The Eagle Diamond

The Eagle diamond, very likely now “deceased”, had a checkered career.   Found near the village of Eagle, Wisconsin, in 1876, it was probably an ‘immigrant’, having traveled via glacier, from one of northern Canada’s then unknown diamond deposits.  Its finder was Charles Woods, a hard scrabble tenant farmer who, having no reason to think it might be a diamond, kept it as a ‘pretty stone‘    A few years later, however, the tough farming that was his life pushed him and his wife, Clarissa, into desperate straits, and along with anything else that might fetch a few dollars it was sold to Samuel Boyton of Milwaukee (for $1.00!).  Boyton was not much impressed with the smokey yellow 16.25 carat gem he had purchased so he put it on the shelf until he was ready to travel to Chicago.  There, just to satisfy his curiosity, he had it appraised and was amazed to learn that it was, indeed, a diamond.  

Timing can be everything; and so it must have been for Sam Boyton.  Tiffany of New York had just recently made the young (23 years old) George Kunz a vice-president of the firm in recognition of his expertise as a ‘mineralogist’.  Self taught, Kunz was both a gem enthusiast and an enthusiast for all things ‘American’.  Needless to say, once Kunz heard of the diamond he had to have it for Tiffany’s collection.  A deal was struck; and Boyton pocketed $850 for what then became known as ‘The Eagle Diamond.’  Never cut, it went straight into Tiffany’s gem collection and there it remained until the early teens of the 20th century.  Always thought of as a curiosity, Tiffany finally sold the uncut gem to American financier J. P. Morgan who promptly donated it to New York’s American Museum of Natural History.  It sat there quietly for the next half century until, in 1964, it was stolen.  

In some ways it was an almost archetypical ‘60s event - beach bums, precious gems and even a movie star were all somehow involved.  A pair of 27 year olds, described as ‘surf bums’ in the newspapers (Jack Murphy, AKA ‘Murph the Surf’, and Allen Kuhn), had been inspired by a film they had seen to attempt the robbery.  The film, ‘Topkapi’, is a thriller in which the action revolves around the burglary of Istanbul’s Topkapi Palace Museum.  The home of the Ottoman Empire’s sultans until 1856, it houses a fabulous collection of gems, jewelry and art objects, a wonderful target for burglars.  As Jack and Allen saw it, there was a fortune to be made.  While they had no money and couldn’t afford the trip to Turkey, New York’s American Museum was doable; and on the night of October 29, 1964, they did it.

On the morning of the 30th the museum’s guards found that 24 gems had been stolen; and while the focus of concern was the world’s largest star sapphire (the Star of India, once owned by a heavy drinking advertising man who had kept it in his pocket), that oddity, the Eagle Diamond had also ‘flown the coup’.  The ‘case’ was soon cracked, however.

Murph and Jack weren’t that slick.  Their big spending life style and absence of visible income had already aroused the attention of Miami’s police; and on suspicion of a number of burglaries, they were arrested on Halloween.  Their ‘modus operandi’ then attracted the attention of New York’s police; but it was only a suspicion.  Released on bond in Miami, the New York Police Department’s interest in the duo became public knowledge.  This made them instant celebrities.  It was also their undoing.  Actress Eva Gabor saw their pictures in a newspaper and recognized them as the pair who had robbed her at gunpoint several months previously.  She filed a complaint; and this rattled Allen so badly that he made a deal with Manhattan’s District Attorney.  He agreed to supply information about the American Museum theft in exchange for leniency on other charges.  Information in hand, the bulk of the stolen gems, both in number and value, were recovered; but not the Eagle Diamond.  And it never has been.  While it may be hidden somewhere waiting to be found, most of the law enforcement agencies that had become involved in solving the theft think that it was probably cut into a few smaller, anonymous gems.  Sic transit gloria.

Diamonds are, of course, the most transportable pieces of wealth on the planet; and coupled with their beauty, their attraction is immediately understood.  Indeed, their rarity and beauty make them perfect gifts since they wonderfully express the love you have for another.  Not all diamonds are created equal, of course, but as your diamond experts we’ll help you purchase the gems that best speak for you.  We’ll never sell you a homely diamond; so visit us on line at hurstsberwynjewelers.com for a look at our offerings then phone us at 708.788.0880 for an appointment to select a beautiful self-expression.  We’re Hursts Berwyn Jewelers, not an ordinary jeweler.

