weight - size - face up - price

[PrecisionGem]

Here's an interesting question. As a cutter, we are always faced with compromises when cutting a stone. One is often weight. So the question is, if you had a choice of a stone to be cut and yield 10 cts for $100 per ct or $1000 total, or the same stone cut, but the weight would be 8 cts and the price $125 per ct for a total of $1000. Which would you take. Now the face up size would be exactly the same, but the 10 ct stone would have excess weight in the belly and maybe a keel pavilion, where the 8 ct stone wouldn't, and would have a nicer cut and performance.

 

[VapidLapid]

Less weight, better quality!

 

[emmmme]

I'd go with the nicer cut and performance with the lesser weight - but it seems an easy decision when you put it in those terms. I don't know whether I'd be able to make those distinctions when evaluating two similar stones.

 

[cm366]

Good to see you back, Lapid!

I agree with that - less weight, better quality every time.

 

[dk168]

Concur with less weight and better cut quality too.

DK

 

[LD]

I disagree. It depends on the stone. If the stone is super rare then having the extra carat weight and less precision cut would be the preferable route. Many many many rare stones are not precision cut for precisely this reason.

For a "normal" stone and if value were not an influencer then I'd go for a good cut.

 

[ChrisA222]

I would take a better cut, better performing stone any day of the week.

I don't care how rare the stone is, if it looks like a dud, then its a dud. Rarity means nothing if the stone looks like crud. Then again, I don't buy for investment purposes, I buy for enjoyment.

 

[LD]

I would take a better cut, better performing stone any day of the week.

I don't care how rare the stone is, if it looks like a dud, then its a dud. Rarity means nothing if the stone looks like crud. Then again, I don't buy for investment purposes, I buy for enjoyment.

Why would you assume a stone would look crud just because it's not precision cut?

 

[ChrisA222]

I guess I just meant, I would want the stone to look its absolute best. I would not sacrifice beauty in the name of weight only. It is a different story if you are talking about losing face-up size..but in Genes example, the two stones face up the same size.

As a side note, I detest keel pavilions. I think they kill the brilliance, liveliness, and scintillation of the stone. Are there times when they are necessary? of course. But, again, in this case, Gene has the option of cutting it in another way which will make the stone perform better... without said keel.

 

[movie zombie]

depending on the color i'm probably going for the 10 carat, keel pavilion cut stone. often times a big belly stone has better color.......and I admit to being into big stones.

 

[VapidLapid]

There could be instances where I would keep the weight. If I had say a natural Alexandrite of perfect color change and lovely crystal I would likely keep the weight, assuming the cut will still be good, just not great. As rare as an 8 carat perfect alex would be, a ten would be far more rare, and the difference would likely be greater than the 25% per carat in Gene's example.

ChrisssA, considering you are a member of the trade I am surprised that you don't buy for investment.

 

[ChrisA222]

VL,

I think to buy for investment purposes, you need to focus on either high-end pieces (Big 4...maybe Alexandrite) or buy in bulk when new strikes first hit (Mahenge Spinel, Namibian Spess). I've never been in a position to afford to do either, regardless of how I am designated here LOL.

 

[T L]

It depends on how rare the material is, and how fantastic the color is. Sometimes, a lower yield will also have less saturation as well. Also, it is important to remember that not all colored gems will have fantastic light performance, no matter how they're cut because they may be sleepy, or be somewhat included.

However, if it were a stone like a tanzanite, relatively common, then I would go for the lower weight/better cutting. If it were a very rare paraiba with fantastic color, or a fine Burmese ruby, then I would go for the higher weight/poorer cutting.

I know first hand how it is to have a badly cut stone go from decent saturation to worse saturation, although the final product was a very fine precision cut.

 

[PrecisionGem]

Ok, lets take out the other variable, so people don't guess at which would have better color.

Color is identical.
Face up size and outline are identical. Both stone will fit exactly the same in the same mounting.
Price is identical.
Polish quality is identical
Meet points are identical quality.

Stone 1 is 10 cts.
Stone 2 is 8 cts.

Stone 2 has more life, more sparkle.

So the question is, would you pay more per ct for a prettier stone, or is the weight more important to you.

 

[T L]

Ok, lets take out the other variable, so people don't guess at which would have better color.

Color is identical.
Face up size and outline are identical. Both stone will fit exactly the same in the same mounting.
Price is identical.
Polish quality is identical
Meet points are identical quality.

Stone 1 is 10 cts.
Stone 2 is 8 cts.

Stone 2 has more life, more sparkle.

So the question is, would you pay more per ct for a prettier stone, or is the weight more important to you.

If the price per carat was very high, then weight would be more important. For example, it would be a travesty to cut down a very fine and rare Burmese ruby just to have a prettier cut, because rubies aren't really about sparkle, but color, and they're very rare material. However, in a perfect world, all stones would be perfectly cut and all weight/saturation would be best preserved, however, that's not reality, unfortunately.

In most cases however, if saturation is retained, and the material isn't extremely rare and expensive, then a fine cut would be optimal.

 

[PrecisionGem]

I think I stated the price of the stone was $1000 or $100 per ct. vs $125 per ct. I think you would be hard pressed to find a nice ruby for that price.

 

[T L]

I think I stated the price of the stone was $1000 or $100 per ct. vs $125 per ct. I think you would be hard pressed to find a nice ruby for that price.

Yes, and I made an addendum to my last post. You're right of course. I just don't want people to think it's okay to cut down something like this jewel, just to have a precision cut.

 

[cm366]

Regardless of the rarity of the material, I'd want the better look, which in this case (same face, same color) means the better cut. It seems ridiculous to keep a poor cut for the sake of retaining that extra % and dropping the price per carat, the stone was originally a much larger rough and was cut down in the first place to increase its beauty for use in jewelry. Keep the giant rough, by all means, and make a glowy pendant, but if you're going to lose 50-80% of the material in faceting I'd rather it be well faceted!

