Talk:Hope Diamond/Archive 1

Archive 1

Popular culture section

This section is especially pathetic in this article, listing unimportant allusions from unimportant TV episodes. I suggest its complete removal. Any objections? Mlouns (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If I don't hear objections by a week from today, I will probably delete the section. Mlouns (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I object68.123.155.229 (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)§ :D

Little late to object; it's been deleted for over a year now.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Marie Antoinette

The article mentions that Marie Antoinette never modified the French Blue nor did she wear it. I don't believe that her resetting of the crown jewels is common knowledge; I'm not sure what the relevance of her inaction is. Perhaps mention of her should be removed and the paragraph should focus on the fact that the French Blue in the Order of the Golden Fleece pendant was unmodified from 1749-1792 with only the one exception of the "scientific study." Any thoughts?--68.225.131.130 (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Marie Antoinette is often invoked as a victim of the "curse", supposedly having brought on the French Revolution and her death at the guillotine by having worn the blue diamond. While she did wear many of the crown jewels, the French Blue was not among them, thus contradicting another stock element of the legend. Wombat1138 (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Winston mailing

This article mentions Winston mailing the Hope to the Smithsonian in a brown paper bag through the postal service. However, the article on Winston himself identifies a different diamond as "The Jonker" that he had put in the mail. Since it was also a large diamond, the two could be confused. However, since The Jonker was uncut it is much more likely this is the one he had mailed as it would have appeared unspectacular to anyone who came across it. The Hope would have been finished and easily recognizable as valuable. 66.152.251.226 (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

value

I wonder, what is the estimated value of the hope diamond to date?

• As stated in the article, the Hope diamond was examined by GIA gemologists in December 1988. They graded it for clarity, color, cut, and weight. They DID NOT appraise it. T.E. Goodwin 05:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added the estimated value of the Gem in British pounds as well as in American dollars. Where in the world did the preposterous value of $300 to $350 BILLION come from for this diamond? That is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.111.26 (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The Wittelsbach Blue, which is smaller by about 10 ct and has a similar, if less lurid provenance, just sold for $24 million. A range of $40-50 million is probably realistic.205.143.123.10 (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ten Years ago the Smithsonian estimated the value of the Hope Diamond at $100 Million. I would'nt imagine the value increasing very much over the past decade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.59.101.93 (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

According to mostexpensivediamond.org The estimated value is around 350 Million I dont know if this qualifies as a RS but I figured it would be at least appropriate for the "Talk Page".--HighallTimes (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

actualy I just read it and in 2011 it would go for: 200-250 MILLION dollers!

Added to Wikiproject Paranormal

...due to the circumstances surrounding the curse, et al. --Chr.K. 19:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• If you read the Hope Diamond article carefully, you will see that the so-called "curse" was an invention that started in 1909, because of a newspaper article. Many of the people "cursed" by possession of the diamond never existed. Harry Winston often carried the Hope Diamond on his person, and he died at the age of 82 of natural causes. In actuality, there is nothing "paranormal" about the Hope Diamond, except for the ongoing nonsense about the alleged "curse." T.E. Goodwin 05:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Pitau

Sieur Piteau is not the forename of the jeweller, it is his title in french it is like writing in english Lord Pitau. I'd rather write 'The jeweller Piteau,' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chris CII (talk • contribs) 00:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

two images

The two images at the end of the article are pretty atrocious quality, and don't show the diamond nearly as well as the first pic. Can we get rid of them? They add nothing to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.220.186 (talk) 06:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

this is a bunch of poopie. and curses are not real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.68.12.134 (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The old "Legends" heading

I have renamed the old "Legends" heading to Legend.

I removed the quotes that surrounded the heading's name because it seems to be silly to put quotes around the word legend as if you are saying, "this is the supposed legend."

I also changed the heading so that it can be singular since there is only one legend being spoken about at the time of the edit. When another legend is added, we can change it back to plural: Legends.

Joel M. (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

1970's TV Program

I vividly recall watching this program during the 1970's about the Hope Diamond (more than once in fact). It would be a good addition to the section titled "In Popular Culture"

http://tv.nytimes.com/show/53166/Legendary-Curse-of-the-Hope-Diamond/overview —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katyraider (talk • contribs) 03:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional Information

If you look very carefully at the bottom of Harry Winston's original setting for the Hope Diamond, you will see a tiny hook. From this hook, Evalyn Walsh McLean often hung the diamond named "The Star Of The East", a pear-shaped diamond weighing nearly 95 carats.

