Re: Jewelry in India / Gems in India
Ray Gabriel
I hope that I can give you more background on this subject. By
way of background, I have been involved in importing gems
and researching jewelry in Asia since 1975. My wife wrote
the book "Jewelry of Nepal" (1999 - Weatherhill) and is a
German, professionally trained in the German apprenticeship
system as a professional goldsmith. She has had her own
design studio since 1975 until she retired last year.
Since banks in India were nonexistent until very resently, or
untrusted
(with good reason, as we've seen here in the last year), gold and
silver high karat jewelry is first a form of family wealth savings,
used as general savings and in marriage dowers, land purchase - in
many
transactions.
When a family has money, they go to a goldsmith and purchase
or have made a realtively simple piece of jewelry. There
is very little premium for the actual making/designing and designs
don't generally change much. Buyers are more interested in getting
the most gold or silver for the price. High karat gold is to be
preferred, then silver. India is about the biggest user of gold
as a medium of exchange in the world.
When a family NEEDS money, they go back to the goldsmith
and sell the jewelry for currency.
India is also a large producer of gems, both cut and rough.
While gems are used in Indian jewelry, it is not as important
as it is in the West and the metal is usually more important
than the stone(s). Colored stones are often cut in Jaipur, my
favorite city in India. Diamonds are now cut largely in Surat
and Mumbai.
Within the last 10 years, India has captured the majority of
diamond cutting in the world with almost 92% of cutting.
Rough comes largly from southern Africa, Russia and
(unfortunately) from the conflict regions in Central Africa.
Australia is also a fair size producers of rough. Diamond
rough trading is largely controlled by the Central Selling
Organization which grew from DeBeers. Diamond pricing
is much more controlled than other colored stones.
Hope this helps!
Ray Gabriel - www.raygabriel.com
William Black
> Within the last 10 years, India has captured the majority of
> diamond cutting in the world with almost 92% of cutting.
Perhaps not now...
Early this year in Mumbai there were about 100,000 diamond cutters
thrown out of work and charities were operating free soup kitchens for them.
The vast bulk of the jewellery manufacturing industry serving export
markets shut down and people went back to their villages to await better
times.
--
William Black
So I looked at the script
It was six weeks filming in the desert.
No girls, no dialogue, just guys with guns.
They said "Do you want wages or a percentage?"
It looked like a certain turkey.
When they came the second time I was ready.
I haven't had to work since...
Eli Wallach on his roles in
"The Magnificent Seven"
and "The Good the Bad and The Ugly
Ganesh
> The vast bulk of the jewellery manufacturing industry serving export
> markets shut down and people went back to their villages to await better
> times.
These are temporary phases, things are improving now and companies
regaining. India has been a international market place for diamond
jewelry for the last 3000+ years. All the big Diamonds those you can
think about are from India.
Peter W. Rowe
<ganesh.grow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> All the big Diamonds those you can
>>think about are from India.
Well, no.
Make that "many", and you're right. Many of the important historical diamonds
did indeed come from India, including some of the most famous, such as the large
blue diamond from which the Hope diamond was later cut.
However, South African mines also produced a number of famous very large
diamonds, including record holders. Consider the Cullinan diamond, the star of
Africa, and others. Those record holders in the British Crown Jewels, most of
them at any rate, are South African. But of course, the South African diamond
mines don't have the millenia old history and lore of the Indian sources.
Peter
William Black
> On Jul 30, 8:18pm, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> The vast bulk of the jewellery manufacturing industry serving export
>> markets shut down and people went back to their villages to await better
>> times.
>
> These are temporary phases, things are improving now and companies
> regaining.
Possibly.
However the main diamond cutting centre has moved twice since I was
born, from Amsterdam to Tel Aviv and from Tel Aviv to Bombay.
It could move again...
--
William Black
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing.
If you can fake that, you've got it made.
