My Recut is DONE!!
- Thread starter shady71
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,484
Gypsy you have it pretty right, but a couple of points - cutting rounds is really pretty simple, and cutting 8* is a simple variation that all cutters know how to do. Painting.Date: 2/12/2009 3:19:15 AM
Author: Gypsy
Thanks Garry I saw that and remember it, and puzzled over it then too, but was too ill to ask further. So if you don''t mind my asking now (sorry if I''m trying your patience!)... I know for me it was very stressful to send my stone off to get it re-set... and I also used the opportunity to get an updated appraisal from Neil as well because I didn''t want to have to send it out twice. How hard it is to find local cutters, or to get appraisers who are familiar with the cutting process that can evaluate what someone re-cutting your stone is doing is what''s best? It doesn''t seem like there are many with that expertise and I think sending your actual stone around the country for second opinions would be very stressful. For me, I''d just want to pick a cutter I trusted (like Brian, or Bill, or You) and make sure to tell him to mention that carat weight should be balanced against performance, the way you suggested. Does that make sense???Date: 2/12/2009 2:23:54 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Hi Gypsy,Date: 2/12/2009 1:46:51 AM
Author: Gypsy
Garry... I''m the first to admit that I''m not a guru... but that flew completely over my head, I mean... at the sound of light. Can you explain?? I want to understand.
Sorry if I''m asking you to dumb it down too much.
In one of the 15 threads on this recut I asked that Shady (and anyone else contemplating a recut) consider that some cutters who offer this service can feel obliged to make diamonds into representations of their brand standard. That can mean cutting more than I would away from a stone.
8* for example would have to cut more off many stones than I would.
The last 1% of visual and symmetry gain can result in an additional 10% weight loss and even pull a stone below a critical carat weight. I have seen it happen many times.
I do not know which of the threads that this comment is in - but I have made this warning several times and recomended people get a second opinion from someone like Bill Bray or the many cutters known to various appraisers.
I am sure that the face up color of this stone is much improved.
It would have been good to see the photo''s taken with another similar coloured stone so we could see the difference. I imagine it is a 2 -3 grade face up improvement.
And regarding the 8* issue (their stones aren''t to my personal taste) but to use your example, if you pick a known brand, like them or Hearts on Fire... would the brand value, and color lightening of the re-cut diamond balance out the carat loss at all? Not to mention an AGS cert with better grades for performance?
The other thing I''m curious about, I don''t know much about cutting (so please correct me if I''m wrong) but I suspect it''s part art. The same way two different setting designers can take your ideas (no matter how explicit) and come up with two different executions and results (both pleasing)... wouldn''t asking two master chef''s how to cut your diamond potentially lead to confusion if the two disagreed. Do you get a third as a tie breaker if this happens???
Also, I''ve seen Bill''s recut of Swingirl''s diamond (beautiful), but wouldn''t there be a little bit of a conflict of interest if a person was going to choose Bill, but wanted 8*''s second opinion? I mean... wouldn''t 8* be tempted to convince the person that their re-cut would be better? (Not casting aspersions on 8*'', just using them as an example).
I''m just curious, because well... with custom settings, you look at the person''s style and quality record and decide if it''s for you (or in Leon''s case, take into account his personality, and decide if you can deal with that too)... with diamond cutting, isn''t it the same? I mean, if you like 8* you like 8* and want one... so you have them recut because that''s what brings value to the stone in your eyes and that''s what you want. You don''t want an ACA or a HOF, you want an 8*, and even if it means that another cutter (another artist) disagrees, isn''t it ultimately what the buyer wants that determines the value (like some people wanting Tiffany, and ONLY Tiffany despite the mark up). So despite the weight loss of getting an 8*, wouldn''t it worth it to the educated consumer (I''m assuming they are educated on this and have read this thread, and thought about the weight loss issue) to have the cut they want and to wear it happily, than to worry about resale value and carat weight? I mean... you can''t recover much in resale anyway, and while it''s true that carat size is a huge consideration when pricing a diamond for sale... but I think most people getting a re-cut are worried about it''s wearability and appearance to their own taste, rather than it''s resale.
Does that make any sense?
Now having said that - each piece of rough has its own possible traps, and recutting can be more difficult than starting with a rough and knowing hardness crystal structure etc. That can make high level symmetry tricky - and those brands have to chase that level - and it is not possible to see that with the unaided eye (no matter what BS they tell you).
