Henry D Morse

(via Diamond Cuts in Historic Jewelry:1381-1910) Herbert Tillander writes:

Henry D Morse (1826-88) began his career as a diamond cutter in the Boston family firm of Morse, Crosby and Foss, where he was taught by Dutch specialists. To begin with he was more interested in weight retention than in refined work, but gradually, under the guidance of the instrument-maker Charles Field who became his collaborator, he abandoned the classic proportions in favor of lower main angles and smaller tables and culets. He also insisted on a regular girdle outline and the symmetrical distribution of facets.

All this, of course, involved a far greater weight loss than would have been tolerated in Europe at the time, but this problem was solved when Field invented a power-driven circular saw which could divide the rough into pieces suitable for fashioning. In fact, Field invented a number of machines for carrying out work previously done by hand.

By contributing to the revival of precision cutting, and through his ability to profit from Field’s mechanical inventions, Morse revolutionized diamond-fashioning methods. He was also responsible for changing the attitude of American jewelers to the details of make—that is, the quality of gem diamonds. This attitude was reflected by W R Cattelle in 1911: ‘A diamond....if it is poorly proportioned, shows an equal distribution of light and brilliancy at all distances from the eye. The center under the table is as full of light as the edge facet, because the back facets are holding the light which has entered from the front. If the stone were cut too deep or too shallow, part of the light would pass through the back facets and leave a dark center, called a ‘well in a deep stone, or ‘a fish-eye’ in a shallow stone.’

Of course, symmetry is as important as correct proportions. It was already considered so in the Table Cut era, rated even more highly during the period of precision cutting in London, and then forgotten again. Morse reintroduced the concept of perfect symmetry, but its importance was not stressed in print until 1916 when Wade stated: ‘The well-cut stone must be perfectly symmetrical. All the facets of a given set should be alike in size and shape. No additional facets should appear....The make of the girdle should be especially scruitinized.’

Wade went on to describe te debt owed to Morse by the diamond cutting industry: ‘When Henry Morse, of Boston, made a really scientific study of the effect of the brilliant upon the light which entered it and found out the angles which gave the best possible results, and then religiously cut his diamonds in accordance with what he had found out, little room for improvement was left. A fine five-carat Morse cut which the writer has seen is about as handsome as any diamond to be found among stones more recently cut. There has been some further refining of the lines and angles, but the ideal brilliant is not far from the shape that Morse gave his stones.

‘The necessity of sawing the rough, in order to save weight and thus cheapen the finished product, has brought us a flatter-topped stone with deeper back. It is very good, but certainly no better, everything considered, than the full-fashioned brilliant of the Morse type.’

The first of two important stones known to have been fashioned by Morse is the Dewey Diamond, a well-shaped rounded octahedron that was discovered in Virginia in 1855, the largest crystal to have been found in the United States. It originally weighed about 24.35 ct and had two large flaws, one on either side. Despite this, Morse was able to produce a Brilliant with a weight loss of only 51 per cent. Presumably he used classic proportions as this was towards the beginning of his career. The final weight of the fashioned diamond was about 12 ct.

The second diamond of which we have details is discussed and illustrated by the eminent American gemologist, Joseph O Gill (1976). In its rough state the diamond weighed about 128 ct and, after fashioning, 78.92 ct—a weight loss of 61.1 per cent. Sawing was not necessary as the rough octahedroid crystal had a rounded bipyramidal form with a height equal to its width. We cannot calculate its exact proportions from Morese’s report because the figures he gives for the main angles do not tally with his sketches, but they are likely to have been within the following ranges:

Table size: c. 49%
Crown height: 18 – 20%
Girdle thickness: (included in crown and pavilion)
Pavilion depth: 39 – 42%
Culet size: c. 5%
Crown angle: 35 – 38°
Pavilion angle: 38 – 41°

These are simply the proportions favored by the rough, so we cannot take them as necessarily represented Morse’s ideal.

It is remarkable how far Morse succeeded in making a slightly cushion-shaped Brilliant appear circular by applying as good as eightfold symmetry all over. He considerably lengthened the lower girdle facets which, in the classic Standard Brilliant, were supposed to be the same as the upper girdle facets (round the turn of the century O M Farrand elongated them further, from 75 percent to nearly 90 percent of the distance from the girdle to the culet). The culet on Morse’s diamond is a relic of the time when this small facet acted as a reflector. Today it would be considered ‘a disturbing spot, seen through the table.’

The yellow Brilliant in the Grϋnes Gewölbe, Dresden, fashioned in the early part of the eighteenth century, is surprisingly similar to Morse’s 79 ct diamond. Only the faceting of the pavilion differs. Obviously, also, the Baroque stone lacks modern precision. The gem weighs about 13.5 ct and has a diameter of 15mm.

Table size: c.50%
Crown height: 19.7%
Girdle thickness: thin
Pavilion depth: 39.3%
Culet size: very small
Crown angles: 33.3° (average)
Pavilion angles: 39° (average)