![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Does anyone know what grade of colour was able to be extracted from the Cullinan? thefamouseccles 04:53 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
...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
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Extended content
|
---|
|
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Does anyone know what grade of colour was able to be extracted from the Cullinan? thefamouseccles 04:53 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
...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
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Extended content
|
---|
|
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)
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)