98 FAMOUS DIAMONDS book ii
2 represents the form of the Grand Duke of Tuscany's diamond, which he
has had the goodness to show me upon more than one occasion. It weighs
139 1/2 carats, but it is unfortunate that its water tends towards the
colour of citron.1
No. 3 is of a stone 2
weighing 176| mangelins, which amount to 242 5/16 of our carats. The
mangelin, as I have said, is the weight used in the Kingdoms of
Golkonda and Bïjâpur and it amounts to 1 3/8 of our carats. When at
Golkonda in the year 1642, I was shown this stone, and it is the
largest diamond I have seen in India in the possession of merchants.
The owner allowed me to make a model of it in lead, which I sent to
Surat to two of my friends, telling them of its beauty and the price,
namely 500,000 rupees, which amount to 750,000 livres of our money.3
I received an order from them, if it was clean and of fine water, to
offer 400,000 rupees, but it was impossible to purchase it at that
price. Nevertheless, I believe that it could have been obtained if they
would have advanced their offer to 450,000 rupees.
No. 4 represents a diamond which I bought at Ahmadäbäd for one of my friends. It weighed 178 ratis, or 157 1/4 of our carats.4
No. 5 represents the shape of the above mentioned diamond after it had been cut on both sides. Its weight was then 94 1/2
as will be explained, was the result of the mutilation to which it was subjected. (See Appendix I.)
For identification of this stone with the Austrian yellow, once the
property of the Emperor of Austria, and known as the Florentine, see
Index. Its weight, as recently determined by Schrauf, is 133 1/5 Vienna
carats, or 27.454 gramms. His figure of it corresponds with that given
by our Author. The figures of the Austrian yellow given by Murray, and
following him by Emanuel, erroneously represent a distinct stone.
2 It is not known whether this stone still exists in the form it had when seen by Tavernier. Mr. Streeter (Great Diamonds, 88 &.) devotes a chapter to it under the title ' The Great Table '. Ball could not ascertain the source whence the story which he gives as to its discovery by a, Bhil Chiel is derived. What has become of it
is not known ; it has most probably been broken up. Prof. Maskelyne has
suggested that it is the Daryâ-i-Nûr, or Ocean of Light, but it is
difficult to compare them, as we are ignorant of the thickness of the
stone described by Tavernier. The Daryä-i-Nür is said to be f inch in
4 The equivalent should be 155 3/4 carats.