The first consideration, therefore, may advisedly be that of their crystals, since their crystalline structure forms a ready means for the classification of stones, and indeed for that of a multitudinous variety of substances.

It is one of the many marvellous phenomena of nature that mineral, as well as many vegetable and animal substances, on entering into a state of solidity, take upon themselves a definite form called a crystal. These crystals build themselves round an axis or axes with wonderful regularity, and it has been found, speaking broadly, that the same substance gives the same crystal, no matter how its character may be altered by colour or other means. Even when mixed with other crystallisable substances, the resulting crystals may partake of the two varieties and become a sort of composite, yet to the physicist they are read like an open book, and when separated by analysis they at once revert to their original form. On this property the analyst depends largely for his results, for in such matters as food adulteration, etc., the microscope unerringly reveals impurities by means of the crystals alone, apart from other evidences.

It is most curious, too, to note that no matter how large a crystal may be, when reduced even to small size it will be found that the crystals are still of the same shape. If this process is taken still further, and the substance is ground to the finest impalpable powder, as fine as floating dust, when placed under the microscope each speck, though perhaps invisible to the naked eye, will be seen a perfect crystal, of the identical shape as that from which it came, one so large maybe that its planes and angles might have been measured and defined by rule and compass. This shows how impossible it is to alter the shape of a crystal. We may dissolve it, pour the solution into any shaped vessel or mould we desire, recrystallise it and obtain a solid sphere, triangle, square, or any other form; it is also possible, in many cases, to squeeze the crystal by pressure into a tablet, or any form we choose, but in each case we have merely altered the _arrangement_ of the crystals, so as to produce a differently shaped _mass_, the crystals themselves remaining individually as before. Such can be said to be one of the laws of crystals, and as it is found that every substance has its own form of crystal, a science, or branch of mineralogy, has arisen, called “crystallography,” and out of the conglomeration of confused forms there have been evolved certain rules of comparison by which all known crystals may be classed in certain groups.

This is not so laborious a matter as would appear, for if we take a substance which crystallises in a cube we find it is possible to draw nine symmetrical planes, these being called “planes of symmetry,” the intersections of one or more of which planes being called “axes of symmetry.” So that in the nine planes of symmetry of the cube we get three axes, each running through to the opposite side of the cube. One will be through the centre of a face to the opposite face; a second will be through the centre of one edge diagonally; the third will be found in a line running diagonally from one point to its opposite. On turning the cube on these three axes–as, for example, a long needle running through a cube of soap–we shall find that four of the six identical faces of the cube are exposed to view during each revolution of the cube on the needle or axis.

These faces are not necessarily, or always, planes, or flat, strictly speaking, but are often more or less curved, according to the shape of the crystal, taking certain characteristic forms, such as the square, various forms of triangles, the rectangle, etc., and though the crystals may be a combination of several forms, all the faces of any particular form are similar.

All the crystals at present known exhibit differences in their planes, axes and lines of symmetry, and on careful comparison many of them are found to have some features in common; so that when they are sorted out it is seen that they are capable of being classified into thirty-three groups. Many of these groups are analogous, so that on analysing them still further we find that all the known crystals may be classed in six separate systems according to their planes of symmetry, and all stones of the same class, no matter what their variety or complexity may be, show forms of the same group. Beginning with the highest, we have–(1) the cubic system, with nine planes of symmetry; (2) the hexagonal, with seven planes; (3) the tetragonal, with five planes; (4) the rhombic, with three planes; (5) the monoclinic, with one plane; (6) the triclinic, with no plane of symmetry at all.

In the first, the cubic–called also the isometric, monometric, or regular–there are, as we have seen, three axes, all at right angles, all of them being equal.

The second, the hexagonal system–called also the rhombohedral–is different from the others in having four axes, three of them equal and in one plane and all at 120° to each other; the fourth axis is not always equal to these three. It may be, and often is, longer or shorter. It passes through the intersecting point of the three others, and is perpendicular or at right angles to them.

The third of the six systems enumerated above, the tetragonal–or the quadratic, square prismatic, dimetric, or pyramidal–system has three axes like the cubic, but, in this case, though they are all at right angles, two only of them are equal, the third, consequently, unequal. The vertical or principal axis is often much longer or shorter in this group, but the other two are always equal and lie in the horizontal plane, at right angles to each other, and at right angles to the vertical axis.

The fourth system, the rhombic–or orthorhombic, or prismatic, or trimetric–has, like the tetragonal, three axes; but in this case, none of them are equal, though the two lateral axes are at right angles to each other, and to the vertical axis, which may vary in length, more so even than the other two.

The fifth, the monoclinic–or clinorhombic, monosymmetric, or oblique–system, has also three axes, all of them unequal. The two lateral axes are at right angles to each other, but the principal or vertical axis, which passes through the point of intersection of the two lateral axes, is only at right angles to one of them.

In the sixth and last system, the triclinic–or anorthic, or asymmetric–the axes are again three, but in this case, none of them are equal and none at right angles.

