A wip. last updated 5/5/24

First entry: Hello. This narrative is going to be written in the first person voice of me, Andy. Diamonds are a fascinoma [interesting and / or unusual] of enduring styles and ancient teachings. But why? But how? For a good start, diamond's basic chemistry gives us a clue. The classification of two wide scope types of chemistry are "Inorganic Chemistry" and "Organic Chemistry." The latter is often associated with that which is "alive" - DNA - and the former with that which is inanimate - salt. The chemistry of Diamond is [the start of this fascinoma] that which would be associated with the chemistry of alive, living; Organic Chemistry. So one wonders: What is "going on"?

Second entry: The "in a nutshell" short answer is: A lot, and a lot more now that diamonds for use in jewelry can be Lab made [or as someone has astutely framed this environment to be more like a factory than a laboratory, where, in the latter, one would expect the Scientific Method to be the primary process in use and in use for exploration. Where as in a "Lab"  diamond facility it seems that the primary process is the production of a tangible good[s]. However, I do not think that this framing is at all meant to negate that research and development that in part or in fact use the Scientific Method is not ongoing within the facility / enterprise.].

This narrative will be exploring this very interesting and indeed fascinating development that has quite a bit of depth to it [where at the moment I feel like Rodney Dangerfield where he laments to the audience: "I was such an  ugly child." and then someone form the audience immediately retorts " How ugly of a child were you?"] that what might "on the surface" seem one way, for an instant, there is, actually much more to it or it is something else entirely. One could, as in Paul Simon's song entitled "Diamonds On the Soles of Her Shoes" now put diamonds on the soles of shoes. In this context, or of the song, or otherwise, a lot going on. I have an idea of what shape the diamonds might be, but what the cut would be, is definitely still at the very beginning of consideration.

Why this is, will also be explored, but as a hint at the nature of  what the "why" is, as of my checking on this matter about eight months ago, the only diamond cut and shape where the "do the math" has been done [standardized] is for the [has a few names] the round brilliant - shape / cut.

Speaking of, [and this is likely the only direct, not in a specific contextual way that reference will be made to these ...] I recently learned that before there were the 4Cs of primary diamond evaluation there were only 3Cs, cut, at first was not included.

Image from Litwin Diamond Cutters Catalog showing the geometric shape of rough a diamond and a description of the four C of diamond evaluation: Caret, Clarity Cut and Color.

From Litwin Diamond Cutters Catalog [late 1950s]

To be continued...