A crafts forum. CraftBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CraftBanter forum » Craft related newsgroups » Jewelry
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Jewelry in India / Gems in India



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 10th 09, 05:02 PM posted to rec.crafts.jewelry
Peter W. Rowe[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 115
Default Jewelry in India / Gems in India

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 08:52:14 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry Ganesh
wrote:


On Aug 8, 10:23*pm, Peter W. Rowe
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.


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
Ads
  #12  
Old August 10th 09, 05:14 PM posted to rec.crafts.jewelry
Peter W. Rowe[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 115
Default Jewelry in India / Gems in India

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 08:51:14 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry Ganesh
wrote:


On Aug 10, 1:48*pm, Peter W. Rowe
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
well... *


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.


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.
  #13  
Old August 10th 09, 05:16 PM posted to rec.crafts.jewelry
Jim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default Jewelry in India / Gems in India

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:02:18 -0700, Peter W. Rowe
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...
  #14  
Old August 11th 09, 02:39 AM posted to rec.crafts.jewelry
Jim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default Jewelry in India / Gems in India

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:02:18 -0700, Peter W. Rowe
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...
  #15  
Old August 11th 09, 03:00 AM posted to rec.crafts.jewelry
Peter W. Rowe[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 115
Default Jewelry in India / Gems in India

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:39:23 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry Jim
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:02:18 -0700, Peter W. Rowe
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...


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
  #16  
Old August 11th 09, 03:22 PM posted to rec.crafts.jewelry
Jim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default Jewelry in India / Gems in India

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:00:58 -0700, Peter W. Rowe
discovered a keyboard and, for our
edification and amusement, submitted



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...
  #17  
Old August 11th 09, 07:25 PM posted to rec.crafts.jewelry
Ganesh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 28
Default Jewelry in India / Gems in India

On Aug 11, 6:39*am, Jim wrote:
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
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.
  #18  
Old August 11th 09, 07:26 PM posted to rec.crafts.jewelry
Jim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default Jewelry in India / Gems in India

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:00:58 -0700, Peter W. Rowe
discovered a keyboard and, for our
edification and amusement, submitted



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...
  #19  
Old August 11th 09, 07:27 PM posted to rec.crafts.jewelry
Peter W. Rowe[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 115
Default Jewelry in India / Gems in India

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:26:23 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry Jim
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
  #20  
Old August 11th 09, 07:44 PM posted to rec.crafts.jewelry
Peter W. Rowe[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 115
Default Jewelry in India / Gems in India

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:25:54 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry 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.


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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Kundan Jewelry India jewelry India Glass 8 April 5th 08 06:36 PM
Aryavart Jewelry India jewelry India Glass 1 January 12th 08 05:28 PM
Aryavart Jewelry India jewelry India Doll Houses 0 January 12th 08 04:57 PM
Aryavart Jewelry India jewelry India Carving 0 January 12th 08 04:57 PM
Aryavart Jewelry India jewelry India Beads 0 January 12th 08 04:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CraftBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.