Talk:Cullinan Diamond/Archive 1

Archive 1

[untitled]

Does anyone know what grade of colour was able to be extracted from the Cullinan? thefamouseccles 04:53 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The Golden Jubilee

...found in 1985 is larger than the cullian I. -- Chris 73 Talk 12:59, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

The cut golden jubilee is larger, but the original rough stone was much smaller 131.111.41.167 10:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

According to "Van" Van Horn (the author of the daily e-mail sent from qotd.org), "The Cullinan Diamond was sent to Asscher Brothers of Amsterdam for cutting, where it was studied for months before the first cut was attempted. On that first cut, the blade shattered. A second attempt split the rock exactly as planned, and Asscher fainted from the stress. The two largest pieces cut are part of the British Crown Jewels and can be seen in the Tower of London." A fascinating anecdote, IMO. <>< tbc 07:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Value should be added as it does have a worth, I would give them £5 for it because I could get more than £5 if sold legally. So aproximate value is worth giving. 200 Million as of 2006

Appraised Value?

"200 Million as of 2006." May we ask who did this valuation as of 2006? That is in pounds sterling on the article page. This is VERY important unsourced reference to value. At this point it lacks credibility doesn't it? T.E. Goodwin 09:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and also should mention the value may be fairly subjective even if done recently, since I doubt comparable pieces are sold at auction regularly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.60.19 (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Some other articles

[1]

No longer the biggest in the world.

A new diamond found in South Africa has been found.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/29/wdiamond129.xml

219.89.103.84 19:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And here's another link for that -- Miners unearth world's biggest diamond —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mskadu (talk • contribs) 15:34, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit premature to be changing this? From what I'd read at the BBC website there's still some doubt as to whether it's authentic, and the stone is apparently in a bank vault awaiting testing (on Tuesday, apparently). Further, the new stone is apparently green, and the largest green diamond until this point has been the Dresden Green, at roughly 41 carats, so a 6,000-carat green diamond beggars belief. The Cullinan is well verified; the new stone isn't, so I think it would be better to leave this article alone until the new stone is verified. Thefamouseccles 03:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ack - meanwhile, even the man who is responsible for the hype around this alleged "diamond" has become somewhat more modest. He now claims that he had never claimed it would be a diamond [[2]] ;-) Please revert the changes until there is some reliable verification 141.2.22.211 13:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cullinan.png

Image:Cullinan.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Historical accuracy

I'm not sure if there is a Wikipedia policy to cover this but the opening statement of this article "The Cullinan Diamond, found by Frederick Wells, surface manager of the Premier Diamond Mining Company in Cullinan, Gauteng, South Africa, on 26 January 1905," is historically incorrect. On that date neither Gauteng nor South Africa existed. The date falls in the period between the Second Boer War and the founding of the Union of South Africa during which the Transvaal was a country under British military occupation. I'm not sure when the Zuid Afrikaanse Republiek was formally abolished. The Act of Union which established South Africa as a country came into force 5 years later on 31 May 1910 and the name Gauteng was given to the redefined province only 100 years later in December 1994. This reminds me of the Soviet era Russian joke of an old man being interviewed by a state official: "Where were you born?". "In Saint Petersburg". "Where do you live?" "In Leningrad, but I hope to die in Saint Petersburg" Roger (talk) 07:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

also not sure if there is a policy, but I dispute that it is inaccurate. The place described exists at present , you could go there and say 'This is the place the 'Cullinan Diamond' was found.' It was found there, just because the name did not exist at discovery does not mean it is not valid to use it now. Consider the discovery of nylon that article say's first produced on 28 February 1935 by Wallace Carothers at DuPont. , nylon was not called nylon at that time but aquired the name during the marketing proccess, yet the quote can still be regarded as accurate. Just a different point of view. GameKeeper (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

size ?

can anyone add the approx size of the rough diamond. the weight is good to know, but since the densities of matter come into play, one can only guess as to its size. thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 21:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Black spot, flaws, etc.?

I'd like more detail on this. Were they inclusions? Any detail about what the official color/clarity would be from a gemologist's viewpoint? --Magmagirl (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Portrait of King Edward VII

I've removed the image of King Edward VII. The portrait, which doesn't even feature the diamond, is not only irrelevant but potentially confusing. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Cutting of the Cullinan diamond

A source with information about the cut by Joseph Asscher. States the first attempted cut broke the knife. There's also a picture of Asscher cutting the stond, from 1908 so almost certainly Public Domain.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2144720/All-ONE-stone-Jewellery-worlds-largest-diamond-goes-display-Buckingham-palace.html

Another source (not strong, it's Tripod), also states the broken knife tale.

http://famousdiamonds.tripod.com/cullinandiamonds.html

Middle of night, I might get back to making these edits later

ScottHW (talk) 07:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Size contradictions?

