened wide of the oval outline of the girdle is wanting.
Page 144 note 2 Kunz, G. F., ‘Four large diamonds from South Africa,’ Science, New York, 1887, vol. x, pp. 69–70 Google Scholar.
Page 144 note 3 Bauer, M., ‘Edelsteinkunde,’ 1st edit., 1896, p. 289 Google Scholar; 2nd edit., 1909, p. 319 ; English translation (‘Precious Stones’) by L. J. Spencer, 1904, p. 253.
Page 144 note 4 Brauns, R., ‘Das Mineralreich,’ 1908, p. 202 Google Scholar; English translation (‘The Mineral Kingdom’) by L. J. Spencer, 1910, p. 207.
Page 145 note 1 Gregory, J. R., Mining Journal, 1895, vol. lxv, p. 1536 Google Scholar; Gulland, J. K., Journ. Soc. Arts, 1902, vol. li, p. 22 Google Scholar, Mining Journal, 1909, vol. lxxxvii, p. 258 ; G. F. Kunz, Mineral Resources, United States, for 1902, 1904, p. 821, with fig. ; Baszanger, J., Mining Journal, 1909, vol. lxxxvii, pp. 7, 333Google Scholar. Models of this piece of earbonado are supplied by Messrs. J. R. Gregory & Co., London.
Page 148 note 1 A striking example is given by the case of the ‘Florentine’ or ‘Austrian Yellow’ diamond in Vienna, the weight of which had been variously stated to be 1391/2 and 1331/3 carats. Owing to this discrepancy the gem was weighed by Professor A. Schrauf in 1865 (‘Gewichtsbestimmung, ausgeführt an dem gressen. Diamanten des kais. österreich. Schatzes, genannt “Florentiner”,’ Sitzungsber. math.-naturwiss. Classe, Akad. Wiss. Wien, 1866, vol. liv, Abth. i, pp. 479-483) and found to be 27.454 grams, corresponding with 1391/5 Florence carats, 1333/5 Paris carats, and 1331/5 Vienna carats. (The small differences in the fractions suggest that the Florence and Vienna carats have themselves not been always quite constant.)
Page 148 note 2 C. E. Guillaume, ‘Les récents progrès du système métrique (deuxième suite),’ Procès-verbaux des Séances du Comité international des Poids et Mesures, Paris, 1911, ser. 2, vol. vi, pp. 193-213. (See ‘Nature’, 1911, vol. lxxxvii, p. 251.)
A correction has been issued for this article:
Linked content
Please note a has been issued for this article.