Henry S. Washington

[1] In late September Reyburn and Stifft conferred with the nation's most distinguished geologist and diamond expert, George F. Kunz of Tiffany & Company, New York City, who recommended an experienced colleague, Henry S. Washington, as a consulting geologist. [2] Washington visited the property in October and joined the Huddlestons and others in a preliminary evaluation.
...
Henry Washington, consulting geologist, recalled the initial caution in a report to Reyburn in late 1907, "The hypothesis that the locality had been 'salted' was carefully investigated by you and by myself, and we both came to the conclusion . . . that such a theory is not tenable" (Washington, consulting geologist and chemist, Report to Sam W. Reyburn, Trustee, October 30, 1907, in "Reports and Information Gathered by John T. Fuller," 6).
...
Henry Washington, consulting geologist, recalled the initial caution in a report to Reyburn in late 1907, "The hypothesis that the locality had been 'salted' was carefully investigated by you and by myself, and we both came to the conclusion . . . that such a theory is not tenable" (Washington, consulting geologist and chemist, Report to Sam W. Reyburn, Trustee, October 30, 1907, in "Reports and Information Gathered by John T. Fuller," 6).
...
Also Stifft's cautious statement, Arkansas Gazette, September 21, 1906, p. 1 (in Nashville News, September 22, 1906, p. 1), and Kunz and Washington, "Occurrence of Diamonds in Arkansas," 1249.
...
The editorial assured readers that highly regarded experts (Kunz and Washington) had spent two months at the field and "found the Arkansas diamonds real, and the field genuine. With other examples of the problem cited infra, see Howard A. Millar's final lament. When a reporter asked about disappointments, if any, in Millar's 50-plus years as "the Arkansas diamond man," he mentioned only one: "He has never quite understood, Millar commented, why so many people, including Arkansas people, refuse to believe that genuine diamonds in considerable quantity-and of excellent quality-are in the volcanic 'pipe' in Pike County.
...
Washington was less prominent.

[3] Kunz and Washington, "Occurrence of Diamonds in Arkansas," 1249; also "Diamonds Genuine," Nashville News, August 10, 1907, p. 3.

[4] Kunz and Washington, "Occurrence," 1249; "Diamonds Genuine"; Fuller to Loree, 13-14.
...
Referring to Washington's initial report to Reyburn after the visit in October, Fuller said, "Report not very favorable and more prospecting work recommended" (14).
...
[5] Kunz and Washington, "Occurrence of Diamonds in Arkansas," 1250, provided a basic outline of activities; "Diamonds Genuine, Nashville News, generally paralleld that account, but added considerable detail (including comment about Peay); also Kunz and Washington, "Diamonds in Arkansas," 173.
...
[5] Kunz and Washington, "Occurrence of Diamonds in Arkansas," 1250, provided a basic outline of activities; "Diamonds Genuine, Nashville News, generally paralleld that account, but added considerable detail (including comment about Peay); also Kunz and Washington, "Diamonds in Arkansas," 173.

[41] Kunz and Washington, and other sources, Bibliographic Note 4, below.
...
Bibliographic Note 4 . The earliest information about Huddleston's discovery was provided by George F. Kunz of New York, considered the nation's leading geologist-gemologist, and Henry S. Washington, a prominent geologist-chemist with offices in New York and New Jersey.
...
Jointly, the two published a detailed account after long visits to Huddleston's farm in late 1906 and early 1907, while Huddleston was still around: "Occurrence of Diamonds in Arkansas," Mineral Resources of the United States, 1906 , Part 2 (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1907), 1247-1251.
...
Although Kunz and Washington evidently were misled about the weights of the first two diamonds, their information can be considered a reliable account of the discoverer's own story immediately after the event (Huddleston was still at the diamond field during their visits).
...
As Kunz and Washington, the writer mentioned Huddleston's interest in the possibility that the property held important minerals, particularly "copper or iron" (corresponding to the greenish and rust-colored volcanic breccia); but there was no reference to gold.
...
Authors of the earliest and most authoritative account of the discovery were interested primarily in establishing the dates of Huddleston's finds and pinpointing the spots where they turned up, and therefore omitted details about the visit in town (Kunz and Washington, "Occurrence of Diamonds in Arkansas," 1248-1249).
...
If Huddleston found the third diamond on September 9, as Kunz and Washington reported after their visit to the diamond field in late 1906 and early 1907, the trip to the bank probably occurred about mid August, 1906.
...
He'll know if they are worth anything.'" Authors of the earliest and most authoritative account of the discovery were interested primarily in establishing the dates of Huddleston's finds and pinpointing the spots where they turned up, and therefore omitted details about the visit in town (Kunz and Washington, "Occurrence of Diamonds in Arkansas," 1248-1249).