In the second paragraph, the article has, "Cullinan I or the Great Star of Africa ... at 530.4 carats" and "Cullinan II or the Second Star of Africa, at 317.4 carats". But in the later sections, it says, "Cullinan I is a 1050.2 carat, pear cut diamond" and "Cullinan II, the Second Star of Africa, weighing 700.4 carats". The larger numbers also contradict the statement in the second paragraph that the Golden Jubilee Diamond (545.67 carats) is the largest polished diamond in the world. Are there differing "carat" measurements in use here, or what? The article is wrong, or at least confusing. Mrpaulin (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Ownership

The diamond is not actually owned by Queen Elizabeth. It is owned by the British State.

There is an important distinction to be made between property which is owned by Queen Elizabeth as her private property (such at the Balmoral Estate) and property which is owned by 'The Crown' which is a corporaion sole representing the Executive Arm of the British Government.

See Wikipedia article The Crown for details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.1.21.12 (talk) 05:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

To say The Crown is an arm of the Government is false – it is the other way around: HM Government are the elected administrators of The Crown. Elizabeth II owns Cullinans I and II as head of state and III–IX plus the 96 smaller diamonds and the offcuts as a private individual. All the Crown Jewels are inalienable. If the UK ever became a republic then ownership of Crown property would NOT automatically transfer to the Government; they would have to take it from the monarch by force via an Act of Parliament. Firebrace (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Top image - original or copy?

Image 1: The original diamond

Image 2: The resin copy

From 2013 until this year, the top image of this article was a photograph taken in 1905 of the uncut Cullinan diamond (image 1). On 21 January 2016, User:Firebrace replaced this with a photo of a resin cast of the diamond and a tape measure (image 2) (originally without changing the caption). Yesterday, I restored the actual diamond to the lead and moved the copy lower in the article; which Firebrace reverted with the edit comment "For an encyclopedia, scale is more important than authenticity. We're not a photo album."

Wikipedia's Image Use policy says "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article." (my emphasis).

To me it seems obvious that a photo of the actual subject of the article has the highest encyclopedic value. It shows what the subject of the article actually looked like, including the shape, opacity, and imperfections. The resin copy shows scale but that's it - it doesn't actually look very much like the diamond, because of the dissimilarity between the materials and lack of the imperfections. It also has potential WP:V issues - there is no indication on the image where the copy comes from, or how we know that it is an identical copy of the diamond; whereas the original photo comes from a reliable source.

I'd suggest that the actual photograph is clearly most suited to be top image, but would be interested to hear the views of other editors. TSP (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

What makes the rough diamond WP:NOTABLE? Not the shape, opacity or imperfections. It has a Wikipedia article because it was big. Of course the lead image should give the reader a clue about its size. The top photo was originally printed at 'actual size' in a book hence nothing for scale was required in the photo. However, it is not 'actual size' when reproduced here as a 220 x 248 px jpeg. Firebrace (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, two points. Firstly, its colour and transparency are a huge part of why it is notable - Sergio (carbonado) is actually the largest rough 'diamond' ever found; Cullinan was the largest gem quality rough diamond ever found, which is a subjective judgement based on colour and clarity.

It is also notable because it was cut down into nine smaller gems which are now individually notable; a cutting that was necessary because of its imperfections. Its appearance is extremely relevant to its notability.

(I came specifically to this article to see what the uncut diamond looked like; I was disappointed to find that no photos of the original seemed to exist - then very surprised to find that exactly the photograph I was looking for does exist, was on Wikipedia, but was no longer on the article.)

Secondly, I don't think images are primarily there to demonstrate claims of notability. David Cameron is notable because he is the Prime Minister of the UK, not because of what he looks like; but nevertheless a photograph of his business card is not a better top image for his article than a photograph of him, even though it expresses far more about his notability. The text of the article already explains the diamond's size better than a rather hard-to-read tape measure (though I agree the image should be in the article - just lower down); but an image is far better at expressing what the object looked like - if the image actually looks like the object.

In any case, the Image Use Policy seems pretty clear to me - images should usually be direct depictions of the thing described. TSP (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

P.S. it looks like I accidentally reverted some changes when adding the image to the article body - sorry about that.