This image shows a blue plan for a cushion - and from a very good cutter - the variation in green (crown) yellow (girdle) and also blue for the pavilion. That is one of the reasons very high quality cushions are rare - even when a firm cuts a cracker jack by luck or chance, they can rarely replicate it.
Gypsy
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 40,225
Oh boy... you lost me again. LOL.
Here's I got from what you just wrote:
Cutting from rough allows you to examine the unique properties of that rough and gives you a great degree of insight.
Re-cutting a diamond can be more difficult than cutting a rough diamond because you don't have the unique property information that the rough gives you. Which you are saying means that re-cutting a stone to match a too high a standard of facetting can cause a cutter to chase perfection and lose site of weight considerations. This is the risk of a re-cut, but when you say I got it mostly right, I understand that to mean that if you choose a cutter you trust and tell them that you want the right balance between perfection and carat weight (and what you personally consider that balance to be), you should be fine and should not need to send the diamond around the country to different experts, who may disagree with your cutter just because of thier personal preference or style. IOW that's the way to avoid the too many chefs problem, not to mention the possibility of conflict of interest. Did I get that right?
What I don't understand is the cushion example?
Here's I got from what you just wrote:
Cutting from rough allows you to examine the unique properties of that rough and gives you a great degree of insight.
Re-cutting a diamond can be more difficult than cutting a rough diamond because you don't have the unique property information that the rough gives you. Which you are saying means that re-cutting a stone to match a too high a standard of facetting can cause a cutter to chase perfection and lose site of weight considerations. This is the risk of a re-cut, but when you say I got it mostly right, I understand that to mean that if you choose a cutter you trust and tell them that you want the right balance between perfection and carat weight (and what you personally consider that balance to be), you should be fine and should not need to send the diamond around the country to different experts, who may disagree with your cutter just because of thier personal preference or style. IOW that's the way to avoid the too many chefs problem, not to mention the possibility of conflict of interest. Did I get that right?
What I don't understand is the cushion example?
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,484
Exactly Gypsy - but of course if you live eat and breath for the BRAND, then go for the brand, but do it knowing that you might take a $20,000 diamond at realizable value and turn it into a $15k niche product that you might want to sell one day and pass up good oferes because you dream it is worth $30k
The fine craftsman trys to follow instructions and also get the most from the rough (because if he does not achieve the wieght on the plan then he looses bonus and if the plan is for 2.005ct and he gets 1.995ct, then the break one of his legs).
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
let me see if I can simplify...
Cutting from rough gives the cutter many more options than recutting a diamond.
When recutting a diamond chasing perfection may not line up with what there is to work with.
Someone who is not flexible enough to stop at great and keeps going for perfect by their standards can waste a lot of material on a recut because their idea of perfection don''t fit the starting material.
What Garry is getting at with the cushion example is cutting tolerances don''t match the performance profile in complicated cuts.
That is why you will see many more high performance cuts in the relatively easy to cut for performance RB than in fancies.
I believe it was Paul who said cutting ags0 princess cuts is 2x the work cutting precision round brilliants.(It may have been Garry or Brian but Paul is who sticks in my mind as having said it)
Cutting precision step cuts is 10x the work of cutting precision RB''s from talking to those that specialize in them.(DiaGem and others)
Cutting from rough gives the cutter many more options than recutting a diamond.
When recutting a diamond chasing perfection may not line up with what there is to work with.
Someone who is not flexible enough to stop at great and keeps going for perfect by their standards can waste a lot of material on a recut because their idea of perfection don''t fit the starting material.
What Garry is getting at with the cushion example is cutting tolerances don''t match the performance profile in complicated cuts.
That is why you will see many more high performance cuts in the relatively easy to cut for performance RB than in fancies.
I believe it was Paul who said cutting ags0 princess cuts is 2x the work cutting precision round brilliants.(It may have been Garry or Brian but Paul is who sticks in my mind as having said it)
Cutting precision step cuts is 10x the work of cutting precision RB''s from talking to those that specialize in them.(DiaGem and others)
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2002
- Messages
- 2,859
Gypsy, do not worry.Date: 2/12/2009 1:46:51 AM
Author: Gypsy
Garry... I''m the first to admit that I''m not a guru... but that flew completely over my head, I mean... at the sound of light. Can you explain?? I want to understand.
Sorry if I''m asking you to dumb it down too much.
In guru-talk, it is the guru who has made a prediction that something will go horribly wrong, and now tries to put a feather on his hat because it did not go wrong. All without seeing the stone. And quickly looking at the details of the stone, I cannot find that the re-cutter left any naturals.