While the Hope Diamond was on exhibit in South Africa in 1965, it was displayed on a gold rosebush. The diamond rested in the center of a golden web like spider; alluding to the legend of bad luck.

Source for these additions: "Blue Mystery The Story of the Hope Diamond" copyright 1976 by Susanne Steinem Patch, Smithsonian Institution Press. Foreword by Paul E Sesautels, then curator in charge of the National Collection of Gems.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabrina Sprite (talk • contribs) 00:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Was Hope a King?

Hi, In the section 'The Museum national d'Histoire naturelle (MNHN) in Paris' there is the sentence, 'Like many kings before him, Hope could have pawned the French Blue to Eliason to get cash at a time the sterling was highly depreciated.' However, Hope was a banker and not of royal blood, am I correct? This sentence needs clarification as it implies Hope was a King. Not sure how to do this as I am not overly familiar with the details of the Hope diamond (having come here from the media reports of the new setting at the Smithsonian).

The stone's necklace with the Star of the East attachment ought to be mentioned in the article. Most people have never heard of the Star of the East and would probably be surprised to hear about it. --98.232.176.109 (talk) 08:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

However, a casual reader, such as myself, may come away with the impression that Hope was a King. Could someone with real expertise please correct! Maybe something along the line of, 'Like the kings who owned the the diamond before him, the Dutch banker Hope could have pawned...'

Hope this helps in the improvement of this article :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondegreen de plume (talk • contribs) 05:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Source for these additions: "Blue Mystery The Story of the Hope Diamond" copyright 1976 by Susanne Steinem Patch, Smithsonian Institution Press. Foreword by Paul E Sesautels, then curator in charge of the National Collection of Gems.

Photo needed of the new necklace!

When is somebody going to post a photo of the new necklace??? --98.232.176.109 (talk) 08:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

And for that matter, post a whole bunch of new information culled from the Smithsonian show, like the story of the postal worker who carried the registered mail package to the museum? --Magmagirl (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Done and done folks! Now if someone more qualified than I can move it around so it shows at the "right" place instead of waaay at the botom, it would be appreciated. I'm not suggesting it should be the "main" photo but surely it should be a bit higher up. Cheers, Observer31 (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Article needs cleanup and attention

I took the liberty of adding the tag and category -- it looks like this hasn't seen a significant update since before Harry Winston revealed its new anniversary setting, and since then Smithsonian Channel aired "Mystery of the Hope Diamond," which also provided more information. --Magmagirl (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Revamp expansion -- seeking advice

I'm worked on a tentative redraft of this article as part of the U.S. collaboration of the month in a sandbox here. I kept pretty much all of the previous information, with occasional copyedits, but added numerous references, a few sections and pictures. I added two wikitables to summarize info about the changing ownership and value, as well as the fates of previous owners.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It's possible to swap the sandbox article in to the Hope Diamond article, then swap it out soon thereafter (this permits the two versions to be compared side by side); but it probably wouldn't be worth it because so much stuff has been moved around.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

While working on it, I was kind of surprised to find other sources on the web which were more thorough and comprehensive than Wikipedias so I hope the revamp will make it competitive out there. There are loads of interesting stories, as well as fabricated stuff about the supposed curse probably to generate publicity (to up the diamond's value?) but I tried to keep everything in and maintain the neutral perspective and yet try to write it (while keeping facts hopefully straight) to keep a flow going. I'm wondering:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• would people please look it over and offer comments and suggestions?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• one thing I'm wondering about -- and it's kind of a big issue which I'm not sure about -- but it's this -- is the Hope Diamond the actual stone in the Smithsonian? Or is it the pattern which is beautiful, or the idea of the stone, which is valuable -- in this latter case, the content about the French efforts to create a replica, based on the leaden forms, means that the cubic zirconia model in Paris is the same importance as the rock in Washington. I'm kind of leaning to thinking that the French efforts to create a replica perhaps deserves a paragraph or two in the Hope Diamond article, but that the replica stuff should have its own article somewhere. But I'm seeking advice on this question.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Update -- sandbox article moved in here, so make changes directly here in the Hope Diamond article (not the sandbox) if you wish. One more thing: I'm leaving the expanded "quote" sections in the references for now -- to make it easier for people to check instead of using the slow-moving pdf files; but as per copyvio requirements, after about a week or so I will trim these quotes-within-references down substantially which will also trim the article down a bit too. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Values