It is difficult to explain these various systems without drawings, and the foregoing may seem unnecessarily technical. It is, however, essential that these particulars should be clearly stated in order thoroughly to understand how stones, especially uncut stones, are classified. These various groups must also be referred to when dealing with the action of light and other matters, for in one or other of them most stones are placed, notwithstanding great differences in hue and character; thus all stones exhibiting the same crystalline structure as the diamond are placed in the same group. Further, when the methods of testing come to be dealt with, it will be seen that these particulars of grouping form a certain means of testing stones and of distinguishing spurious from real. For if a stone is offered as a real gem (the true stone being known to lie in the highest or cubic system), it follows that should examination prove the stone to be in the sixth system, then, no matter how coloured or cut, no matter how perfect the imitation, the test of its crystalline structure stamps it readily as false beyond all shadow of doubt–for as we have seen, no human means have as yet been forthcoming by which the crystals can be changed in form, only in arrangement, for a diamond crystal _is_ a diamond crystal, be it in a large mass, like the brightest and largest gem so far discovered–the great Cullinan diamond–or the tiniest grain of microscopic diamond-dust, and so on with all precious stones. So that in future references, to avoid repetition, these groups will be referred to as group 1, 2, and so on, as detailed here.

All this occurring above and under ground has given them an appearance altogether different to that which follows cutting and polishing. Further, the shape of the stone becomes altered by the same means, and just as Michael Angelo’s figure was already in the marble, as he facetiously said, and all he had to do was to chip off what he did not require till he came to it, so is the same process of cutting and polishing necessary to give to the precious stones their full value, and it is the manner in which these delicate and difficult operations are performed that is now under consideration.

Just as experience and skill are essential to the obtaining of a perfect figure from the block of marble, so must the cutting and polishing of a precious stone call for the greatest dexterity of which a workman is capable, experience and skill so great as to be found only in the expert, for in stones of great value even a slight mistake in the shaping and cutting would probably not only be wasteful of the precious material, but would utterly spoil its beauty, causing incalculable loss, and destroying altogether the refrangibility, lustre and colour of the stone, thus rendering it liable to easy fracture: in every sense converting what would have been a rare and magnificent jewel to a comparatively valueless specimen.

One of the chief services rendered by precious stones is that they may be employed as objects of adornment, therefore, the stone must be cut of such a shape as will allow of its being set without falling out of its fastening -not too shallow or thin, to make it unserviceable and liable to fracture, and in the case of a transparent stone, not too deep for the light to penetrate, or much colour and beauty will be lost.

Again, very few stones are flawless, and the position in which the flaw or flaws appear will, to a great extent, regulate the shape of the stones, for there are some positions in which a slight flaw would be of small detriment, because they would take little or no reflection, whilst in others, where the reflections go back and forth from facet to facet throughout the stone, a flaw would be magnified times without number, and the value of the stone greatly reduced.

It is therefore essential that a flaw should be removed whenever possible, but, when this is not practicable, the expert will cut the stone into such a shape as will bring the defect into the least important part of the finished gem, or probably sacrifice the size and weight of the original stone by cutting it in two or more pieces of such a shape that the cutting and polishing will obliterate the defective portions. Such a method was adopted with the great Cullinan diamond. From this remarkable diamond a great number of magnificent stones were obtained, the two chief being the largest and heaviest at present known. Some idea of the size of the original stone may be gathered from the fact that the traditional Indian diamond, the “Great Mogul,” is said to have weighed 280 carats.

This stone, however, is lost, and some experts believe that it was divided, part of it forming the present famous Koh-i-nur; at any rate, all trace of the Great Mogul ceased with the looting of Delhi in 1739. The Koh-i-nur weighs a little over 106 carats; before cutting it weighed a shade over 186; the Cullinan, in the same state, weighed nearly 3254 carats.

This massive diamond was cut into about 200 stones, the largest, now placed in “The Royal Sceptre with the Cross,” weighing 516-1/2 carats, the second, now placed under the historic ruby in “The Imperial State Crown,” weighing 309-3/16ths carats. These two diamonds are now called “The Stars of Africa.”

Both these stones, but especially the larger, completely overshadow the notorious Koh-i-nur, and notwithstanding the flaw which appeared in the original stone, every one of the resulting pieces, irrespective of weight, is without the slightest blemish and of the finest colour ever known, for the great South African diamond is of a quality never even approached by any existing stone, being ideally perfect.

It requires a somewhat elaborate explanation to make clear the various styles of cut without illustrations. They are usually divided into two groups, with curved, and with flat or plane surfaces. Of the first, the curved surfaces, opaque and translucent stones, such as the moonstone, cat’s-eye, etc., are mostly cut en cabochon, that is, dome-shaped or semi-circular at the top, flat on the underside, and when the garnet is so cut it is called a carbuncle.

In strongly coloured stones, while the upper surface is semi-circular like the cabochon, the under surface is more or less deeply concave, sometimes following the curve of the upper surface, the thickness of the stone being in that case almost parallel throughout.

This is called the “hollow” cabochon. Other stones are cut so that the upper surface is dome-shaped like the last two, but the lower is more or less convex, though not so deep as to make the stone spherical. This is called the “double” cabochon.

