Talk:Cullinan Diamond

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Diamond Cullinan Diamond is part of WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Gemstones, Jewelry, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article is supported by WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, gemstones subpage.
WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry To-do:

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

Contents

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Some other articles

[1]

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)