Ganesh
wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 10:18:28 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry Ganesh
>
> >> All the big Diamonds those you can
> >>think about are from India.
>
> Well, no.
>
> Make that "many", and you're right. Many of the important historical
leaving the Cullinan which other diamonds famous diamonds do you know.
the uniqueness about Indian Diamond has been its quality that's
unmatched yet.
All the major monarch in the world you know take pride to possess an
Indian Gem.
Alexander, Queen elizabeth, Akbar you name. Their life is incomplete
if they have not possessed an India diamond.
Peter W. Rowe
<ganesh.grow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>leaving the Cullinan which other diamonds famous diamonds do you know.
>>the uniqueness about Indian Diamond has been its quality that's
>>unmatched yet.
Ganesh, I'm going to guess, based just on your name, which sounds Indian, that
you may have a certain bias here in favor if Indian diamonds. That is also
suggested by the tone of your post, which seems to suggest that Indian diamonds
are somehow better than the rest.
That's just not true. The big thing that Indian diamonds DO have, is a long and
storied history, with India being a source for diamonds going back as long as
3000 years, at least. That's a major factor, of course, since history and lore
are a big part of why people both enjoy, and desire things of value. Certainly,
India has the history and lore when it comes to diamonds, and today of course,
they also are a major part of the diamond industry in terms of cutting. But
lets be realistic. Today, the actual mining of diamonds in India is all but
gone, with India accounting for somewhat less than 1 percent of world annual
mining production, and the stones found are no different in quality from those
found in other parts of the world. Mines in Africa, South America, Austrialia,
Russia, and Canada all produce a range of qualities going from commercial or
industrial all the way up to rare finest gem quality. There are no particular
gemological differences in Indian sourced stones that make them somehow better,
nor to Indian mine produce on average a better quality in gemological terms.
They Do have that history behind them, but that's the main advantage, if any.
The indian diamond cutting industry also matches this. India may be the largest
diamond cutting center at the moment, but it's a strictly commercial thing.
Diamonds cut in India range from tiny to large, and from well cut to junk. Most
of the finest cut stones, though, the ones taking high levels of skill and time
to produce, are not cut in India. The reason is not a lack of skill on the part
of Indian cutters, but simple economics. Those large and fine stones needing
special care are a smaller part of the market, and factories simply can make
more money cutting the stones for which there is the biggest market.
As to Historical gems.
Well, for Indian diamonds with a famous history, the only two I happen to
remember off hand are the Kohinoor, and the French Blue, stolen during the
French Revolution and later recut to what is now the Hope. I know there are
many more, but I'm not especially aware, off the top of my head, of their names.
Likewise, I can't say I can off hand remember lots of non-Indian diamonds,
though again, there are many. But I do recall a few: the Cullinan 1 and 2
diamonds (two of the largest cut diamonds in existance today, and several more
were cut from that rough stone), The Star of Sierra Leone, (the largest
alluvial diamond ever found) The Tiffany, Jonker, Taylor-Burton, and the Uncle
Sam (40 carats rough, One of the largest diamonds found to date in the Crater of
Arkansas Mine in the United States. I know there are many more, but racking my
poor brain doesn't come up with more names.
So I cheated a bit. Looked in my old Diamonds Course book from GIA (a 1979
copy, so latest info isn't there). It happens to have a nice list of some of
the famous diamonds over 50 carats. That list, which I'm not going to totally
retype as it's a whole page long, includes 16 famous stones from India, all but
one discovered before 1835. And it includes 25 from South Africa, One from
Lesotho, Two from Seirra Leone, 4 from Brazil, and even one from Indonesia. Some
of these are older, from as early as the 1700s, but most of these were found
after about 1900 and up to modern times. No doubt there are plenty of others
that could be included. on a longer list, but the point is, there are many
important, large, and famous diamonds both from India and even more in modern
times from sources outside of India.
>>
>>All the major monarch in the world you know take pride to possess an
>>Indian Gem.