Where the diamond was sold in countries other than the US, the values should be given in that country's currency first, with the value in US dollars in parentheses afterwards. As it stands in this article at the moment, for its sale in the UK, in some cases the values are given in US dollars alone, which is clearly a nonsense as the USD is not the currency there. There must be consistency, I realise, in providing USD values for all its sale prices over the years, especially as it now resides in the US, but to give primacy to USD values for sales not in USD is just plain worng, especially in an international encyclopaedia. Conversely, the table is a mess - all values such as livres, francs etc should have 2011 USD value in parentheses. 86.133.210.78 (talk) 08:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Please fix.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Photo

Hi folks. I've uploaded a 1974 official photograph from the Smithsonian of the Hope Diamond. Perhaps it's of value for this article. You can find the image here. -- Sarah (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Cool! How did you get this photo! Great -- I added it. Maybe we should use it as the lead photo in the infobox? Thanks SS.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Geological Beginnings

This section seems unnecessary to me, as it pertains to the general process through which diamonds are created, rather than any specific feature of the Hope Diamond. I propose that it be deleted - objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.32.35 (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I object; geological beginnings are both relevant and interesting. Most people are unfamiliar with how diamonds are formed, and this article will be their only exposure to it. It relates to the diamond's uniqueness. Many subjects have a "history" section which helps readers place the subject in context; this one should too.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Seconded, in favor. I found it a nice refresher on very basic geophysics with specifics on the hue and structural peculiarities that make this diamond unique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raiders88 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Propose to merge from Tavernier Blue into Hope Diamond history section; "No need for two separate articles"; discussion here. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 06:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Probably a good idea to merge, since it is almost certainly the same diamond, and having two separate articles might possibly be confusing to some readers.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

* Same here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.36.142.129 (talk) 11:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm Opposed, for the reasons given below, and per WP:SIZERULE. This article is already over 95Kb, which well past the point we should be considering splitting it up, not thinking about adding more to it. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Very Strong Oppose - Sure, the Tavernier Blue was the precursor of the Hope Diamond, but that doesn't exactly make them the same. For example, the Tavernier Blue was also cut into another blue diamond (see the Tavernier Blue article for more info on this). So the articles shouldn't be merged, because despite the similarities, they are not one and the same. LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me for hashing out the IP's comment above. It provided no explanation or reasoning at all, so we can't take that vote into account in the final polls, as per Wikipedia's rules on article discussions. LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

As per reasons given above, I'm changing to oppose. Article is fairly long as it is.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• In view of the reduction of support for this merge proposal, can I suggest we close it now? I've made a counter-proposal below; can I ask for comment on that? Moonraker12 (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose This page is already too big, as my "sizecheker" Nokia 206 can't load this page. Clubjustin3 (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dubious

I've flagged this as dubious, for a whole pile of reasons.
For one, it is devoid of a neutral point of view; it reads like an essay arguing in favour of a particular position.
For another, the article is full of such phrases as “supposedly”,  “likely scenario”, “long been believed”, and “historians suggested” or “speculated”. It is a catalogue of special pleading and speculation. Although the article argues forcefully that the Hope Diamond and the Tavernier Blue are the same stone (or some of the same stone, anyway) the Hope has no firm provenance before 1839 (or maybe 1830). And though there is some scientific evidence of a link, that is based on examination of a lead replica, whose provenance doesn't extend beyond 2007.
Third, it is difficult to verify (as the source of many of the references (NYT) is unavailable to casual (ie.unsubscribed) readers) and what is written here takes a cavalier attitude to them. The article states, for example, “in September 1812, the earliest point when the history of the Hope Diamond can be definitively fixed”....: ”Definitively”? Of the two sources given, one (the Smithsonian) says only that “strong evidence indicates” the Hope is a re-cut of the French Blue, and the other source is Farges, who is the person making the claim. It goes on, “although a second less definitive report claims that the Hope Diamond's "authentic history" can only be traced back to 1830”; Really? Less definitive? An article in a jewellers trade journal is less definitive?
As mentioned above, this article is already too big; it would make more sense to move the stuff here about the history prior to 1792 to the Tavernier Blue article, leaving a summary here with a statement to the effect that there is strong evidence the Tavernier Blue was recut secretly to form the Hope. My two pennies worth... Moonraker12 (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Split?

