Wittelsbach
Specifications
| Weight | 35.56 carats |
|---|---|
| Dimensions | 24.40 x 21.46 x 8.29 mm |
| Color | Light Blue |
| Weight of Rough | Unknown |
| Origin | India |
| Date Found | Early 1600’s |
| Current Location | Private Ownership |
Details
Requiem for the Wittelsbach: The Tragic Transformation of a Legendary Diamond
The Wittelsbach Diamond stands as one of the most remarkable and historically significant gems ever discovered. Believed to have originated in India’s famed Golconda mines during the early 1600s, the diamond was likely cut in Europe around 1650, its faceting reflecting the evolving artistry of early Western gem cutters. The first documented record of the stone dates back to 1664, when King Philip IV of Spain presented it to his daughter, Infanta Margarita Teresa, as part of her dowry upon her engagement to Emperor Leopold I of Austria.
Through centuries, the diamond passed through numerous royal hands, surviving wars, political upheaval, and dynastic shifts, before disappearing in the early 20th century. Its reappearance came unexpectedly in 1962, when Belgian diamond cutter Joseph Komkommer was asked to “improve” an antique-style stone. Recognizing its unmatched characteristics, he identified it as the long-lost Wittelsbach Diamond and refused to alter it. Instead, Komkommer and his associates acquired the gem, preserving a priceless link to 17th-century craftsmanship.
Rediscovery and Recutting Controversy
In 2008, Christie’s auctioned the Wittelsbach for $24.3 million to renowned jeweller Laurence Graff, one of the most influential figures in the modern diamond industry. What followed became one of the most controversial events in gemmological history. Graff announced plans to recut the diamond, aiming to enhance its brilliance, correct surface wear, and intensify its colour—actions that inevitably meant removing several carats of irreplaceable material.
The original Wittelsbach, described as a stellar brilliant for its radiant pattern of facets converging toward the culet, was one of the earliest and most refined examples of the brilliant cut in existence. Its facet precision was extraordinary—photographic studies showed nearly flawless alignment even under 30x magnification—suggesting that early magnification techniques may have been used in its cutting, centuries ahead of their time.
The decision to recut therefore went far beyond gem enhancement; it represented the loss of a cultural artefact. Every minute chip, nick, and inclusion told a story of centuries past, of craftsmanship and royal history intertwined. Erasing these marks for commercial perfection meant erasing its biography—a sentiment echoed by historians, gemmologists, and cultural preservationists worldwide.
From Wittelsbach to Wittelsbach-Graff
Despite global protest, Graff proceeded with the recut. The gem, once weighing 35.56 carats, was reduced to 31.06 carats and renamed the Wittelsbach-Graff Diamond. Though geologically superior—exhibiting a deeper, more vivid blue and improved clarity—the transformation marked an irreversible loss. The diamond’s historical integrity was compromised, its identity forever altered.
Industry legends such as Gabi Tolkowsky, one of the world’s most respected diamond cutters, described the event as “the end of culture.” The sentiment underscored a profound philosophical question: should humanity prioritize monetary value and perfection, or authentic history and craftsmanship?
The Wittelsbach’s story mirrors countless other cultural tragedies—the burning of the Library of Alexandria, the loss of Mayan codices, or the destruction of ancient monuments. Each act, though justified by circumstance or progress, represents the erosion of irreplaceable heritage.
A Legacy Redefined
Today, the Wittelsbach-Graff Diamond remains one of the most beautiful gems in existence—but it is no longer the same stone that adorned empires and inspired artisans. What was once a living record of 350 years of royal and gemmological history has been polished into anonymity.
The tale of the Wittelsbach is not merely about a diamond—it is about the delicate balance between preservation and progress, between appreciating a gem for what it has endured and what it could become. In choosing the latter, the world lost a fragment of its shared cultural memory.