Long ago, but not far away, I was compelled to read William Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar”. Naturally, at least in that time, I was equally compelled to memorize at least a bit of Marc Antony’s funeral oration wherein he called Brutus to account for his part in Caesar’s assassination. It was, he said, “the most unkindest cut of all,” a matter of opinion in ancient Rome. In like manner, but with little or no bloodshed, there is a considerable range of opinion among diamond cutters over what constitutes a ‘kind’ or ‘natural’ diamond cut. We cut diamonds to beautify them; but because of their value there are real limits on the amount of weight a cutter is willing to sacrifice in pursuit of beauty. That is, is a kind cut one that saves the greatest weight from the rough gem or is the kindest cut one that makes the most of a diamond’s ability to transform light into “fire?” There are no easy answers, of course; and several years ago Gabi Tolkowski, often thought to be the greatest living diamond cutter, commented on this in a lecture he presented. The subject was the ‘Golden Jubilee Diamond’.
The rough diamond that would become the Golden Jubilee (now part of the Thai crown jewels) was discovered in 1985 at South Africa’s Premier mine. It’s weight, more than 755 carats, made it remarkable; but its brown color and the deep cracks within it left the management of DeBeers, owner of the mine, unsure what to do with it. So they called Gabi, asked him to come look at it and make his recommendations. He studied it for a few days, made his report and went home. A few months later he was surprised by another call from DeBeers; the firm wanted him to cut the diamond. His lecture proceeded from this point with a discussion of the difficulties he and the team he assembled faced in the two years it took to complete the job. New diamond cutting tools were developed and used, they had DeBeers construct a seismically isolated underground room for them to work in and more. Needless to say, it was quite a job, the end result being a ‘fire rose cushion cut‘ gem of some 546 carats, the largest cut diamond in the world. At the conclusion of his lecture Mr. Tolkowski threw the room open for questions. Several were asked; but finally one of the attendees asked the crucial ‘cut’ question. ‘Wouldn’t the diamond have been more brilliant if you had cut it into a round brilliant cut?” “Oh yes,” the polished Belgian replied, “but we would have lost so much of it’s magnificent weight.” So there it was, in dealing with that phenomenon of nature Gabi had valued weight over absolute brilliance; but it had not been an easy decision and somewhere in the contentious world of virtuoso diamond cutters I’m sure disagreement with his decision can still be found. Certainly a recent controversy over a diamond re-cut bears that out.
In this instance the diamond was not a new find, it was one of history’s notable gems, the Wittlesbach, formerly part of the Bavarian crown jewels. It seems to have been Indian in origin and first appeared in Europe as a Habsburg family possession. Marriage brought it into the ruling family of Bavaria, the Wittelsbachs, and there it remained for the next two centuries. Time, however, was not kind to the Wittelsbachs and in 1951, needing cash, it was sold. It’s new owner, in search of greater beauty from the blue-gray gem, asked Joseph Komkommer to re-cut it. Caught in the diamond’s history, however, he refused. and instead organized a consortium to buy it. It was then resold and disappeared into private hands until 2008 when it was again offered for sale. Billionaire London jeweler Laurence Graff bought it and announced that he would have it recut to enhance its color and get rid of both some damage to the gem and some internal ‘flaws’. At this announcement the cutting world erupted into controversy. Gabi Tolkowski called it "the end of culture;" while the director of Berlin’s German History Museum equated it to defacing a Rembrandt. Others, of course, took the opposite position. Prominent Illinois born master diamond cutter Maarten de Witte (who once offered to re-cut the Hope diamond) opined that the diamond’s history remained with it regardless of the re-cut and that recutting it to enhance its beauty was certainly justifiable. Ignoring the controversy, Graff had it recut; and the diamond, now named the ‘Wittlesbach-Graff’ is indeed more beautiful (a ‘Fancy Deep Blue’ color), more ‘sparkly’ and ‘Internally Flawless’ - but it has lost more than 4 carats of ‘its magnificent weight’ in the process. And I’m sure that all of today’s virtuoso diamond cutters will continue to hold their opinions as to whether or not the cut was ‘kind’.
Here at Hursts’ Berwyn Jewelers we know diamonds and value beauty in them (Maarten de Witte is, after all, an old friend); so you really must come see us for that special diamond purchase. We value you above all; so we’ll be happy to help you with your most important gifts and those rewards you’ve earned for yourself. Check out our jewelry collection on line at hurstsberwynjewelers.com; then phone us at 708.788.0880 for an appointment. We’re the uncommon jeweler.
No comments:
Post a Comment