As an avid follower of historic and important jewels, I was blown away by the gem collection held by the Smithsonian. So I was excited to hear that only a year after my own “historic” visit to see the Hope diamond, the Smithsonian added a new and highly important piece to their collection. Now I’m busy thinking of every possible excuse to get back to D.C. to have a personal look at the Cullinan Blue Diamond Necklace.

Photo by Chip Clark

Aside from the intrinsic value of the rare blue diamonds and over 200 other colorless diamonds, the magic of this necklace seems to be rooted in sentiment, history, and a good story. Several good stories, actually… all of which weave together as artfully as the lacy bow design of the necklace itself.

It all starts with a South African explorer and prospector who purchased a diamond mine in the Transvaal Colony in 1902 hoping to make a fortune. Although his prior prospecting had been mostly unsuccessful, it’s reported that he promised his wife that in his new venture he would find her the largest diamond in the world.

In 1905, it seemed his promise would be fulfilled when a perfectly clear and colorless 3,106-carat rough diamond was discovered in his mine (it remains the largest rough, gem-quality diamond ever found). But although the historical find was named after him, Thomas Cullinan did not give the stone to his wife. Instead, he sold it to the Transvaal government for £150,000 (roughly equivalent to more than £12,750,000/$20,642,000 today), and insured for 10 times that amount.

The gigantic rough stone was carefully cleaved into nine primary stones, as well as a multitude of smaller stones, altogether amounting to a total of 1,063 carats, with the remainder lost to the cutting process. Like the Hope diamond with its connections to the French royal family, the Cullinan diamond was destined to become closely associated with royalty. By 1910, the nine primary stones cut from the rough stone had been either gifted to or purchased by the British royal family, and Thomas Cullinan had been knighted by the British government.

While the Hope diamond is said to have brought misfortune to anyone who ever owned it (most notoriously, the ill-fated King Louis XVI of France and his consort, Marie Antoinette), the British royals have had no such trouble with the Cullinan diamonds. The two largest pieces, the 530.2-carat Greater Star of Africa (also known as the Cullinan I) and the 317.4-carat Second Star of Africa (Cullinan II), are set in the Royal Sceptre and the Imperial State Crown, respectively. Both have been used in the British royal coronation ceremonies since 1911 and are on display at the Tower of London as part of the Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom. The other seven pieces – ranging in size from 94.4 carats down to 4.4 carats are set in various pieces of jewelry that are worn to this day by Queen Elizabeth II.

Photo by Chip Clark

This beautiful jewel, with its signature graceful Edwardian style, was passed down through the descendants of Sir Thomas and his wife through the first daughter of each generation until their great-granddaughter sold it to California jeweler Stephen Silver in 1992. This year, Silver donated the necklace to the National Gem Collection and it officially went on exhibit in the Harry Winston Gallery at the National Museum of Natural History in Washington D.C. on September 27. It won’t remain next to its larger cousin, the Hope diamond, for long, however. In the spring of 2011, the Cullinan Blue Diamond Necklace will make its permanent home in the National Gem Gallery.

Even without a royal provenance, record size or notorious past, the Cullinan Blue Diamond Necklace has managed to make its way into the pages of history as a significant and important piece of jewelry on level with the Hope and Cullinan diamonds. To me, it proves that sentiment, symbolism and timeless elegance count as much – if not more – in jewelry as celebrity, carat size and ostentation.

-Tori

**************

For more information on the Cullinan Blue Diamond Necklace, I recommend the following links:

• Smithsonian Science: Cullinan Blue Diamond Necklace.
• Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History: The Cullinan Blue Diamond Necklace.
• Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History: Gem Gallery – Cullinan Blue Diamond Necklace.

But be warned, whether you’re one of the masses exchanging your scrap gold for quick cash or one of the wealthy elite consigning your magnificent jewels through an exclusive auctioneer, you can be sure that some self-satisfied snob somewhere in the world thinks what you’re doing is “vulgar.”

If, like me, you’re one of the masses, consider yourself lucky: there are too many of us to be singled out personally for the epithet and, in any case, little better is expected from the likes of us. On the other hand, the more prominent you are, the more likely you are to get a public verbal beat-down, especially if you happen to be selling an inheritance you received from someone still more prominent than yourself.

A perfect example of the latter scenario took place in 2006 when the children of Britain’s Princess Margaret auctioned off many of their late mother’s personal possessions, including her jewelry, at Christie’s, some four years after her death. Critics of the sale were up in arms, calling it “humiliating,” “disrespectful,” and, of course, “vulgar.”

It mattered little that the Princess’s children had no need for their late mother’s valuable tiaras, diamond necklaces, or Fabergé clocks. Or that they wanted to use the proceeds from the sale to pay inheritance taxes, buy things they could actually use, or donate to charity. Instead, the vulgarity of it all, according to the critics, lay in the fact that these objects once owned by royalty were allowed to slip into the hands of “souvenir hunters.” Above all, however, was the suggestion that by publicly exchanging the jewels for cash, these near-royals behaved shamefully like the rest of us by unabashedly seeking cash for gold.

In addition to being arrogant and insulting – not to mention hypocritical – these conclusions are so far removed from historical reality it’s almost ridiculous. If anything, the privileged and wealthy have taken full advantage of jewelry for its liquidity and viability as portable wealth for time immemorial. And although some have chosen to do so discreetly and quietly, many have chosen to take full advantage of the higher prices a distinguished provenance can command.

This is especially true in the case of royalty, who often amassed jewelry not only for personal enjoyment and self-aggrandizement, but also as a nest egg in the event of revolution or usurpation. Frequently, that same jewelry was sold by the original owners or by successive generations for any number of legitimate reasons – and to whomever was buying – to little critical outcry. (Incidentally, the mistresses of royalty and other wealthy men have also employed this method of “insurance” throughout history, and for similar reasons as their royal counterparts. But, unseemly as it may be, this particular connection is not necessarily what makes the critics cringe.)

Personally, I’m inclined to see historically important jewelry preserved wherever possible, but it’s sanctimonious and unrealistic to suggest that the heirs of the rich and illustrious – never mind the rest of us – should hold family jewelry sacrosanct and refrain from selling to the highest bidder, especially when there are no legal or ethical reasons to do otherwise and the proceeds could be put to more practical use. In fact, when it comes to important and historic jewelry, the more public and transparent the sale, the more likely it is that historical provenance will be preserved, or at least recorded, for posterity.

If such magnificent jewels were all sold on the sly – let’s say, slipped in an envelope and mailed attention: “Cash for Gold” – a great many historically important and beautiful collections might be lost, never to get the recognition they deserve. Now that would be vulgar.

-Tori