Edited to add: another way to frame the question might be "You have a 40ct piece of rough gemstone, which you need to sell for $1000. It can be cut into a chunky 10ct stone or a more lively and sparkly 8ct stone, both with the same colour and face size. Given that you're losing at least 30 carats of material, would you rather keep every last point or give up the extra two for a well cut stone?"

 

[pregcurious]

For this price, I would definitely want the stone with the better performance, and less carat weight.

For anything valuable (which to me is >$1000/ct), I would have to consider. I have some non-precision cut stones, and took into account the quality of the cut into the price.

 

[BlingObsession]

For this price, I too would definitely want the stone with the better performance, and less carat weight.

 

[digdeep]

All things being even........I'd prefer the smaller weight more "life" gem.... I believe most people that are looking at gems would be attracted to that stone over the larger less lively stone. It's one aspect of stones that people cite when they fall 'in love' with a gem.

 

[kenny]

Ok, lets take out the other variable, so people don't guess at which would have better color.

Color is identical.
Face up size and outline are identical. Both stone will fit exactly the same in the same mounting.
Price is identical.
Polish quality is identical
Meet points are identical quality.

Stone 1 is 10 cts.
Stone 2 is 8 cts.

Stone 2 has more life, more sparkle.

So the question is, would you pay more per ct for a prettier stone, or is the weight more important to you.

Light performance over weight!!!

 

[thbmok]

Precision cut any day of the week.

 

[Pretzel]

Cut cut cut.

If people went to so much trouble to get the rough in the first place, and you are going to be cutting regardless, seems disrespectful to not to help the gem be the best it can be. Otherwise, just leave it as rough.

 

[T L]

Cut cut cut.

If people went to so much trouble to get the rough in the first place, and you are going to be cutting regardless, seems disrespectful to not to help the gem be the best it can be. Otherwise, just leave it as rough.

Precision cutting machines are extremely expensive though, and not all lapidaries have access to them. That being said, there are some stones that are also cut very well without the use of precision equipment. I think another thing people forget about is polish, which to me, is as important as the finished cut itself, perfect facet meets, perfect angles, etc. . .Gene mentioned polish briefly above, but a lot of people forget how important that is to the finished piece.

 

[cm366]

Cut cut cut.

If people went to so much trouble to get the rough in the first place, and you are going to be cutting regardless, seems disrespectful to not to help the gem be the best it can be. Otherwise, just leave it as rough.

Precision cutting machines are extremely expensive though, and not all lapidaries have access to them. That being said, there are some stones that are also cut very well without the use of precision equipment. I think another thing people forget about is polish, which to me, is as important as the finished cut itself, perfect facet meets, perfect angles, etc. . .Gene mentioned polish briefly above, but a lot of people forget how important that is to the finished piece.

As PrecisionGem said above, all of those things are identical. The only variance is light performance or belly/pavilion weight. I'd point out that this is very generous, as many stones cut for weight have less impressive polish, facet angles and meetpoints than their precision-cut counterparts, but I presume the comparison is between two ideal stones cut by the same experienced cutter with the same quality of equipment, just one for weight and the other for optics.

 

[minousbijoux]

Gene - great question and one whose answer I hope will be used by you and other lapidaries.

My first answer and gut reaction is that I have to see it to know, while my second thought would be the smaller, better cut stone. But I have a feeling that my threshold might be different than others here. I know that most of the time, I would rather have no stone than a badly cut one, but I am less sure of what my minimal level of acceptance is. Some here require absolute precision in their stones. I'm not sure that I do, as long as they are well cut to my eye. So in order to be able to say with certainty, I would need to see examples -if its the difference between a well cut and exceptionally cut stone, I might choose the well cut for extra carat weight, if it didn't sacrifice too much in the quality. If its the difference between an okay stone with noticeable problems, and an exceptionally cut stone, I would go for the latter. In other words, I really can't see how many angels will fit on the end of the pin without first seeing the size of the angels and the pin...

 

[chrono]

I don't like to pay for hidden weight if all else is equal so I will always take the prettier stone. The answer is clear and easy enough. I would presume based on the price/ct that the stone is rather common so the 2 ct additional weight loss in cutting it for better light return / performance is not a big deal.

Should it be rarer material, then my answer might be different. Of course, if it were indeed rare, it wouldn't be that huge in the first place and it would be extremely difficult to find two stones of comparable colour quality to even have this choice.

Like CCM, I intepreted Gene's question has deciding between 2 precision cut stones, one that is clearly more sparkly than the other. If not, it makes little sense for the larger stone to have great meet points and fine polishing.

 

[PrecisionGem]

I think a lot of people have not read my initial post.

It wasn't to compare a commercial cut stone with a precision cut one, we have been over that a million times here.
The question was approaching a single piece of rough, and the compromised that are made when deciding how to cut it. I was interested in the general preference, if it would be more for weight or beauty. Apparently it's a bit mixed, with some preferring weight and most others beauty or performance.

Sometimes you see people leave a really thick girdle on a stone, this will increase weight a bit as the section through the girdle is the heaviest part of the stone. I personally don't find overly thick girdles to be very attractive. But I suppose that some people would rather have 5.0 cts with a thick girdle, than 4.95 with a proper one.

A similar things often when buying rough. The seller may separate stones from 1 to 2 grams at one price, and over 2 grams at another price. There is always that really weird shaped stone that is 2.1 grams, that will yield a much smaller finished stone than a well shaped 1.5 gram stone, but the seller will want more for the 2.1 gram stone.

 

[thbmok]

Less weight, more beauty!