Understanding Parab and Portrait-Cut Diamonds
Why the necklace's diamonds are flat rather than faceted, and what that reveals about Mughal-era lapidary practice.
In This Article
Terminology
The supplied documentation uses several overlapping terms for the necklace's diamond cutting style: "table-cut," "mirror," "parab," and "portrait-cut." These terms describe closely related diamond-cutting approaches historically used in South Asia, characterised by a large, flat, roughly polished top surface rather than the small multi-faceted crown of a modern brilliant cut. This site uses the terms interchangeably, following the supplied source material, without asserting a single precise technical taxonomy beyond what the documentation itself provides.
The Visual Effect
A flat table or portrait-cut diamond reflects light across one broad, continuous plane. Rather than breaking light into many small points of sparkle, the stone behaves more like a polished mirror — hence the necklace's name. This is a deliberate visual quality, not a technical limitation: Mughal jewellers and their patrons valued this luminous, glass-like reflectivity as an aesthetic in its own right.
Historic Significance
Table and portrait-cut diamonds are historically associated with Mughal India, where large rough diamonds — particularly from Golconda — were often cut to preserve as much of their original weight and size as possible, rather than being cut down aggressively to maximise brilliance in the modern sense. This approach reflects both the value placed on large-format stones and an aesthetic tradition distinct from later European diamond cutting.
Compared to the Modern Brilliant Cut
The modern round brilliant cut, refined over the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, uses a precise arrangement of dozens of facets calculated to maximise the scattering and return of white and coloured light — "brilliance" and "fire." A flat table or portrait cut takes the opposite approach: fewer facets, a larger flat top, and a calmer, more contemplative luminosity. Neither approach is more "advanced" than the other; they simply reflect different aesthetic priorities and different eras of lapidary practice. See a simple illustrative comparison on the Craftsmanship page.