The new Wittelsbach-Graff

[Lady_Disdain]

Some time ago, Graff purchased the Wittelsbach Blue diamond, a historical 35cts blue diamond. To the horror of most people, he announced he was going to recut it. Well, so he did and there are photos of the renamend Wittelsbach-Graff diamond.

With a loss of 4cts, the diamond was regraded Fancy deep blue and IF. What do you guys think? Personally, I am not fond of the huge open cutlet, which has the effect of a large window to my eyes. I understand that, given the original depth, closing it would mean a huge loss of weight and face up size, but that doesn''t mean I have to like it. I do like the colour now.

I feel a pang about losing the original facetting, thought. It was a historical gem and, to me, that does carry a value.

http://www.artdaily.org/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=34947

 

[T L]

Date: 1/2/2010 12:51:04 AM
Author:Lady_Disdain
Some time ago, Graff purchased the Wittelsbach Blue diamond, a historical 35cts blue diamond. To the horror of most people, he announced he was going to recut it. Well, so he did and there are photos of the renamend Wittelsbach-Graff diamond.

With a loss of 4cts, the diamond was regraded Fancy deep blue and IF. What do you guys think? Personally, I am not fond of the huge open cutlet, which has the effect of a large window to my eyes. I understand that, given the original depth, closing it would mean a huge loss of weight and face up size, but that doesn''t mean I have to like it. I do like the colour now.

I feel a pang about losing the original facetting, thought. It was a historical gem and, to me, that does carry a value.

http://www.artdaily.org/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=34947

Thanks for posting this LadyD. Um, not loving the new recut either. It did have some nicks and chips, but it was a historic stone, and he should have kept it as is. I think all the smaller facets really accentuates the open cutlet even more. Ugh!!

 

[Lady_Disdain]

And the original stone

 

[T L]

Reading up on why Laurence Graff had the diamond recut, it is now the largest IF deep blue diamond in existence. I guess the color and the clarity went up a notch. It will be on display at the Smithsonian along side other famous blues, like the Hope, on Jan 28th of this year. I still wish he hadn''t recut it. It seems sacrareligious to do this to very old and historic gems, regardless of the cut. Might as well recut the Black Prince ruby too while we''re at it.

 

[Hest88]

Ugh, me no likey. Yuck. And, I agree, even if it had improved immeasurably in appearance, there''s something terribly wrong with re-cutting such a historical stone.

 

[lyra]

I think this is a pic of the original cut. I can''t believe it was changed. It was beautiful as is. More beautiful IMO.

 

[Lovinggems]

The colour improved but the new cut is icky, and soulless.

 

[T L]

The Hope also has lots of chunky facets like the Whittelsbach before it''s recut, and an open cutlet, although not as large. It was supposedly recut from the French Blue to disguise it, but I would be horrified if they ever recut it again. It''s not cut to make the most of it''s color and sparkle, that''s for sure. Interesting tidbit: While the Wittelsbach diamond is at the Smithsonian on display, it will be tested to see if both that and the Hope come from the same mine in India.

Hopefully, we can see a video of the Whittelsbach''s new cut, that would be interesting, but so far, I can''t find any. This is very recent news on the recut, but so far, it reminds me of my hair on a bad day - LOL!

 

[FrekeChild]

I wouldn''t kick it out of bed for eating crackers!

 

[LD]

Oh no. It''s lost all of its character.

 

[Sagebrush]

Lady Disdain,

Although the impression is given that the image you posted is the newly recut Wittelsbach-Graff, I have my doubts! I just finished a GemWise blog post on this and you may be looking at the old stone tarted up to an unconvincing color. Michael Cowing, did some analysis and that is his opinion. You may recall the Michael provided an analysis and suggested recut that was published in Colored Stone'' GemMail. I am following up on this and should have more in a future GemWise blog post.

Graff Does It again.

From GemWise: "Few believed Lawrence Graff would have the chutzpa to recut the Wittelsbach Blue diamond, but we were all wrong. At a cost of only 4.45 carats the recut and renamed Wittelsbach-Graff Diamond has been raised from a GIA graded of Fancy Deep Grayish Blue to a Fancy Deep Blue. Its clarity grade been likewise elevated from VS2 to Internally Flawless (IF)."