Well, I imagine they would be equally proud to own any important or fine gem, no
matter where it comes from. Fine historical Indian sourced diamonds are indeed
worthy of respect. But so are any other fine quality gems. As I stated before,
those gems with a long history behind them do enjoy the unique status that
brings. But that, in different forms, can equally apply to gems found more
recently in other locations if the stone itself is suffieciently high quality or
of significant size.
>>
>>Alexander, Queen elizabeth, Akbar you name. Their life is incomplete
>>if they have not possessed an India diamond.
>>
Um. Ganesh, I suspect that if you were to ask any of these people whether the
ownership of an Indian diamond, or for that matter, any diamond were needed to
make their life complete, I suspect you'd find that there are more important
things in life. People enjoy things of rarity and value and beauty. Fine
historical Indian diamonds can fit that catagory.
But frankly, there aren't that many around for people to acquire. Folks wishing
to buy a fine large diamond these days, if they were to insist on a diamond
found in India, would have a harder time simply finding one, because not much
mining is being done anymore (If this has significantly changed in recent
years, I'd love to know about it. Please cite sources...). And when they do
find one, it's price will be based on it's gemological quality, the quality of
it's cutting, and size, and other such factors, the same as diamonds from other
sources.
It might be that in India itself, there might be some premium on an Indian
sourced diamond due to national pride, but I've not observed any particular
demand in other parts of the world. In fact, the main demand for particular
sources are for stones that buyers can be assured are not involved in conflicts,
or in exploitation of miners, children, or ecological issues.. There is some
increased demand as such for both Australian diamonds (though mostly, there it's
demand for the pink colors that mine is famous for), and especially for Canadian
sourced stones. There is an industry assumption that unless otherwise stated,
commercial quality diamonds likely were cut in India, but that's not some
special factor demanding additional market respect, since the cutting quality is
no better than that done elsewhere.
It is certainly true that India plays a major part in the diamond and jewelry
industry today, and the world wide markets in both. But please, don't let that
fact blind you to the fact that the rest of the world is also rather involved as
well...
:-)
Peter
Ganesh
On Aug 10, 1:48�pm, Peter W. Rowe <rec.crafts.jewe...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> It is certainly true that India plays a major part in the diamond and jewelry
> industry today, and the world wide markets in both. �But please, don't let that
> fact blind you to the fact that the rest of the world is also rather involved as
I never said the rest of the world is not involved. But, just that
diamonds here are different and there are lot of incidents (not just
stories) surrounding them. Also, I heard that diamond from other mines
are different from the Indian ones.
Ganesh
On Aug 8, 10:23�pm, Peter W. Rowe <rec.crafts.jewe...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> However, South African mines also produced a number of famous very large
> diamonds, including record holders. �Consider the Cullinan diamond, the star of
> Africa, and others. �Those record holders in the British Crown Jewels, �most of
> them at any rate, are South African. � But of course, the South African diamond
> mines don't have the millenia old history and lore of the Indian sources.
But Koh-i-noor on records still is still the biggest finished diamond.
As per http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A730801 the stone originally
weighed 793 carats.
Ganesh
wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 01:04:51 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry Ganesh
>
>
> >>leaving the Cullinan which other diamonds famous diamonds do you know.
> >>the uniqueness about Indian Diamond has been its quality that's
> >>unmatched yet.
>
> Ganesh, �I'm going to guess, based just on your name, which sounds Indian, that
> you may have a certain bias here in favor if Indian diamonds. �That is also
> suggested by the tone of your post, which seems to suggest that Indian diamonds
> are somehow better than the rest.
>
> That's just not true. �The big thing that Indian diamonds DO have, is a long and
> storied history, with India being a source for diamonds going back as long as
> 3000 years, at least.