In view of the erosion of support for the merge proposal (above), may I make a counter-proposal, that the article here be split? I suggest we move the information about the jewel's history prior to 1792 to the Tavernier Blue article, leaving a summary here with a statement to the effect that there is strong evidence the Tavernier Blue was recut secretly to form the Hope (and a similar statement there). This would resolve the article size issue here and make the Tavernier Blue article more rounded. As has been said, the Hope and the French Blue may well be materially the same, but they are not the same jewel in any other sense. The point was also made by Francois Farges, who is the person who has done most to link the two jewels (quote: "The diamond has been recut, which means that the one in Smithsonian is a completely different stone"). Moonraker12 (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

As a contributor, I put much work into this article a while back, revamping the article almost entirely, adding numerous references, fleshing out its history, and my sense is that the current content all applies to the topic Hope Diamond. I see it as one subject. In my view, just because a diamond was trimmed from time to time does not make it a new rock, and my sense is that the preponderance of evidence is that the Louis XVI diamond is the same one that became the Hope Diamond, so there is continuity from its origins in India to its present position in the Smithsonian. I think it would be confusing for some people if they had to visit a separate article entitled Tavernier Blue to read up on its fascinating history of the Hope Diamond. About the TOOBIG guideline -- there are many articles which are longer than 100K bytes and I don't think the length is breaking anybody's browsers -- they can simply scroll down if they choose. Further, the Tavernier Blue article (which has no references) gets weak page views, only about 40/day, compared to the Hope Diamond article, which gets 1000/day, meaning that readers, genuinely interested in the Hope Diamond, may not find what they're looking for, if they have to figure out to click a link to a separate article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. If you have largely written this I can understand you feel it is fine just the way it is. I am content to wait and see what anyone else has to say on the subject. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Protection request on 27 September 2015

Since it a popular page[?] — 73.47.37.131 (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

What is it you want to add? GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 22:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

See the header, this was a malformed protection request, and the IP has previously been cautioned against filing frivolous requests at RFPP. Altamel (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

What the McLeans paid for it

You say ...the McLeans may have fabricated concern about the supposed "curse" to generate publicity to increase the value of their investment.

This statement seems to relate to the time they purchased the diamond. If they did want to exploit the legend, it would have been well after purchasing it. Valetude (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes further clarity is needed here, but I wonder if this is possible...--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Whole curse and "controversy" section

Is it really necessary to actually spell out that the supposed curse might not be real? That's like arguing that a haunted house may not really be haunted. It's okay to note how marketers and salesmen sensationalised it but parts like "there are strong indications that such stories [about a curse] were not grounded in solid fact" are completely redundant and ridiculous of themselves for suggesting they could have been. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue of the supposed curse is tightly interwoven with the whole story of the diamond, how it is marketed, and evidence suggesting that there is or is not a curse is directly relevant to the story. And, trying to prove any supposed existence of a curse runs into the same difficulty as trying to prove the existence or nonexistence of supposed aliens landing in the Arizona desert (or whether there is, in fact, a God or not) -- simply that curse-believers can simply say that not all the evidence has been examined or that the skeptics simply haven't looked hard or long enough. So, in Wikipedia, to be neutral, we can not say one way or the other what we believe (I personally don't believe in the curse but my view is irrelevant) and therefore our sole recourse is to say what the sources say and let people make up their own minds. So, if a sentence appears ridiculous to you, it may not appear that way to others who find themselves predisposed to believing in the supernatural.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The "not grounded in solid fact" is ambiguous, but I think it's trying to say that some of the claimed events ("X bought the diamond and committed suicide") simply never happened, rather than commenting on whether magic was involved. We should clarify this. --McGeddon (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

How about simply removing the "not grounded in solid fact" phrase, so it reads...

The diamond has been surrounded by a mythology of a reputed curse to the effect that it brings misfortune and tragedy to persons who own it or wear it, but there are strong indications that such stories were fabricated to enhance the stone's mystery and appeal, since increased publicity usually raised the gem's value and newsworthiness.

--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Although it's looking as if the article is lacking a source for "strong indications that such stories were fabricated", as well as pretty much every other statement about some of the curse stories being fabricated. Later statements of "mainstream academic view is that these accounts are specious and speculative", "incorrectly reported that the diamond's former owner, Selim Habib, had drowned in a shipwreck", "historians dismissed the fantastical story" and "leading researchers to conclude that most of these persons are fictitious" are also all unsourced. --McGeddon (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Snooze. Easy to source. I added sources. Also the NY Times article about Selim Habib did say that he wasn't the one who had drowned -- unfortunately, the rest of the article is hidden behind a paywall, but I remember distinctly that the article said Habib didn't drown. I removed references to academics and historians since I don't think serious historians bother with this nonsense.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC) also check out this source.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)