|
FORMER AND PRESENT SELLING PRICES. 351
Berquem
values the Diamond, rose-cut, of one carat at 100 francs ; Tavernier,
some twenty years later, at 150. neither mentions other patterns than
the Rose and the Table. I should therefore accept with all distrust
Caire's assertion that the " single-cut brilliant " (brillant en seize)
was invented under Mazarin's auspices.
Dutens (published in 1777) puts the value of the Diamond brilliant of
one carat at 8 louis d'or (the louis is worth 18s. intrinsically), and
afterwards as the square of the weight multiplied by that figure. Small
Emeralds, fine quality, at one louis the carat, taken together : of
1-1/2 car. at 5 louis ; of 2 car. at 10 ; after which weight no rule
could be laid down as trustworthy. In his times the Sapphire was much
depreciated, for he fixes the first carat at 12 livres (9s.)
only, and thenceforward as the square multiplied by this. One of 10
car. he prices at 50 louis ; of 20 car. at 200, and so on. Emeralds had
fallen so low at the beginning of this century that Caire fixes the
first carat at no more than 24 fr. A stone of 20 car. he values at 3000
fr. (120Z.) only. For the Ruby, he puts the first carat at 10 louis ;
of 2 car., at 40 ; of 3, at 150 ; of 4, at 400. It is evident that
then, as now, there was no fixed principle for valuing a fine Ruby
exceeding 2 car. in weight.
In
the present trade a Ruby (perfect) exceeding one carat sells far higher
than a Diamond of equal weight. I have myself seen one of 3 carats, for
which 300Z. had recently been paid, and was informed, on the best
authority, that one of yet finer colour, weighing 11 grains, had
recently (this was in 1856) changed hands for 1100Z., that is, at the
rate of 100Z. per grain, or nearly at Cellini's estimation.
For
many years antecedent to 1850, the Diamond remained fixed (with few
fluctuations) at Jeffries' and Dutens' figure of 8Z. the first carat.
Emeralds and Sapphires were also equalized in value, which might be
called 3Z. the carat
|
||
|
|
||