> It is certainly true that India plays a major part in the diamond and jewelry
> industry today, and the world wide markets in both. �But please, don't let that
> fact blind you to the fact that the rest of the world is also rather involved as
> well... �
>
> :-)
>
> Peter
A huge list of Indian Diamonds and their specialty is that they are
owned only my monarchs
http://www.farlang.com/gemstones/bahadur_handbook_of_precious_stones/page_096
Peter W. Rowe
Ganesh,
A nice reference. But if you read the whole thing, you'll find your list also
includes many famous diamonds that are NOT from India.
As to being owned by Monarchs, for the most part, before the mid 1800s, Royalty
or at least the nobility, were the only ones with the financial means to buy
such gems. Frankly, before then, general ownership of diamonds by the public
wasn't so common in any case, other than as accent stones, simply because before
the discoveries in South Africa, there simply weren't a lot of diamonds on the
market at all. So it's not surprising that Most of the famous Indian diamonds
ended up in the hands of Royalty or the nobility. That's just logic and
economics and history, not anything somehow unique to the nature of Indian
stones. You can say much the same thing about very rare and costly gems or
other items in general. Look for the owners of historically important or famous
large natural pearls, or the largest and finest of Emeralds, Rubies, or other
stones, and you'll find that again, before the Industrial revolution at least,
most such gems and rare items were in the hands of Royalty or nobility.
Peter
Peter W. Rowe
Quite possibly, although the actual weight at the time, before being butchered
in recutting in europe, is a bit uncertain, simply because records, and indeed
the exact definition of the carat, may be hazy.
However, Currently, it's not the biggest, or the finest, diamond around. And
for sheer size, the Cullinan, originally weighing in at over 3100 carats (one
and a third POUNDS) is still the largest rough diamond ever found, or at least,
the largest one we have records of. It's also one of the finer quality stones
ever found too.
Peter
Peter W. Rowe
I already have discussed the fact that their long history makes the Indian
Diamond sources unique and different from more modern diamond mines. But
gemologically, diamonds from India are not particularly special or unique. EVERY
diamond mine has variances in the types of qualities they typically produce.
This is true of the Indian sources as well. In some cases, it's possible to
identify which mine a particular diamond came from, but usually, it's only a
guess. Diamond ends up being quite uniform in it's gemological qualities as a
mineral, and for most, it becomes quite difficult to determine even the exact
country of origin. When differences exist, they are very minute, requiring
complex scientific testing to determine with certainly. Indian diamonds are no
different in this respect. There may indeed by differences in the average color
or clarity of stones found in one location over another, but to say that Indian
stones are somehow unique and different gemologically from all other diamonds is
just plain wrong. Don't always trust what you read on the internet or hear
"somewhere". If you think I'm wrong here, well, cite some references. And I
don't mean some consumer guide. Find me some scientific or gemological grounds
for your statement. I don't think you'll find one.
An example of the typical sorts of differences between mines is well illustrated
by the fact that the Australian mines produce a much higher percentage of pink
and fancy color diamonds than other sources. But individual white diamonds from
there are no different from other similar quality diamonds from elsewhere.
Similarly, Alluvial diamonds (diamonds washed down by rivers to their current
location away from the original kimberlite deposit) generally tend to be of
higher clarity, simply because the stress and impacts of being washed away will
tend to fracture and remove the lower quality stones. So diamonds from Sierra
Leone, as one example, which tend to be alluvual deposts, tend to be higher
quality than the usual mine output. Even color can vary from mine to mine, on
average. Before the advent of the current GIA diamond grading system, it was
common to use terms referring to several of the famous South African mines to
describe color. But again, although these mines each produced more of a typical
color, all of them produced a range of colors. So you could say many stones
from a given mine were of a certain color range, and you might even refer to a
stone by a name referring to a mine that was known for that color range,
actually being sure that a stone came from one mine or another wasn't, and still
usually isn't, possible. The same is true of Indian diamonds. Diamond is
crystalized carbon. All diamonds are. The differences we use to distinguish
between one or another for quality are quite minor in terms of the mineral
itself.