What Garry tries to say, is that cutters of brands cannot be relied upon working responsibly. It is entirely his own position, and I vehemently disagree with this position. Knowing most of us personally, he should know better too.
But then again, every now and then, it is tradition that we have a dogfight with the guru from down under.
Live long,
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,484
Paul we were told that Brian or his cutter left a natural that meant the stone could not recieve AGS 0. I was pleased, because I had asked before the cut why this was deemed to be a requirement (to get an AGS 0 grade).Date: 2/12/2009 6:41:36 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Gypsy, do not worry.Date: 2/12/2009 1:46:51 AM
Author: Gypsy
Garry... I''m the first to admit that I''m not a guru... but that flew completely over my head, I mean... at the sound of light. Can you explain?? I want to understand.
Sorry if I''m asking you to dumb it down too much.
In guru-talk, it is the guru who has made a prediction that something will go horribly wrong, and now tries to put a feather on his hat because it did not go wrong. All without seeing the stone. And quickly looking at the details of the stone, I cannot find that the re-cutter left any naturals.
What Garry tries to say, is that cutters of brands cannot be relied upon working responsibly. It is entirely his own position, and I vehemently disagree with this position. Knowing most of us personally, he should know better too.
But then again, every now and then, it is tradition that we have a dogfight with the guru from down under.
Live long,
I do not think any part of what you wrote above has any basis at all given the exchange so far. It seems you are shooting from the hip (or dog fighting) in some predetermined direction without any thought of what the situation is?
Would you really believe 8* (the example I have used here) would have left a natural and achieved a diameter loss of 0.1mm that we have been told?
Gypsy
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 40,225
Ooooooooohkay. I have a much better understanding of things (which I greatly appreciate), and seeing where this is heading (guru talk) I'm going to bow out while I can still feel good that I understand what's going on, and feel relatively smart.
Thank you all for the education and for putting up with my questions.
I will say that I would trust any of our precision cutters, Paul, Garry, Brian, Bill... to put their customer's desires above their own dreams of perfection or brand ideals. You guys are all trusted not just because of your skills and expertise, but because you are customer focused and know that pleasing your customers is the most important thing ultimately. That's why we
you.
I do have a diamond that is hurting for a recut. But it's a funny thing that while my grandmother has given me, she still wears it. It's a wonky and sad looking old cut oval heirloom. I think I would need someone who specializes in fancies or old stones, perhaps DiaGem, as storm mentioned to have a look at it and see what can be done, to preserve carat weight and old character, but also improve it's appearance. Of course all that will have to wait until grandma decides that I can not only own it, but wear it too.
I will say that I would trust any of our precision cutters, Paul, Garry, Brian, Bill... to put their customer's desires above their own dreams of perfection or brand ideals. You guys are all trusted not just because of your skills and expertise, but because you are customer focused and know that pleasing your customers is the most important thing ultimately. That's why we
I do have a diamond that is hurting for a recut. But it's a funny thing that while my grandmother has given me, she still wears it. It's a wonky and sad looking old cut oval heirloom. I think I would need someone who specializes in fancies or old stones, perhaps DiaGem, as storm mentioned to have a look at it and see what can be done, to preserve carat weight and old character, but also improve it's appearance. Of course all that will have to wait until grandma decides that I can not only own it, but wear it too.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2002
- Messages
- 2,859
Excuse me, Garry,
As far as I can find, there is no notion of Brian leaving a natural. As a side-note, I would even wonder whether a natural would prevent the stone from receiving AGS-0, but that is another question.
What I do find, is you questioning (post of 01/13/2009, 11:47:23 PM) the need to send the stone to AGS. You explain this further in a second post (01/16/2009, 04:02:33 PM), saying that you would counsel not reducing the diameter, leaving a more wavy girdle in order to save weight. I already told you in those days that you should refrain from making such general comments, if you did not have the stone in hand.
Your advice (which in my humble opinion was worthless since you did not have the stone with you) was completely disregarded in the execution of this re-cut, as far as I am concerned. The diameter has been slightly reduced (almost nothing, from 8.34 to 8.25), and as far as I can judge, there is no reason for the diamond not obtaining AGS-0.
However, the stone has apparently not been re-cut to the traditional brand standards of Brian, which you personally had presumed would be the case. This example just shows that your presumption, which you continue in your example of 8*, is incorrect. In fact, you should apologize for calling specific cutters short-sighted and only interested in producing their own desire.