[41] Kunz and Washington, and other sources, Bibliographic Note 4, below.
...
Bibliographic Note 4 . The earliest information about Huddleston's discovery was provided by George F. Kunz of New York, considered the nation's leading geologist-gemologist, and Henry S. Washington, a prominent geologist-chemist with offices in New York and New Jersey.
...
Jointly, the two published a detailed account after long visits to Huddleston's farm in late 1906 and early 1907, while Huddleston was still around: "Occurrence of Diamonds in Arkansas," Mineral Resources of the United States, 1906 , Part 2 (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1907), 1247-1251.
...
Although Kunz and Washington evidently were misled about the weights of the first two diamonds, their information can be considered a reliable account of the discoverer's own story immediately after the event (Huddleston was still at the diamond field during their visits).
...
As Kunz and Washington, the writer mentioned Huddleston's interest in the possibility that the property held important minerals, particularly "copper or iron" (corresponding to the greenish and rust-colored volcanic breccia); but there was no reference to gold.
...
Authors of the earliest and most authoritative account of the discovery were interested primarily in establishing the dates of Huddleston's finds and pinpointing the spots where they turned up, and therefore omitted details about the visit in town (Kunz and Washington, "Occurrence of Diamonds in Arkansas," 1248-1249).
...
If Huddleston found the third diamond on September 9, as Kunz and Washington reported after their visit to the diamond field in late 1906 and early 1907, the trip to the bank probably occurred about mid August, 1906.
...
He'll know if they are worth anything.'" Authors of the earliest and most authoritative account of the discovery were interested primarily in establishing the dates of Huddleston's finds and pinpointing the spots where they turned up, and therefore omitted details about the visit in town (Kunz and Washington, "Occurrence of Diamonds in Arkansas," 1248-1249).

For another reference to the road running through the field, see George F. Kunz and Henry S. Washington, "Occurrence of Diamonds in Arkansas," Mineral Resources of the United States, 1906 , Part 2 (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1907), 1249.
...
Kunz and Washington are discussed below, Bibliographic Note 4.
...
Geologists George F. Kunz and Henry S. Washington, both of whom had ample opportunities to talk with Huddleston in the field, reported 4½ carats and 3 carats for the first two finds, and ½ carat for a third ((Kunz and Washington, "Occurrence of Diamonds in Arkansas," Mineral Resources of the United States, 1906 , Part 2 [Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1907], 1247-1251).
...
Geologists George F. Kunz and Henry S. Washington, both of whom had ample opportunities to talk with Huddleston in the field, reported 4½ carats and 3 carats for the first two finds, and ½ carat for a third ((Kunz and Washington, "Occurrence of Diamonds in Arkansas," Mineral Resources of the United States, 1906 , Part 2 [Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1907], 1247-1251).
...
Fuller, "Diamond Mine in Pike County, Arkansas," Engineering and Mining Journal , 87, No. 3 [January 16, 1909], 152, which repeated Kunz and Washington's description of the first gem, "a white stone of 4½ carats.") Later, apparently to simplify the matter, Dallas Tabor Herndon's popular state history settled on "about three carats each" for the first two (Herndon, Highlights of Arkansas History [Little Rock: Arkansas History Commission, 1922], 152).