Peter Rowe G.G.
Jim
<rec.craft...@earthlink.net> discovered a keyboard and, for our
edification and amusement, submitted
>However, Currently, it's not the biggest, or the finest, diamond around. And
>for sheer size, the Cullinan, originally weighing in at over 3100 carats (one
>and a third POUNDS) is still the largest rough diamond ever found, or at least,
>the largest one we have records of. It's also one of the finer quality stones
>ever found too.
>
>Peter
Allin all, gentlemen, this exchange has been one of the most enjoyable
and educational instances of Chauvinism I've come across -- and I do
NOT mean anything derogatory in the use of that term. I grant you both
the laurel wreaths!
Blessed be, for sure...
Peter W. Rowe
From Wikipedia, as good a definition as any. Similar to Websters for all
intents and purposes...
"Chauvinism" == in its original and primary meaning,
is an exaggerated, bellicose patriotism and a blind belief in national
superiority and glory. [1] By extension it has come to include an extreme and
unreasoning partisanship on behalf of any group to which one belongs,
especially when the partisanship includes malice and hatred towards a rival
group..."
Within the scope of that definition, I have to disagree with your
characterization, sir. First of all, neither I, nor Ganesh, have written
anything that suggests extreme or unreasoning partisanship, nor have either of
us displayed anything even remotely sounding of malice or hatred. We're
talking about stones only, after all, not cultures, peoples, national
populations, or anything of that sort to which that term usually applies. Ganesh
has shown us only that he's proud of the Heritage of Indian diamonds, and
perhaps, jthat he's either less impressed with or less informed about diamonds
from other sources. As I've also pointed out, Indian diamonds DO indeed have a
wealth of history behind them that many other diamond sources do not have, and
this is well deserving of respect, particularly when one of the main aspects of
the desireability of diamonds or any other gem is in fact, the history and lore
of those stones. . I've conceeded this, and certainly Ganesh seems to believe
it. Nothing chauvinistic there. Simply a difference in opinion regarding the
importance of some of the facts involved. Differences of opinion regarding
various aspects of the facts, as well as perhaps some discounting of some of the
facts may involve national pride, but in the absence of malice or disparaging
comments about stones other than from India, I'd say there is nothing in this
exchange that rises to the definition of chauvinism on Ganesh's part, and I
certainly hope you're not suggesting that my posts meet that definition either.
And for the record, even if you didn't mean it as such, the term itself carries
negative connotations. Perhaps you'd care to substituted some less intense
term?
if indeed, Ganesh's posts had clearly shown the sort of emotional irrationality
normally associated with the term chauvinist, I probably would not have
bothered to react to his posts with any sort of reply. Were they really
classic chauvinism, I'd probably in fact have rejected them as spam or otherwise
against the terms of the group charter...
Peter
Ganesh
> and educational instances of Chauvinism I've come across -- and I do
> NOT mean anything derogatory in the use of that term. I grant you both
> the laurel wreaths!
Thanks for that one. No one has ever given one to me before :) and
there's nothing wrong in Chauvinism. I never said I am not open to
hearing what's there in other part of the world.
On Aug 10, 1:48 pm, Peter W. Rowe <rec.crafts.jewe...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
"Ganesh, I'm going to guess, based just on your name, which sounds
Indian, that you may have a certain bias here in favor if Indian diamonds."
I am from India and I have not heard of magical stories associated
with diamonds other than the ones from India, which makes it unique
and special. There's nothing biased here about it. I did quote what
I've so far gathered from my surroundings. I have come here to gather
more information. Here in India diamonds are worn mostly to ward off
evil effects of planets only upon consultation of an expert
astrologer. :)
Jim
>
>From Wikipedia, as good a definition as any. Similar to Websters for all
>intents and purposes...
