Sotheby’s New York recently sold a 100-carat emerald cut diamond for $22.1 million. The buyer was anonymous. Even through its picture on the BBC website the stone was remarkable and for its size was described as a rare flawless diamond. Although it set a record, it wasn’t the most expensive diamond, two years ago a pink diamond was sold for $83 million. Were these stones bought
by and for a single individual or were they bought on behalf of an institution, a museum perhaps?
A few years ago I visited a diamond exhibit in a museum. I had never before then seen a pink or yellow diamond nor stones with such brilliance. Suddenly I understood why clarity in diamond was a sought after quality. And too I understood why diamonds have been the subject of sagas, adventures or been coveted and lusted after. I learned that their real beauty is not visible when one sees diamonds in jewellery stores’ windows and displays. It’s easy to imagine how the 100-carat stone would fit into an exhibit such as the one I saw, be its chief attraction, even adding to the lore, the history, the mystery of how carbon and time turn into the pristine rock we call diamond.
More than likely it was acquired by an individual. Then I, and I hope you the reader, begin to question. Oh no, not the right of someone to buy it, but the social good of one person owning a $22 million stone. If indeed it belongs to one person, who is or will benefit from it?