In your post in this thread (02/12/2009, 02:23:54 AM), you go even further by basically accusing the same brand-cutters of not caring if a stone is pulled below a critical carat weight. By the way, I do not know where you get the figure that the last 1% of symmetry gain can result in an additional 10% weight loss. Isn''t there a forum rule about not scaring consumers with incorrect or incomplete information?
Indeed, my friend, I am shooting from the hip here. But your series of posts about re-cuts recently have been continued repetitions of you shooting from the hip, without having any concrete information about the stones.
Live long,
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
Lets not lose sight of the fact that the end result is a beautiful diamond that shady71 is going to love :}
If I may be allowed to shoot from the hip also....
But as I pointed out in another thread on it I am sad that that small table/high crown was ground down to make an ideal cut.
There might have been the potential there to make another type of beautiful diamond out of it. (oec or fic depending on taste)
That option was not presented until it was to late, the diamond was on the way to be recut.
That is what Garry is against also, options not explored and presented.
If I may be allowed to shoot from the hip also....
But as I pointed out in another thread on it I am sad that that small table/high crown was ground down to make an ideal cut.
There might have been the potential there to make another type of beautiful diamond out of it. (oec or fic depending on taste)
That option was not presented until it was to late, the diamond was on the way to be recut.
That is what Garry is against also, options not explored and presented.
shady71
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 157
I don't know which "15" threads you are referring to as there have been only 4 on my recut over a two month period! You have further confused the matter by replying to one of the older threads rather than the new "final" one started yesterday https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-diamond-extreme-makeover.107207/
In one of my very first posts on this board I wrote "The issue of "brand", (and even cost to a certain extent) is less important to me than getting a really great cut, (hopefully ideal) that will maximize the stone. Once I decide who to go with, and actually send them the stone, will get a better idea of the potential. Of course, I really want to stay above the 2 carat mark, I really don't want to sacrifice much diameter."
I had inquired of other cutters and had even spoken with Bill Bray prior to making my decision. My choice of a cutter (Brian Gavin) was based on the experiences and results of others that have had recuts by him. Once he had the stone and did the analysis we discussed the options. My goal was a well cut, well performing stone. I was happy to lose all the extra weight at the bottom maiking it more inline with it's existing diameter. We did achieve that goal. There was never any pressure by Brian to keep cutting till we achieved an "Ideal" or "Branded" cut, rather he suggested that leaving the one natural to avoid further diameter loss and keep me above the 2 carat mark. We definitely achieved those results, the stone is amazing, and even scored 1.1 on the cut advisor
shady71
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 157
Paul,
In my newest thread with photos of the completed ring https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-diamond-extreme-makeover.107207/ I did state that one natural remained. Removing that natural would have brought me below the 2 carat mark and was unecessary. I believe that indented natural was the reason for falling short of AGS Ideal.
Despite Garry''s incessant warnings, I NEVER feared that I was sending off a 2.47ct diamond only to get back a perfectly cut, branded stone, whittled away to half it''s size
shady71
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 157
Paul, Although I answered this previously, here is the more complete answer, from Brian''s blog entry on my recut:
"Her original diamond was a typical “steep/deep” round brilliant with large extra facets and deep naturals on the girdle. I evaluated it to see how I could improve its performance - brilliance, scintillation and fire - while retaining as much carat weight as possible. With my years of experience, I was able to calculate the best possible outcome. We were able to remove and reduce 99% of the naturals, attain an AGS0 for Light performance and Polish and improve the Cut grade from an AGS7 to an AGS1*.
*There were remnants of one natural which we could not remove without taking the carat weight under the magical 2 carat mark, which rendered the symmetry an AGS1 and the overall cut grade an AGS1. To round out the process, our customer decided to have the AGS Diamond Quality Document number laser inscribed on the girdle of her ‘new’ diamond."
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,484
Paul I do not accept the claims you have made.
Clearly you were wrong about the naturals.
And I made this statement before the stone was recut, which surely is not scaremongering:
"You really will see the difference once this stone is recut - and it will improve the face up color considerably too Shady.
My comments are however that I prefer to give my clients some choice over their recuts. In this case it might be to maintain some naturals or extra facets that lead to a wavy girdle and possibly not reduce the diameter, save weight etc so that if you ever decide to trade up or sell the diamond etc etc VS aim for H&A''s and AGS 0
I simply counsel that this is also a valid option for others, but I am now sure that you understand and want a ''mind clean cut''
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/planning-to-have-diamond-recut-part-two.104056/page-2 on 16th Januaury.