>
> "Chauvinism" == in its original and primary meaning,
> is an exaggerated, bellicose patriotism and a blind belief in national
> superiority and glory. [1] By extension it has come to include an extreme and
> unreasoning partisanship on behalf of any group to which one belongs,
> especially when the partisanship includes malice and hatred towards a rival
> group..."
>
The primary definition, as you state it, Peter, smacks of "jingoism",
and I meant no such thing. Further down in Webster's unabridged 3rd
New International I find the phrase "attachment or partiality for a
group or place to which one belongs or has belonged". I wrote using
this standard, not the sense personified by Hippolytes' fictional
soldier of Napoleon.
>
>And for the record, even if you didn't mean it as such, the term itself carries
>negative connotations. Perhaps you'd care to substituted some less intense
>term?
>
It would seem that the term "chauvinism" has become too entrnched in
your quoted definition. May I offer another antiquated phrase in its
stead? How about "pride of place"? Or does this also suggest a
super-abundance of patriotism? Respectfully submitted for your
perusal...
Jim
Blessed be, for sure...
Peter W. Rowe
<grizzlyAIN'T...@cascocastle.com> wrote:
>>It would seem that the term "chauvinism" has become too entrnched in
>>your quoted definition. May I offer another antiquated phrase in its
>>stead? How about "pride of place"? Or does this also suggest a
>>super-abundance of patriotism? Respectfully submitted for your
>>perusal...
That, Jim, seems a much more accurate phrase.
Cheers,
Peter
Peter W. Rowe
<ganesh.grow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>I am from India and I have not heard of magical stories associated
>>with diamonds other than the ones from India, which makes it unique
>>and special. There's nothing biased here about it. I did quote what
>>I've so far gathered from my surroundings. I have come here to gather
>>more information. Here in India diamonds are worn mostly to ward off
>>evil effects of planets only upon consultation of an expert
>>astrologer. :)
Certainly, the rich lore regarding diamonds from India is relatively unique to
India. But I'd note that similar traditions equally exist in other cultures
regarding other gems. The key is simply that in antiquity and forward, diamonds
were well known in India, while not so well known elsewhere, so they had the
chance and time to develop those traditions. To the extent that diamonds were
known to other cultures, there certainly were stores and lore. It's just not
such a rich tradition.
And it's worth pointing out too, that the differences here do not suggest
differences in diamonds themselves, or the diamonds from India as different from
diamonds from elsewhere. What is different is not the diamonds, but rather the
rich lore and culture that grew up around them. When you talk about magical
stores, remember that the important term there is "stories". It's about the
lore, and the culture and the history, rather than about the diamonds
themselves. At the time that lore and culture was developing, the only diamonds
known to that culture were from India, so it's not surprising that the lore
develops only around stones from that source. As I've said from the beginning
of this thread, there is no doubt that the long history of diamonds in India is
important and unique to India. When you look, however, at the lore and history
of other gems in other parts of the world, the Greek and Roman world for
example. you equally find lots of magical stores and lore, and in fact, a little
of that tradition includes diamonds too (or we would not have a current name,
"diamond" derived from a Latin term, "Adamas". Even in ancient times in the
Greek and Roman world, the hardness and unique qualities of diamond were well
known, and given special status. But given it's relative rarity in that world,
much less tradition could grow up around it. But there are indeed some stories
about diamond that did not originate in India. At one time, especially in the
middle ages and renaissance, it was thought that diamond powder was a deadly
poison, for example. Who knows where that originated. But it likely had more
to do with european alchemy than with India. And we have a good number of
diamonds about which myths have grown, such as good or bad luck being associated
with them. Some, such as the myth regarding the famous Hope diamond, are about
stones that originally came from India. But not all. And that myth, and
others, did not necessarily originate in India...
Peter
William Black
> I am from India and I have not heard of magical stories associated
> with diamonds other than the ones from India, which makes it unique
> and special. There's nothing biased here about it. I did quote what
> I've so far gathered from my surroundings. I have come here to gather
> more information. Here in India diamonds are worn mostly to ward off
> evil effects of planets only upon consultation of an expert
> astrologer. :)
Except those sold in engagment rings...