A further variety of cutting is known as the goutte de suif, or the “tallow-drop,” which takes the form of a somewhat flattened or long-focus double-convex lens. The more complicated varieties of cut are those appearing in the second group, or those with plane surfaces.

A very old form is the “rose” or “rosette”; in this the extreme upper centre, called the “crown,” or “star,” is usually composed of six triangles, the apexes of which are elevated and joined together, forming one point in the centre. From their bases descend a further series of triangles, the bases and apexes of which are formed by the bases and lower angles of the upper series. This lower belt is called the “teeth,” under which the surface or base of the stone is usually flat, but sometimes partakes of a similar shape to the upper surface, though somewhat modified in form.

Another variety is called the “table cut,” and is used for coloured stones. It has a flat top or “table” of a square or other shape, the edges of which slope outwards and form the “bezils” or that extended portion by which the stone is held in its setting. It will thus be seen that the outside of the stone is of the same shape as that of the “table,” but larger, so that from every portion of the “table” the surface extends downwards, sloping outwards to the extreme size of the stone, the underside sloping downwards and inwards to a small and flat base, the whole, in section, being not unlike the section of a “pegtop.”

A modification of this is known as the “step” cut, sometimes also called the “trap.” Briefly, the difference between this and the last is that whereas the table has usually one bevel on the upper and lower surfaces, the trap has one or more steps in the sloping parts, hence its name.

The most common of all, and usually applied only to the diamond, is the “brilliant” cut. This is somewhat complicated, and requires detailed description. In section, the shape is substantially that of a pegtop with a flat “table” top and a small flat base. The widest portion is that on which the claws, or other form of setting, hold it securely in position. This portion is called the “girdle,” and if we take this as a defining line, that portion which appears above the setting of this girdle, is called the “crown”; the portion below the girdle is called the “culasse,” or less commonly the “pavilion.”

Commencing with the girdle upwards, we have eight “cross facets” in four pairs, a pair on each side; each pair having their apexes together, meeting on the four extremities of two lines drawn laterally at right angles through the stone. It will, therefore, be seen that one side of each triangle coincides with the girdle, and as their bases do not meet, these spaces are occupied by eight small triangles, called “skill facets,” each of which has, as its base, the girdle, and the outer of its sides coincides with the base of the adjoining “cross facet.”

The two inner sides of each pair of skill facets form the half of a diamond or lozenge-shaped facet, called a “quoin,” of which there are four. The inner or upper half of each of these four quoins forms the bases of two triangles, one at each side, making eight in all, which are called “star facets,” and the inner lines of these eight star facets form the boundary of the top of the stone, called the “table.” The inner lines also of the star facets immediately below the table and those of the cross facets immediately above the girdle form four “templets,” or “bezils.” We thus have above the girdle, thirty-three facets: 8 cross, 8 skill, 4 quoin, 8 star, 1 table, and 4 templets.

Reversing the stone and again commencing at the girdle, we have eight “skill facets,” sometimes called the lower skill facets, the bases of which are on the girdle, their outer sides forming the bases of eight cross facets, the apexes of which meet on the extremities of the horizontal line, as in those above the girdle. If the basal lines of these cross facets, where they join the sides of the skill facets, are extended to the peak, or narrow end of the stone, these lines, together with the sides of the cross facets, will form four five-sided facets, called the “pavilions”; the spaces between these four pavilions have their ends nearest the girdle formed by the inner sides of the skill facets, and of these spaces, there will, of course, be four, which also are five-sided figures, and are called “quoins,” so that there are eight five-sided facets -four large and four narrow -their bases forming a square, with a small portion of each corner cut away; the bases of the broader pavilions form the four sides, whilst the bases of the four narrower quoins cut off the corners of the square, and this flat portion, bounded by the eight bases, is called the “culet,” but more commonly “collet.” So that below the girdle, we find twenty-five facets: 8 cross, 8 skill, 4 pavilion, 4 quoin, and 1 collet.

These, with the 33 of the crown, make 58, which is the usual number of facets in a brilliant, though this varies with the character, quality, and size of the diamond. For instance, though this number is considered the best for normal stones, specially large ones often have more, otherwise there is danger of their appearing dull, and it requires a vast amount of skill and experience to decide upon the particular number and size of the facets that will best display the fire and brilliance of a large stone, for it is obvious that if, after months of cutting and polishing, it is found that a greater or smaller number of facets ought to have been allowed, the error cannot be retrieved without considerable loss, and probable ruin to the stone.

In the case of the Cullinan diamonds, the two largest of which are called the Stars of Africa, 74 facets were cut in the largest portion, while in the next largest the experts decided to make 66, and, as already pointed out, these stones are, up to the present time, the most magnificent in fire, beauty and purity ever discovered.

The positions and angles of the facets, as well as the number, are of supreme importance, and diamond cutters -even though they have rules regulating these matters, according to the weight and size of the stone -must exercise the greatest care and exactitude, for their decision once made is practically unalterable.