stems, containing 24 very small rose-diamonds. Above the arch stands the Mound, containing in the lower hemisphere 304 brilliants, and in the upper 244 brilliants; the zone and arc being composed of 33 rose-diamonds. The cross on the summit has a rose-cut sapphire in the centre, surrounded by 4 large brilliants and 108 smaller brilliants.” The value of this beautiful ornament has been estimated by Barbot, the French jeweller, at the sum of $600,000, which, however, is probably very far below its real value. The great prize and boast of the English treasures is the diamond called the Koh-i-noor, one of the spoils of the East India loot. From the many descriptions given of it and its real and supposed history, it is better known to the English reader than any other gem; yet there are in Europe several diamonds of greater size and perfection, and a number of gems of greater beauty, and certainly of a higher value. The Koh-i-noor is said to have been discovered in the mine of Gani, near Golconda, about the middle of the sixteenth century. It is thought by some to be a portion of the Great Mogul diamond; but of the correctness of this view there is considerable doubt. The form in which it was found by the English at the time of capture certainly conveys the idea that it may have been cleft from a larger specimen; but, according to Tavernier, the Great Mogul was ground down and not rifted by means of its cleavage planes at all. At all events, the gem, when it reached England, weighed one hundred and eighty-six karats, and its sides were polished and faceted in the Oriental manner, without regard to a symmetrical form. In this condition it was uncouth, it is true, but it was supposed to be the famous Koh-i-noor, “the mountain of light,” of Eastern romance and history. Now, in its new shape, it is no longer one of the giants of its species, and the prestige which the Hindoos bestowed upon it has also vanished. The recutting of this gem, and the attempt to reduce its irregular form into the shape of a brilliant, was most unfortunate. It is now only a brilliant in name, and it is far too thin in substance to exhibit the beautiful and natural refractive powers of the mineral. In reality, the form of the brilliant should be cut according to mathematical laws; and its depth and breadth must be of a certain fixed ratio to call forth the natural brilliancy and prismatic display of the stone. This relative degree of form and its wonderful results is well exemplified in the gems cut by Ralph Potter at the commencement of this century, who was, without doubt, the best diamond-cutter the world has seen. It is also laid down as a mathematical problem in the scale which Jeffries has prepared.