Oh yes, and I'm still waiting to hear what exactly the usual dress of
Christian women in India is.
Ganesh
wrote:
> Ganesh wrote:
> > I am from India and I have not heard of magical stories associated
> > with diamonds other than the ones from India, which makes it unique
> > and special. There's nothing biased here about it. I did quote what
> > I've so far gathered from my surroundings. I have come here to gather
> > more information. Here in India diamonds are worn mostly to ward off
> > evil effects of planets only upon consultation of an expert
> > astrologer. :)
>
> Except those sold in engagment rings...
>
I just checked some of the diamond rings they do not expose the
surface of the diamond to touch the skin check some engagement rings
here http://www.jamesallen.com/engagement-rings/solitaire-rings/.
Astrologically diamonds can be adverse for the owner if it does not
suit him/her. So, I assume jewelry merchants are taking this into
account when manufacturing engagement rings accordingly.
On the other hand rings in India are purposely made in such a way
that, stone placed in the ring is directly exposed to the skin.
See example
https://www.meenajewelers.com/details/Astrological_%28Birthstone%29/Astrolo=
gical_BirthStone_Rings/4132/_Emerald__Ring_%2822k_Gold%29/
William Black
> On Aug 12, 12:00 pm, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> Ganesh wrote:
>>> I am from India and I have not heard of magical stories associated
>>> with diamonds other than the ones from India, which makes it unique
>>> and special. There's nothing biased here about it. I did quote what
>>> I've so far gathered from my surroundings. I have come here to gather
>>> more information. Here in India diamonds are worn mostly to ward off
>>> evil effects of planets only upon consultation of an expert
>>> astrologer. :)
>> Except those sold in engagment rings...
>>
>
> I just checked some of the diamond rings they do not expose the
> surface of the diamond to touch the skin check some engagement rings
> here http://www.jamesallen.com/engagement-rings/solitaire-rings/.
> Astrologically diamonds can be adverse for the owner if it does not
> suit him/her. So, I assume jewelry merchants are taking this into
> account when manufacturing engagement rings accordingly.
All the engagement rings made of gold and set with a diamond I've seen
on sale in India were made by jewellers after being commissioned.
Gold and diamonds are of such a price that the cost of making the ring
is negligible in an Indian context.
Every middle class Indian woman I've ever met had a jeweller.
Now, about the usual dress of Christian women in India.
Do tell us what it is...
Ganesh
> Now, =A0about the usual dress of Christian women in India.
>
> Do tell us what it is...
http://tinyurl.com/chattayum-mundum (About 'Chattayum mundum- the
traditional attire of Syrian Christian women')
http://tinyurl.com/goa-dress (Casual Dress in GOA)
http://preview.tinyurl.com/goa-cristian-trad (Dress during prayers, I
doubt this is GOA, India)
Cristian Women in India generally wear local dresses that's mostly in
common to other women living in that location.
William Black
> On Aug 13, 5:24am, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Now, =A0about the usual dress of Christian women in India.
>>
>> Do tell us what it is...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/chattayum-mundum (About 'Chattayum mundum- the
> traditional attire of Syrian Christian women')
A T-shirt and a lungi!
Get real
> http://tinyurl.com/goa-dress (Casual Dress in GOA)
Cotton dresses and a salwar kamese?
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/goa-cristian-trad (Dress during prayers, I
> doubt this is GOA, India)
All wearing salwar kamese (otherwise known as a 'Punjabi Suit') and a veil.
> Cristian Women in India generally wear local dresses that's mostly in
> common to other women living in that location.
I know, my wife is a Christian Indian.
There is no traditional Christian Indian dress.
Ray Gabriel
> industry today, and the world wide markets in both. But please, don't let that
> fact blind you to the fact that the rest of the world is also rather involved as
> well...
