The Sudden Love For Vintage Diamonds

[AGBF]

As you can tell from my choice of title for this thread, I am not impartial about the the sudden popularity of vintage diamonds. Dancing Fire started a thread recently asking why anyone would want a rose cut diamond since it didn't sparkle, but I am referring to all the so-called "vintage" cuts sweeping Pricescope with their popularity.

I just visited one website that discussed single cuts, rose cuts, Old Mine Cuts, and Old European Cuts, describing all the differences in the way the diamonds were cut. Then the site-predictably-called the round brilliant, the "modern round brilliant" as if it were only one of many equal round cuts, no better or worse than the Old Mine Cut or the Old European Cut- and not the only cut we have been calling the round brilliant for decades, the only round cut currently graded by GIA and AGS (i.e. the reputable diamond labs).

Must I remind all of you of the past decade in which we all ogled the Firescope, the Holloway Cut Advisor, the Brilliancescope, and every other possible device known to mankind in order to discern how to measure light return? The things about which men buying engagement rings obsessed were fire, brilliance, and how to keep even one iota of light from being lost from the sparkle of the diamond they chose! And now none of that matters? After the millions of dollars spent on learning how best to measure light return and cut for ideal light return? Are you kidding me? Now everyone wants a yellow diamond that could have been cut 100 years ago?

Karl called it. It's all about the rise in diamonds prices. Due to the rise in diamond prices, people cannot afford large, high color, well cut diamonds, but they still want large diamonds. So the industry is selling them large, low color diamonds in an affordable form. And telling them that these diamonds are actually better! Yes, better!

And no one is shouting that the emperor has no clothes!

Gypsy is right. If you like naked emperors, go watch one parade in the street. That is your right. But you should know that the diamond industry spent tons of money perfecting the best cut for light return. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry now has its own branded ideal cut diamond. So why, other than to boost diamond sales and accrue more wealth, would diamond merchants suddenly start pushing diamonds with no light return? You should, at least, know that their sudden interest in vintage cut runs counter to everything they have touted in the past ten years or more!

Deb/AGBF

 

[OreoRosies86]

I know jack about diamonds but I know something pretty when I see it. I can't look at an ivory diamond with chunky facets without my heart skipping a beat. I'd pay a premium for that feeling, and apparently so will others.

 

[Circe]

I understand the mechanics of MRBs - and as an English prof, I love specificity in language, and given that we were calling diamonds in general "brilliants" as early as the 17th c., yes, "modern" round brilliant *is* the correct terminology - but they bore me. They all look very much the same to me. Perfect light return doesn't matter to me as much as fire, and the broad facets of old cuts are still better for lovely colorful fire. I'm not saying everybody has to share my preferences, but they were in place well before any market shifts, and they're just as valid as anybody else's love for these new-fangled aesthetics.

FWIW, I dislike modern aesthetics in general. I don't like mid century furniture on down, I loathe modern fashion, I think our color palate went down-hill when we developed fluorescent dyes. Taste isn't teleological, and I don't think any given thing is more beautiful than another simply because it's more recent.

But I've loved old things since I was a kid: chalk it up to being a first gen immigrant with no heirlooms of my own. I think you're right cost has played a role in reviving the interest in old things across the board ... but I don't think that delegitimizes their appeal. It may perhaps have provided the impetus to make people look around instead of following the crowd. Well worth it if it makes people appreciate the total package! Because, don't forget, it's not just gems we're talking, it's *jewelry.* And in jewelry as in just about every other field preceding electronics ... modern craftsmanship can't hold a candle to old world techniques & standards.

 

[Circe]

The post so nice I made it twice - otherwise known as technology's revenge. Modernity doesn't like me, either! Sorry, double post.

 

[umbrella]

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at but I'll give my 2 cents.

You are referring to older cut diamonds as having no light return and I don't know how you came to that inclusion. There are plenty of users here with stunning true OECs and new AVRs which both look phenomenal. Some AVRs are graded by AGS to have ideal light return, which is opposite to your statement of old cuts having "no light return".

Secondly, humans have brilliant attributes of opinion and preference. Some people prefer the clean cut, standard or "typical" round brilliant diamond. Other people prefer the look of the older cut stones. The beauty of diamonds is that they have several features about them which make them beautiful. Dispersion is an example which is seen in both MRB and old cuts, but appears differently, i.e. many small splinters of fire vs large but less chunks of fire - again personal opinion. Thanks to the larger facets of old cuts, they display a diamond's wonderful ability to take in white light and give back colour - seen when OECs have those lovely pastels floating on the facets in certain lighting.

There are too many differences between MRBs and old cuts to summarise quickly, but I'm sure you know what they are, but if not it won't take long to read up on them.

MRBs and old cuts have different personalities to each other, much like humans have different personalities too.

