The difference between a break or fracture and a “cleave,” is that the former may be anywhere throughout the substance of the broken body, with an extremely remote chance of another fracture being identical in form, whereas in the latter, when a body is “cleaved,” the fractured part is more readily severed, and usually takes a similar if not an actually identical form in the divided surface of each piece severed.

Thus we find a piece of wood may be “broken” or “chopped” when fractured across the grain, no two fractured edges being alike; but, strictly speaking, we only “cleave” wood when we “split” it with the grain, or, in scientific language, along the line of cleavage, and then we find many pieces with their divided surfaces identical. So that when wood is “broken,” or “chopped,” we obtain pieces of any width or thickness, with no manner of regularity of fracture, but when “cleaved,” we obtain strips which are often perfectly parallel, that is, of equal thickness throughout their whole length, and of such uniformity of surface that it is difficult or even impossible to distinguish one strip from another. Advantage is taken of these lines of cleavage to procure long and extremely thin even strips from trees of the willow variety for such trades as basket-making.

The same effect is seen in house-coal, which may easily be split the way of the grain (on the lines of cleavage), but is much more difficult and requires greater force to break across the grain. Rocks also show distinct lines of cleavage, and are more readily split one way than another, the line of cleavage or stratum of break being at any angle and not necessarily parallel to its bed.

A striking example of this is seen in slate, which may be split in plates, or laminæ, with great facility, though this property is the result of the pressure to which the rock has been for ages subjected, which has caused a change in the molecules, rather than by “cleavage” as the term is strictly understood, and as existing in minerals. Mica is also another example of laminated cleavage, for given care, and a thin, fine knife to divide the plates, this mineral may be “cleaved” to such remarkably thin sheets as to be unable to sustain the most delicate touch without shattering.

These are well-known examples of simple cleavage, in one definite direction, though in many instances there are several forms and directions of cleavage, but even in these there is generally one part or line in and on which cleavage will take place much more readily than on the others, these planes or lines also showing different properties and angular characters, which, no matter how much fractured, always remain the same. It is this “cleavage” which causes a crystal to reproduce itself exactly, as explained in the last chapter, showing its parent form, shape and characteristics with microscopic perfection, but more and more in miniature as its size is reduced.

This may clearly be seen by taking a very small quantity of such a substance as chlorate of potash. If a crystal of this is examined under a magnifying glass till its crystalline form and structure are familiar, and it is then placed in a test-tube and gently heated, cleavage will at once be evident. With a little crackling, the chlorate splits itself into many crystals along its chief lines of cleavage (called the cleavage planes), every one of which crystals showing under the microscope the identical form and characteristics of the larger crystal from which it came.

The cleavage of minerals must, therefore, be considered as a part of their crystalline structure, since this is caused by cleavage, so that both cleavage and crystalline structure should be considered together. Thus we see that given an unchangeable crystal with cleavage planes evident, it is possible easily to reproduce the same form over and over again by splitting, whereas by simply breaking, the form of the crystal would be lost; just as a rhomb of Iceland spar might be sawn or broken across the middle and its form lost, although this would really be more apparent than real, since it would be an alteration in the mass and not in the shape of each individual crystal. And given further cleavage, by time or a sudden breaking down, even the mass, as mass, would eventually become split into smaller but perfect rhombs.

Much skill is, therefore, required in cutting and fashioning a precious stone, otherwise the gem may be ruined at the onset, for it will only divide along its lines of cleavage, and any mistake in deciding upon these, would “break,” not “split” the stone, and destroy the beauty of its crystalline structure. An example of this was specially seen in the great Cullinan diamond, the splitting of which was perhaps the most thrilling moment in the history of precious stones.[A] The value of the enormous crystal was almost beyond computation, but it had a flaw in the centre, and in order to cut out this flaw it was necessary to divide the stone into two pieces. The planes of cleavage were worked out, the diamond was sawn a little, when the operator, acknowledged to be the greatest living expert, inserted a knife in the saw-mark, and with the second blow of a steel rod, the marvellous stone parted precisely as intended, cutting the flaw exactly in two, leaving half of it on the outside of each divided portion.