Hi Peter & Group!
I didn't mean to start a culture war here! Just wanted
to pass along some background.
India had an extremely large part in the cutting and
"consumption" of diamonds and gems when it was home to the
various principalities ruled by the Maharajahs. This all
came to end at the close of the British Raj and the
formation of the states of India and Pakistan.
They consumed vast quantities of top and famous colored
stones and diamonds - many one-of-a-kind. Many
of these stones came from somewhere else -
Brazil, South East Asia (Siam, Cambodia, Laos, etc.),
various countries in Africa, most brought to India
by traders anonymously and sold to either cutters or the ruler
direct for cutting. And many of these diamonds came from southern
Africa, of course. Many weren't mined in India.
India does control the diamond cutting industry at the moment.
There is no question of that. Marketing, control of rough, sales,
etc.
are largely controlled by the Central Selling Organization / DeBeers.
Cutting quality is purely a matter of quality control. Many of
you have seen the "junk" cut colored stones, largely cut to
make them carat-heavy. I've never been sure where all those
stones wind up, but I've seen literally tons of them in Jaipur -
India's colored stone cutting center. Indian cutters are capable
of doing superb work - also making junk - but India has
always played a large part in consuming, trading and cutting gems.
There are certainly other notable cutting countries - including
Thailand and (now) China.
Finally, gems of all kinds (as well as precious metals) have had
"magical powers" in various cultures.
Ray
gems to excite your imagination! (tm) - since 1975
http://www.raygabriel.com
Abrasha
>
> A huge list of Indian Diamonds and their specialty is that they are
> owned only my monarchs
>
So, what's your point?
--
Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com
Abrasha
>
> But Koh-i-noor on records still is still the biggest finished diamond.
> As per http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A730801 the stone originally
> weighed 793 carats.
You're wrong again!
The "Golden Jubilee Diamond" at 545.67 carats is the largest finished
diamond in the world. By a very large margin.
And the Koh-i-Noor (105.6 carats) isn't the second, third or even 15th
largest finished diamond. Not by a long shot.
The "Cullinan I" or the "First Star of Africa" weighs 530.2 ct
And the "Cullinan II" or the "Lesser Star of Africa", weighs 317.4 ct.
"Spirit of de Grisogono" (found is west central Africa), weighs 312.24 ct.
The "Centenary Diamond" (btw, also NOT found in India) weighs 273.85 ct.
"Jubilee Diamond", 245.35 ct.
"Millennium Star", 203.04 ct.
"La luz de dia", 201 ct.
"Orlov", 189.62 ct.
"Jacob Diamond", 184.5 ct.
"Darya-ye Noor", 182 ct.
"Paragon Diamond", 137.82 ct.
"Florentine Diamond", 137.27 ct.
"Premier Rose Diamond", 137.02 ct.
"Tiffany Yellow Diamond", 128.54
"Star of the South", 128.48 ct.
"Portuguese Diamond", 127.01 ct.
--
Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com
Abrasha
3000+ years?!?
Yeah, right. India has been an "international market place for diamond
jewelry", since 1000 BC
"All the big Diamonds those you can think about are from India."
The first one I can think of, and the largest diamond ever found is the
Cullinan, found in Cullinan South Africa in 1905
The "Excelsior Diamond" was found in 1893 at the Jagersfontein Mine in
South Africa and was the largest diamond ever found until the Cullinan
was found.
The third one I can think of is the "Oppenheimer Diamond" from
Kimberley, South Africa.
The "Lesotho Promise" was found in, you guessed it Lesotho in 2006
I could go on for a while, but that would become boring.
--
Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com
robynahawk
This is THE most fascinating discussion I have ever read on this
group...spirited and informational! I am really enjoying Google -ing
each of the stones mentioned and learning the lore, mystique, and
history behind each of them - thank you for sharing all this
knowledge.
Robyn Hawk
http://facebook.com/aflyonthewallblogs