 

[T L]

Date: 1/2/2010 7:35:01 AM
Author: Richard W. Wise
Lady Disdain,

Although the impression is given that the image you posted is the newly recut Wittelsbach-Graff, I have my doubts! I just finished a GemWise blog post on this and you may be looking at the old stone tarted up to an unconvincing color. Michael Cowing, did some analysis and that is his opinion. You may recall the Michael provided an analysis and suggested recut that was published in Colored Stone'' GemMail. I am following up on this and should have more in a future GemWise blog post.

Graff Does It again.

From GemWise: ''Few believed Lawrence Graff would have the chutzpa to recut the Wittelsbach Blue diamond, but we were all wrong. At a cost of only 4.45 carats the recut and renamed Wittelsbach-Graff Diamond has been raised from a GIA graded of Fancy Deep Grayish Blue to a Fancy Deep Blue. Its clarity grade been likewise elevated from VS2 to Internally Flawless (IF).''

JMO, but I personally think that''s a large weight loss. Can you imagine the cost of a 4.45 blue diamond of that color???? However, I think the most significant loss is the historical value of the original stone. I think it was rather egotistical of Graff to recut the diamond just to improve the color and the clarity, and to give it a new name. It is his diamond and he can do what he pleases, but to me, the diamond is like a historical landmark, and better left untouched.

 

[jstarfireb]

Also not loving the cut, but the color is just jaw-dropping.

 

[packrat]

I thought it looked gorgeous to begin with so no idea why he''d mess with it. The color in the first picture then, is the tarted up color?

 

[Largosmom]

Interesting, that was some "repolish" which is what the press releases claim was done...looks totally different, though.

 

[klewis]

I''m confused. I didn''t think the newly cut diamond has had its unveiling yet.

 

[Arcadian]

The after color is lovely but the cut??? erm...

Its like frankendiamond.

but if it were given to me, I wouldn''t turn it down (I ain''t dumb!!)



-A

 

[chrono]

I would have kept the poor blue diamond as it was, even if the colour has improved. Not just for the history behind it, but the carat weight loss (4 ct of that diamond is major moolah), plus I''m a fan of the large chunky style faceting. While I love large culets, the newer small facets just don''t go with the look of a open culet. It''s just weird.

 

[Sagebrush]

All,

I think you may have missed the point. The image is of the original stone, no the recut and the color has been photo-chopped to death. The cut outline on GemWise shows the old style pavilion. We are not yet sure what the newly cut pavilion looks like.

4.45 carats is a bit of a loss particularly when the going price is 2 million a carat. However, remember we now have a fancy deep blue rather than a fancy deep "grayish" blue. Though one very knowledgeable source told me he doubted that a recut would have really eliminated the gray. There is almost always an element of visible gray in fancy blue diamonds.

Also, bear in mind, the Hope is the result of two recuts; 116 to 68 to 45.52!

Best,

 

[LD]

Richard the article accompanying the photo says "This undated handout photo provided by the Smithsonian Institution shows The 31.06-carat "Wittelsbach-Graff Diamond" which will join the 45.52-carat "Hope Diamond" at the Smithsonian''s National Museum of Natural History on Jan. 28, the museum announced Monday, Dec. 14, 2009. AP Photo/Smithsonian Institution." So is this photo really photoshopped for colour etc? Would the Smithsonian do that?

 

[Lady_Disdain]

Date: 1/3/2010 7:56:34 AM
Author: Richard W. Wise
All,

I think you may have missed the point. The image is of the original stone, no the recut and the color has been photo-chopped to death. The cut outline on GemWise shows the old style pavilion. We are not yet sure what the newly cut pavilion looks like.

4.45 carats is a bit of a loss particularly when the going price is 2 million a carat. However, remember we now have a fancy deep blue rather than a fancy deep ''grayish'' blue. Though one very knowledgeable source told me he doubted that a recut would have really eliminated the gray. There is almost always an element of visible gray in fancy blue diamonds.

Also, bear in mind, the Hope is the result of two recuts; 116 to 68 to 45.52!

Best,

Richard,

Thank you for clearing that. Most news sites are using the same image, which, it seems, I incorrectly assumed to be the new stone. I am very curious to see the new cut.

 

[oddoneout]

I like the original cut better too.

