1881.] visited and described by Tavernier. 35 



took place between the years 1665 and 1669, then this diamond cannot 

 have the great antiquity claimed for it by some of those who consider 

 it to be identical with the Koh-i-nur. 



Tavernier's third mention of this diamond which is accompanied by a 

 figure is as follows : " This diamond belongs to the Great Mogul who did 

 me the honour to show it to me with all his other jewels one sees the 

 form which it received on being cut. On my being permitted to weigh it I 

 have found its weight to be 3L9^ rath which are 279 T °g- of our carats. In 

 its rough state it weighed as I have said 907 ratis which are 793y\ carats, 

 The stone has the same form as if one cut an egg in two." 



He gives us therefore two different accounts of its weight in the 

 rough, 900 ratis or 787i carats and 907 ratis or 793y\ carats. It is 

 obvious that there is a mistake as the two do not agree in any respect even 

 the equivalent values calculated at 1 rati = |- of a carat should be 78 7£ 

 and 793f. I have already pointed out strange and unaccountable defects in 

 Tavernier's arithmetic. 



Different weights and measures appear to have been used in different 

 parts of the country in his time, the mangelin = If carats or 7 grains at 

 Raolconda and Coulour • the rati = ■£ of a carat or 3^ grains at Soumelpour. 

 If we could vviou approximate accuracy fix the value of the rati mentioned 

 by Tavernier we might succeed perhaps in instituting a fair comparison 

 between the Great Mogul and other diamonds. It seems to be difficult to 

 believe that it equalled 3^ grains as he states. In Nagpur in the year 1827 

 according to Mr. Jenkins the rati was only 2-014 grains. The French 

 grain was equal to about '77 of a troy grain, therefore since the rati 

 contained 3| of these, its value would have been 2 695 or say 2 7 troy, 

 This fact seems to have been overlooked by some who have endeavoured to 

 reduce the weights given by Tavernier : non-experts too, appear to have 

 forgotten that the diamond grain is not identical with any other grain, 

 though our English carat contains 4 of these grains it only consists of 

 3 174 troy grains.* So calculated, the weight of the Great Mogul would 



319'5 x 27 



be n , ■ = 271 - 78 English carats. If in this equation we could 



3174 & * 



see our way to putting the value of Tavernier's rati at 1*84 instead of 2*7 



then the exact weight of the Koh-i-nur when brought to England would 



be obtained but for this there is perhaps no necessity. Another system of 



calculation is used by the writer of a note in the Great Exhibition Catalogue of 



1851, in which he adopts the known maximum weight of a rati at 2y\ grains 



( ? what grains) and thence deduces 175 carats as the weight of the Great 



Mogul. This is somewhat short of the 186 r V carats of the Koh-i-nur while 



the other is too large. Supposing the Koh-i-nur to be identical with the Great 



* Vide Encyclopaedia Britannica, Art. Diamond. 