The slightest miscalculation would have meant enormous loss, if not ruin, to the stone, but the greatest feat the world has ever known in the splitting of a priceless diamond was accomplished successfully by this skilful expert in an Amsterdam workroom in February, 1908. Some idea of the risk involved may be gathered from the fact that this stone, the largest ever discovered, in the rough weighed nearly 3,254 carats, its value being almost anything one cared to state–incalculable.

These cleavage planes help considerably in the bringing of the stone to shape, for in a broad sense, a finished cut stone may be said to be in the form in which its cleavages bring it. Particularly is this seen in the diamond “brilliant,” which plainly evidences the four cleavage planes. These cleavage planes and their number are a simple means of identification of precious stones, though those possessing distinct and ready cleavages are extremely liable to “start” or “split” on these planes by extremes of heat and cold, accidental blows, sudden shocks and the like.

In stones possessing certain crystalline structure, the cleavage planes are the readiest, often the only, means of identification, especially when the stones are chemically coloured to imitate a more valuable stone. In such cases the cleavage of one stone is often of paramount importance in testing the cleavage of another, as is seen in the perfection of the cleavage planes of calcite, which is used in the polariscope.

It sometimes happens, however, that false conditions arise, such as in substances which are of no form or shape, and are in all respects and directions without regular structure and show no crystallisation even in the minutest particles; these are called amorphous. Such a condition sometimes enters wholly or partially into the crystalline structure, and the mineral loses its true form, possessing instead the form of crystals, but without a crystalline structure. It is then called a pseudomorph, which is a term applied to any mineral which, instead of having the form it should possess, shows the form of something which has altered its structure completely, and then disappeared. For instance: very often, in a certain cavity, fluorspar has existed originally, but, through some chemical means, has been slowly changed to quartz, so that, as crystals cannot be changed in shape, we find quartz existing -undeniably quartz- yet possessing the crystals of fluorspar; therefore the quartz becomes a pseudomorph, the condition being an example of what is termed pseudomorphism. The actual cause of this curious chemical change or substitution is not known with certainty, but it is interesting to note the conditions in which such changes do occur.

It is found that in some cases, the matrix of a certain shaped crystal may, after the crystal is dissolved or taken away, become filled by some other and foreign substance, perhaps in liquid form; or a crystalline substance may become coated or “invested” by another foreign substance, which thus takes its shape; or actual chemical change takes place by means of an incoming substance which slowly alters the original substance, so that eventually each is false and both become pseudomorphs. This curious change often takes place with precious stones, as well as with other minerals, and to such an extent that it sometimes becomes difficult to say what the stone ought really to be called.

Pseudomorphs are, however, comparatively easy of isolation and detection, being more or less rounded in their crystalline form, instead of having sharp, well-defined angles and edges; their surfaces also are not good. These stones are of little value, except in the specially curious examples, when they become rare more by reason of their curiosity than by their utility as gems.

Some also show cleavage planes of two or more systems, and others show a crystalline structure comprised of several systems. Thus calcspar is in the 2nd, or hexagonal, whilst aragonite is in the 4th, the rhombic, system, yet both are the same substance, viz.: carbonate of lime.

Such a condition is called dimorphism; those minerals which crystallise in three systems are said to be trimorphous. Those in a number of systems are polymorphous, and of these sulphur may be taken as an example, since it possesses thirty or more modifications of its crystalline structure, though some authorities eliminate nearly all these, and, since it is most frequently in either the 4th (rhombic) or the 5th (monoclinic) systems, consider it as an example of dimorphism, rather than polymorphism.

These varieties of cleavage affect the character, beauty and usefulness of the stone to a remarkable extent, and at the same time form a means of ready and certain identification and classification.

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.