VIRTUE IN THE WORLD ECONOMY

Saturday a young woman visiting our store asked me if I knew about the ‘Kimberly Process’.  I replied that I did and went on to demonstrate that we require all who supply diamonds to us to adhere to it.  Yet, in a way, it was an odd question, one I hadn’t heard for a few years.

Established in 2003 between diamond producing countries, diamond consuming countries, companies that process diamonds to bring them to market - as well as non-governmental human rights organizations, the goal of the Kimberly Process is to bar ‘conflict diamonds’ from the market.  It was engendered by vicious civil wars in Sierra Leone and Angola in which some of the warring factions had enslaved civilians to gather largely alluvial diamonds they then sold to finance military operations.  Though both wars had come to an end in 2002 and with their end much of the world’s concerns had subsided, the Kimberly Process institutionalized a mechanism for dealing with the problem of conflict diamonds in the future.  For this reason the 2006 release of the film ‘Blood Diamond’, and an ensuing public concern over conflict diamonds, came as a bit of a bewildering shock to the diamond business.  It was, of course, the public’s failure to understand that the film was historical in context that had engendered their alarm.  Fortunately for the diamond business, as the film disappeared from circulation the public’s anachronistic concern for conflict diamonds had subsided so completely that the young woman’s question caught me by surprise.  As a result, however, I felt compelled to look into its current state.

In large measure, and despite the currently unsettled state of both Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo, it still seems to be working.  In point of fact, however, a new issue has arisen, that of re-defining ‘conflict diamonds’.  At present the Kimberly Process defines them as diamonds, produced by whatever means, used to finance rebellions against sitting governments and bans such gems from trade.   The demand for a redefinition stems from a protest of human rights abuses made by artisinal miners against the Government of Zimbabwe.  Shamiso Mitsi, speaking for the artisinal miners, pointedly declared in June that he stands for expanding the term ‘blood diamond’ to include diamonds that sitting governments mine using the coerced labor of their citizens.  Global Witness, a non-governmental watchdog group, has already resigned from the Kimberly Process over Zimbabwe’s human rights abuses; and at the June intercessional planning meeting of the Kimberly Process western European governments, with the government of the United States,  were united in supporting the re-definition of ‘conflict diamonds’ to cover all diamonds mined in a fashion abusive of human rights.   Understandably, the government of Zimbabwe lead other African and some Asian nations in resisting this change in definition.   As the meeting’s purpose had been to  lay the groundwork for the plenary session of the Kimberly Process scheduled for November, any decision on a redefinition of the term ‘conflict diamond’ will have to wait until then, and even then might not take place.  Tafadzwa Musarara, chairman of ‘Resources Exploitation Watch’, another non-governmental organization, speaking after the close of the June Kimberly Process meeting, said he felt only the United Nations could change the definition of ‘blood diamonds’.   While this may leave you a bit skeptical of the ability of the diamond business to guard its virtue, I must point out that unlike much of the much larger world of international trade, the attempt is real and it is being made.  Take oil for example, or cocoa.

About 8% of our annual oil consumption comes from Venezuela; and the government is above criticism.  Just ask Marianela Sånchez.  When, this last May, she criticized prison conditions in Venezuela, a couple of government goons kidnapped and threatened her husband; but since we like Venezuela’s oil we say little.  Or cocoa.  By Nestle’s own 2008 audit, 89% of Cote d’Ivorie’s children are employed in harvesting cocoa; but child labor or not, our sweettooths will not be denied.   The moral of these stories?  It’s hard to be virtuous in our connected world economy; but the diamond business is seriously trying - and it should.

The moral imperative for the diamond business having a ‘clean act’ is, of course, connected to the importance of a diamond as a statement of love.  It speaks love; and that voice makes its ethics important.  So feel good about buying a diamond to do the talking for you; and unless you’re an expert, come see us so we can guide you to a beautiful diamond - an eloquent voice to speak your love.  Check us out on line at hurstsberwynjewelers.com, then phone us at 708.788.0880 for an appointment.  We’ll never let you down because we care.  We’re Hursts’ Berwyn Jewelers, not a common jeweler.