One early reminder was George F. Kunz and Henry S. Washington, "Diamonds in Arkansas," Transactions of the American Institute of Mining Engineers , 39 (1909), 176: "Peridotites are not uncommon, but very few are diamond-bearing.
...
George F. Kunz of New York, the nation's leading gemologist, and Henry S. Washington, a New York-New Jersey geologist, provided a detailed account of the discovery after long visits to Huddleston's farm in late 1906 and early 1907, and stated the first two diamonds were found August 1 and the third September 8 (Kunz and Washington, "Occurrence of Diamonds in Arkansas," Mineral Resources of the United States, 1906 [1907], 1247-1251; cf. "Diamonds Genuine," Nashville News, August 10, 1907, p. 3).
...
George F. Kunz of New York, the nation's leading gemologist, and Henry S. Washington, a New York-New Jersey geologist, provided a detailed account of the discovery after long visits to Huddleston's farm in late 1906 and early 1907, and stated the first two diamonds were found August 1 and the third September 8 (Kunz and Washington, "Occurrence of Diamonds in Arkansas," Mineral Resources of the United States, 1906 [1907], 1247-1251; cf. "Diamonds Genuine," Nashville News, August 10, 1907, p. 3).
...
Kunz and Washington, who had ample opportunities to talk with Huddleston in the field, reported 4½ carats and 3 carats, and one-half carat for the third find ("Occurrence of Diamonds in Arkansas," 1249).
...
For further examples of the way the tales of discovery began varying almost immediately after 1906, compare Kunz and Washington, "Occurrence," with "Diamonds Genuine," Nashville News, August 10, 1907, p. 3, and "Pike County Has Real Diamonds, He Says," The World, August 14, 1927, (clipping, unidentified newspaper, no page number, IV.E.5, Crater archive).
...
Similarly, the Arkansas Diamond Company's prospectus in late 1908 reprinted the initial report of November 11, 1908, along with the earlier report of Henry S. Washington (Sam W. Reyburn, Trustee, "Diamonds in Arkansas," January 1, 1909, in the W. C. Rodgers Collection, Box 2, IV, File 18, AHC; also, separate roll of microfilm in the "Crater of Diamonds" series, AHC, and available on microfilm from the University of Arkansas, Lafayette ["AgProject" reel, microfilm 13.19, LC TN 993.B75 1908]).
...
[5] Kunz and Washington were the first to secure the information, during long visits to the property in late 1906 and early 1907 (supra; also Kunz, "Diamond Mine in Pike County, Arkansas," EMJ, 87 [May 8, 1909], 963).
...
[6] George F. Kunz and Henry S. Washington, "Note on the Forms of Arkansas Diamonds," American Journal of Science , 4th Series, 24 (1907), 275: evidence "seems conclusive" that diamonds are coming from the peridotite, and "if so, this is evidently the first occurrence of diamonds in place on either the North or South American Continent.
...
The point is further clarified in Kunz and Washington, "Occurrence of Diamonds in Arkansas," Mineral Resources of the United States, 1906 (1907), 1250: "As this is the only place outside of South Africa where diamonds have been found in peridotite, . . .." John T. Fuller, "Diamond Mine in Pike County, Arkansas," EMJ, 87, No. 3 (January 16, 1909), 154: the Arkansas diamond field is the first "original matrix" discovered in the Western Hemisphere.

Evidently, that advice came primarily from Henry S. Washington, the first consultant hired by Reyburn's group. After studying the pipe for a year, Washington sent Reyburn a final encouraging report in late 1907, and also presented his findings in published articles and at the American Institute of Mining Engineers in February 1908. In the private report, he made a clear, strong statement. It was true, he said, that the diamonds collected since Huddleston's discovery had come almost entirely from the surface. Nevertheless, there was no doubt the surface diamonds originated in the volcanic matrix below, which was almost the same material as that mined in South Africa, and Reyburn's deposit was vast. Considering the number of diamonds already found, "the indications" were they "probably" existed in the matrix in remunerative amounts. Washington thought the odds justified "considerable" investment, "with good hopes of financial success under proper management" (Washington to Reyburn, in "Reports and Information," 8, and passim).
...
Of course, John Fuller, Henry Washington, and other professionals almost always included the standard qualifier at some point: Only full-scale testing could finally determine the yield.
...
[3] Kunz and Washington, "Diamonds in Arkansas," 173; cf. their "Occurrence of Diamonds in Arkansas," 1250, which said of the first two diamonds thought to have been extracted subsurface, "This would have settled definitely the question of their source had not some doubt existed through the possible accidental admixture of small amounts of the surface soil with the underlying green earth . . .."
...
Estimates of depth varied, with Washington the most conservative; as usual, the experienced Fuller got closer to the average eventually established.
...
[11] At least three drill holes were completed in 1907, to depths of 205', 186', and 80' (Kunz and Washington, "Diamonds in Arkansas," 171; cf. their "Occurrence of Diamonds in Arkansas," 1248, written earlier and mentioning "drill holes" to only 30').