OK, but the book does not say if the 'diamond' is a replica or the real thing. It simply reads "The great Cullinan diamond, in the rough (actual size)". [3] It could be a replica. This model, produced c. 1905, also shows the angular 'back' of the diamond (the one on the right is our top photo rotated 90 degrees clockwise on its base), and here is one from c. 1915 showing the smooth 'front', which is identical in form to the one in our bottom photo... Firebrace (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The book is an acceptable reliable source, and the caption reads, as you say, "The great Cullinan diamond, in the rough (actual size)". I don't see any reason to suggest without a contrary source that is not a photograph of exactly what it says. If it were showing a copy, I would expect the caption to read "A copy of..." or "A reproduction of...". How would you expect it to say any more clearly that the thing in the photograph is the thing the caption refers to?

(Incidentally, while looking at the source, I stumbled across [4], which has various nice photos, including one of the diamond being cut and a nice photo of all the cut diamonds together which is probably better than the current one of glass copies.) TSP (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Good find, I'll upload them later and we can use those... Firebrace (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Bold titles

Can we stop messing about with the lead; the names of the two most notable diamonds redirect here and their names have been emboldened in the lead since 5 November 2005. [5] They are significant alternative titles of the article per WP:BOLDSYN. Thanks. Firebrace (talk) 08:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

They are not significant alternative titles. If you are referring to Cullinan I, you are talking about something different to the original Cullinan, aren't you? And very obviously you're talking about something different to Cullinan II. They are certainly related to the subject of article; they are not synonyms for it. 82.132.240.228 (talk) 09:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

You can have your way this time but we are not italicising names of objects, and Mary of Teck is piped to Queen Mary because she wasn't known as Mary of Teck at the time of her death. The title of her article simply disambiguates her from other Queen Marys. I shouldn't have to click the link to discover that she was a queen. Thanks for helping us improve the article. Firebrace (talk) 10:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

If you want to be taken seriously in future then please sign up or people will think you are a blocked editor with a chip on their shoulder. At least, that's how it comes across to me... Firebrace (talk) 10:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC) I'm not interested in "having my way" and if that's how you see it, you should grow up. If you want to be taken seriously you should stop reverting edits for no reason. Also you message falsely accusing me of breaking the MOS was a personal attack and the height of stupidity and hypocrisy. Don't behave in this way again. Your love of bold face and antipathy towards italicisation makes no sense and still contravenes the MOS. 82.132.213.216 (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC) Thanks for your feedback. In future, please use the talk page instead of changing the article five times and then asking why the article is the way it is. [6] If you don't understand something the best thing to do is ask people who do. Also please refrain from calling editors idiots and using profanity in article edit summaries as you did at École Polytechnique under one of your other IP addresses. [7] Thanks. Have a nice day. Firebrace (talk) 10:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC) Don't be a patronising jerk. I see your sense of ownership and disruptive and disrespectful attitude extend to other articles as well. Are you editing to make article better or just to "win"? 82.132.213.216 (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC) Please do not attack other editors or accuse them of being disruptive when you are disruptive, abusive, hyperactive, use different IP addresses to get around WP:3RR and clearly have a chip on your shoulder that shows through in your edit summaries on various articles. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Firebrace (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC) Take your own advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.213.216 (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC) By the way, as the author and copyright holder of some 50% of the text at Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom and the uploader of most of the images (some of which I paid for), you're right, I do feel a sense of ownership over that article. I have contributed more to Wikipedia in six months than you will in your entire life. Now drop the attitude and behave yourself, please. Firebrace (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC) Ha! I was here at the very beginning and helped develop many of Wikipedia's key policies and processes. Your royalist tinkering in fact pales in comparison. And then you have the gall to tell me to "drop the attitude"? If you paid for images you'd better be very sure you have the right to distribute them under Wikipedia's free licence. And read up on WP:OWN. Want to impress me with your editing? Get a few features articles to your name. I see you don't have any yet.82.132.219.76 (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC) Thanks for confirming the obvious. It must be great to be back in the studio making a picture again... Firebrace (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Right. Could we stop this please? I've hidden all the content that does not actually appear to relate to the content of this article. Please could we use this page for discussing the article and take any other topics elsewhere, or for preference, nowhere? WP:TALK. TSP (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The largest diamond ever found, right?

I'm wondering why the introduction doesn't mention that it was the largest gem-quality rough diamond ever found? That is the main reason for its notability. --Chetvorno^TALK 23:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)