I also agree with Storm''s comments that the crown height could have been left and an FIC cut which would have retained weight and made a very nice stone. That is what I would have done and there is absolutely no evidence (unless Brian wants to supply it) that indicated this was not viable.
However that was clearly not what Shady wanted, and I totally respect that.
All I ask is that people be given alternative options - even 60:60''s where that can work.
Clearly you were wrong about the naturals.
And I made this statement before the stone was recut, which surely is not scaremongering:
"You really will see the difference once this stone is recut - and it will improve the face up color considerably too Shady.
My comments are however that I prefer to give my clients some choice over their recuts. In this case it might be to maintain some naturals or extra facets that lead to a wavy girdle and possibly not reduce the diameter, save weight etc so that if you ever decide to trade up or sell the diamond etc etc VS aim for H&A''s and AGS 0
I simply counsel that this is also a valid option for others, but I am now sure that you understand and want a ''mind clean cut''
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/planning-to-have-diamond-recut-part-two.104056/page-2 on 16th Januaury.
I also agree with Storm''s comments that the crown height could have been left and an FIC cut which would have retained weight and made a very nice stone. That is what I would have done and there is absolutely no evidence (unless Brian wants to supply it) that indicated this was not viable.
However that was clearly not what Shady wanted, and I totally respect that.
All I ask is that people be given alternative options - even 60:60''s where that can work.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2002
- Messages
- 2,859
Hi Garry,
You were right about the natural. It apparently was mentioned in another thread, that I did not know of.
However, I still feel personally offended by your series of remarks and I am sure that this is also the case with Brian. You may not have intended it, but I did understand your posts as a continued generalisation of us (brand-cutters) as an irresponsible group that is only interested in duplicating their own brand-quality. This specific stone is a simple proof that this generalisation was incorrect. What is more, reading the posts of Shady, I have the impression that she agrees with my feelings about your posts. I must add here that Storm in this matter has posted his opinions in a much more subtle way, that shows great respect. I see absolutely no problem there.
After posting my previous reply, I re-read some posts again and in re-reading in detail, I was terribly shocked with some of your comments. Just to give an example (I am sorry if I take it out of context), this is a statement in your post in this thread, dated 02/12/2009, 05:40:27 AM): "That can make high level symmetry tricky - and those brands have to chase that level - and it is not possible to see that with the unaided eye (no matter what BS they tell you)."
I cannot help it, but I do feel personally insulted by such language. It seems to me that you are portraying us as a group of car-mechanics abusing the lack of technical knowledge of a typical lady-customer (I am sorry, but I do not mean to offend any ladies with this remark). The feeling is even worse since you know me personally (and Brian too), and that you should know us better.
Live long,
You were right about the natural. It apparently was mentioned in another thread, that I did not know of.
However, I still feel personally offended by your series of remarks and I am sure that this is also the case with Brian. You may not have intended it, but I did understand your posts as a continued generalisation of us (brand-cutters) as an irresponsible group that is only interested in duplicating their own brand-quality. This specific stone is a simple proof that this generalisation was incorrect. What is more, reading the posts of Shady, I have the impression that she agrees with my feelings about your posts. I must add here that Storm in this matter has posted his opinions in a much more subtle way, that shows great respect. I see absolutely no problem there.
After posting my previous reply, I re-read some posts again and in re-reading in detail, I was terribly shocked with some of your comments. Just to give an example (I am sorry if I take it out of context), this is a statement in your post in this thread, dated 02/12/2009, 05:40:27 AM): "That can make high level symmetry tricky - and those brands have to chase that level - and it is not possible to see that with the unaided eye (no matter what BS they tell you)."
I cannot help it, but I do feel personally insulted by such language. It seems to me that you are portraying us as a group of car-mechanics abusing the lack of technical knowledge of a typical lady-customer (I am sorry, but I do not mean to offend any ladies with this remark). The feeling is even worse since you know me personally (and Brian too), and that you should know us better.
Live long,
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,484
- Status
Celebrating Mothers And Mentors This Mother's Day
Celebrating Mothers And Mentors This Mother's Day - 05/05
Did You Miss the April 2024 Jewels of the Weeks?
Did You Miss the April 2024 Jewels of the Weeks? - 04/26
Did You Miss The Throwback Thursdays For April 2024?
Did You Miss The Throwback Thursdays For April 2024? - 04/25
300x240.png)