Diamond jewellery stolen in 1851

I don't see any problem with those minor inconsistencies.

Debora

 

If you mean the descriptions of Birnstingl, I think that's just different records using different terms.

Most of the inconsistencies in the descriptions of the jewellery can be resolved quite easily. Some are more difficult. For example, the sources give the value of the bracelets and the earrings both as £160. If you sum it up, that would make a total of £550. I guess one of the two numbers was supposed to be £60. The number of carats that he sold isn't clear either.

 

Have you figured out who/what is "Monte Corbello, Alexandria"?

Debora

 

No. I am not even sure it's correct. The newspaper took it from the testimony of one of the witnesses, who again quoted the entry from the account books. There is no original source.

 

Just when you think Antiquers can’t get any better it does! I love a good mystery
Thanks for sharing this.

 

Hate to ask but... You've reviewed all the contemporary press reports listed in the attached?

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Thönen-17#_note-newspaper_list

Debora

 

I've written that list. I can give you an extended version (three times more articles), if you like!

 

Despite the large number of newspaper accounts, most of them are near-identical copies of maybe a dozen or so original articles. The information they contain about the jewellery all comes from the same two or three testimonies given at the trial, and so are quite repetitive (as are the mistakes made in their sources).

You're welcome! That's nice to hear.

 

You're well on top of your subject.

Debora

 

I am writing an article about the subject right now, and I am in the process of tying up loose ends. The type and purpose of the jewellery is one of them (hence why I made the post). And yes, this forum is already in the acknowledgement section. ;-)

To summarize the new ideas (to me) that I find most interesting so far:

• The possibility that the jewellery was a "diamond-delivery vehicle"
• The possible Jewish connection

 

I am not into jewellery (at all, usually), but that's beautiful stuff.

 

This is a most fascinating thread.

 

I only logged in to say that all-diamond jewellery, without other stones or pearls, was not at all unusual in the 19th century. Nor in the 18th, 20th or 21st.
Both @kyratango and @Dessert58 , as well as yours truly, own 19th century all-diamond jewellery. I am sure some other members do too.

Loose diamonds weren't set specifically for transport or import/export. In the main diamond trading centres of Antwerp, Amsterdam and London they were always carried in small folded pieces of paper. This is the way I still saw loose diamonds carried by diamond traders in the mid and late 20th century.

Most diamond traders were Jewish, many still are.
Maybe the name of our most famous Dutch diamond traders, Asscher, rings a bell? It is hard to miss the Asscher name (and firm) if you travel to or via Amsterdam. The Asscher dynasty is Jewish.

I believe there was mention of coral trade on the previous page. That could have made the trader known in Alexandria.
Mediterranean red coral was traded from Italy through Alexandria to the Middle East, where it was very popular.
If a coral trader went on to trade in diamonds, it is likely he would have had an entree in the right circles in Alexandria to sell diamonds to the rich and mighty of Egypt and the Middle East.

Off again.

 

Makes total sense to me. Mediterranean red coral was a big deal in the Victorian era and earlier. To this day a lot of wholesale diamond traders here in the USA are traditionally Jewish too. The idea that someone might bring diamonds in to trade for coral isn't even slightly strange.

 

unfortunately , I can see how .............nevermind..

 

where there no other folks who handled, sold, or stole diamonds back then??????

 

Not many, at least after a certain point. A lot of the traders were Sephardi.

 

that explains it......

 

Your post contains some very interesting things to consider. Thank you!

As a side note, the thief used a different way to carry the stones, possibly more unconventional. When he was arrested (on a ship in the middle of the Irish Sea), the police initially couldn't find any of the jewellery. He was brought back to Liverpool, where he was thoroughly searched. The officer later said:

I commenced a more strict search of his person. I found on him this handkerchief [points at handkerchief], containing a great portion of the missing diamonds, tied round his waist in the manner of a belt, secured firmly by a string passed round his body, between and round both his legs. Prisoner at the moment said. “Now, you've got it, you've got all.”

I am interested in the Jewish connection you all mentioned for a particular reason. The thief later went on to become something of a national hero in Australia. Starting in the 1950s, the idea emerged that he had been Jewish. That's not true (he was a Lutheran Christian), but the question remains where the idea came from. He may have spoken Hebrew (the thief knew a lot of languages), which could be one explanation. Another would be if his connection to the Jewish diamond merchants back in England had been known. The story of the diamond robbery did reach Australia in the 1890s. There is no proof that the connection to their "hero" was ever made, but if it had been made in the 1950s, that may explain it.

 

Hebrew might have done it. If he also spoke Ladino that would have done it in spades.