 

[T L]

Date: 1/3/2010 7:56:34 AM
Author: Richard W. Wise
All,

I think you may have missed the point. The image is of the original stone, no the recut and the color has been photo-chopped to death. The cut outline on GemWise shows the old style pavilion. We are not yet sure what the newly cut pavilion looks like.

4.45 carats is a bit of a loss particularly when the going price is 2 million a carat. However, remember we now have a fancy deep blue rather than a fancy deep ''grayish'' blue. Though one very knowledgeable source told me he doubted that a recut would have really eliminated the gray. There is almost always an element of visible gray in fancy blue diamonds.

Also, bear in mind, the Hope is the result of two recuts; 116 to 68 to 45.52!

Best,

That makes me want to cry!!

Thanks for your clarification.

 

[Lady_Disdain]

Date: 1/3/2010 11:12:02 AM
Author: tourmaline_lover

Date: 1/3/2010 7:56:34 AM
Author: Richard W. Wise
All,

I think you may have missed the point. The image is of the original stone, no the recut and the color has been photo-chopped to death. The cut outline on GemWise shows the old style pavilion. We are not yet sure what the newly cut pavilion looks like.

4.45 carats is a bit of a loss particularly when the going price is 2 million a carat. However, remember we now have a fancy deep blue rather than a fancy deep ''grayish'' blue. Though one very knowledgeable source told me he doubted that a recut would have really eliminated the gray. There is almost always an element of visible gray in fancy blue diamonds.

Also, bear in mind, the Hope is the result of two recuts; 116 to 68 to 45.52!

Best,

That makes me want to cry!!

Thanks for your clarification.

Yep, the transformation of the French Blue into the Hope is sad...

 

[Arkteia]

I just (vaguely) remember that Hamid alexandrite weights about 1.3 ct was cut from a huge rock (sorry, Richard, I think that accurate numbers are in your book but I keep it at work) . Sometimes, it seems, recutting allows to obtain a perfect stone. At the same time, I agree that there is something wrong in recutting an item of such a historic value - would you restore the face of "Egyptian sphinx", rebuild Acropolis to make it "perfect", or repaint Leonardo''s "Last Supper" so that it would look new?

 

[haagen_dazs]

Date: 1/2/2010 1:15:02 AM
Author: Hest88
Ugh, me no likey. Yuck. And, I agree, even if it had improved immeasurably in appearance, there''s something terribly wrong with re-cutting such a historical stone.

maybe Graff recut the diamond so that he can get the diamond to be named after him too =p

 

[Sagebrush]

TL,

The picture caption does say that but Michael looked at it carefully and believes it is the un recut stone. I don''t believe the Smithsonian would alter the image, but would Graff? Believe me it has been color corrected, the stone itself looks more like a pale aquamarine.

The Hammid alexandrite was interesting, but for another reason (it was cut from rough). For years, everyone used that image as an example of a fine Russian alexandrite. That image was published everywhere. I recall being quite frustrated trying to find the mythical ruby red/emerald green alexandrite. Despite my long search I never did. I was in Brazil when the Hematatita Alexandrite strike was going full bore but nothing really came close. Then when I purchased the image for Secrets, I had a conversation with Tino Hammid and he admitted that the stone had been color corrected. So, it was like a search for the Holy Grail.

So, my friends beware of Englishmen bearing images, If you are looking for a blue diamond that looks like the Wittelsbach in the image at the beginning of this post you will be looking for something that does not exist.

 

[Arkteia]

Date: 1/4/2010 12:38:06 AM
Author: haagen_dazs

Date: 1/2/2010 1:15:02 AM
Author: Hest88
Ugh, me no likey. Yuck. And, I agree, even if it had improved immeasurably in appearance, there's something terribly wrong with re-cutting such a historical stone.

maybe Graff recut the diamond so that he can get the diamond to be named after him too =p

I vaguely remembered that Wittelsbach family was not too happy. Browsed the Wikipedia, and lo and behold, the family history appeared to be loaded with mental illness. The dynasty did not fare too well. Ludwig II of Bavaria is well-known, but it seems that schizophrenia was rampant in the family since the 15th century. Maybe it is better to recut and rename the stone?

 

[Porridge]

I preferred the original cut, and the historical record that it was. The new colour is beautiful though.

 

[Liane]

I sure hope that picture isn''t actually the new cut, because if it is, it''s

.