 

[dawnxcui]

to me, having vintage is about having something different. when my friends got engaged one by one, 80% of them had a round solitaire much like the tiffany setting.
i wanted none of that. to me, an engagement ring has to be unique with a personal touch to it.
i personally don't like hearing "her ring is the same as ABC's", "it's the same ring just bigger" about my ring.

if you look at a nicely cut hearts and arrow, they will all start to look the same. but with vintage diamonds they're all different. and maybe that's what people look for when they buy vintage.

if the 70s and 80s fashion can come back, i see no problem with vintage diamonds making a comeback.

and yes, the price point does seem very appealing. unless you're an expert, the average person who doesn't know much besides the 4C's probably cant tell a difference between an OMC vs AVC, so why pay the premium?

 

[athenaworth]

My mom collected vintage jewelry when I was a kid so I was sort of born into it. I appreciate vintage because of the story behind it (even if I have to make the story up in my head). I especially love inscribed pieces. But if I have a vintage piece, the perfectionist in me wants it to be fully vintage (i.e. have old cuts rather than "modern" cuts).

 

[AGBF]

Some of you posting are new to Pricescope. Some of you are not. Gypsy, although like me a mere consumer, who has given her opinion in other threads, has the opposite point of view from me and she has far, far more expertise than me with diamonds.

I cannot help but feel that some of my feelings are based on the number of years I have spent on diamond fora listening to men (and it has been largely men) discuss the instruments with which they will study the light return of various ideal cut round brilliants. Before Pricescope existed I used to be a regular on another diamond forum, then I joined Pricescope. For at least 15 years I have been hearing about light return.

I am all for individuals being able to wear what they like. I have been espousing yellow gold since before the year 2K. I am not trying to tell those of you who love vintage diamonds not to wear them...or collect them. I have some sterling silver Georg Jensen pieces my mother collected during World War II. They are only beautiful to people who like antiques. (I hear you, athenaworth, believe me! Family jewelry is precious!)

What I am doing is telling the industry to stop pulling a fast one. How can merchants keep a straight face as they sell diamonds cut for little light return after 15 years of showing off their newfangled instruments to measure light return?

Deb/AGBF

 

[OreoRosies86]

It could be because bigger antique diamonds are less expensive and people want the size, sure. But I have been diamond forums since about 2007 and have seen a rapidly increasing preference to antique diamonds because of the conflict-free angle. To many consumers it is a huge selling point, to have an antique rather than modern of questionable origins or from a Diamonds Inc. store like DeBeers. I know, we have the Kimberley Process, but many are skeptical of that.

Knowing this growing trend, why wouldn't diamond dealers hawk the antique/vintage/conflict free angle to their customers? Priorities in the market change. 15 years ago who really cared about organic yogurt made from free range grass fed dairy cows? Now you can find it in any Wal Mart.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

I have have puzzled over this very thing myself, Deb. I knew nothing about diamonds before 2005, when I began to buy colored stones. I took them to a GIA appraiser who began to explain diamonds to me. The sales-associate was a woman who wore several beautiful diamonds every day I came. Her diamonds were a G color and sparkly. She tried to educate me by showing me a whole display case of lower colored diamonds-so many--. I do remember my first reaction was shock. They were ugly. Its true, I can't say they were vintage, but it is the only time I have seen mucho lower colors in diamonds.

Deb, has been so tactful in approaching this topic, I want to say what went through my mind, but I really can't, and its what I think when I hear the colors of vintage diamonds that people are buying. An O, P R, S, are not any diamond that I would recommend or buy, and I have seen these next to one another. Yes, a resurgence of popularity of these vintage cuts exists, but for how long? A trend comes and goes, sometimes quickly.

This is of course my opinion, and it is not meant to hurt anybody.

Annette

 

[Circe]

Some of you posting are new to Pricescope. Some of you are not. Gypsy, although like me a mere consumer, who has given her opinion in other threads, has the opposite point of view from me and she has far, far more expertise than me with diamonds.

I cannot help but feel that some of my feelings are based on the number of years I have spent on diamond fora listening to men (and it has been largely men) discuss the instruments with which they will study the light return of various ideal cut round brilliants. Before Pricescope existed I used to be a regular on another diamond forum, then I joined Pricescope. For at least 15 years I have been hearing about light return.

I am all for individuals being able to wear what they like. I have been espousing yellow gold since before the year 2K. I am not trying to tell those of you who love vintage diamonds not to wear them...or collect them. I have some sterling silver Georg Jensen pieces my mother collected during World War II. They are only beautiful to people who like antiques. (I hear you, athenaworth, believe me! Family jewelry is precious!)

What I am doing is telling the industry to stop pulling a fast one. How can merchants keep a straight face as they sell diamonds cut for little light return after 15 years of showing off their newfangled instruments to measure light return?

Deb/AGBF

I think part of it may be that we're talking about merchants who target different demographics: almost all the vendors on PriceScope are niche vendors, in one way or another, and I haven't seen anybody try to play both sides of the fence: the ones who were touting light return back in the day are still specializing in ideal modern cuts, and the ones who were focusing on antiques are still focusing on antiques. The sad thing is that the low color divide between new cuts and old cuts is due to that self-same market, and to the many dealers who catered to the LCD and simply recut many of the high-quality old stones to suit changing tastes ... resulting in a great many transitional stones, pleasing neither side of the table!

The old-style new cuts are their own animal: the dealers specializing in them seem to be trying hard to get the same kind of ideal light return, simply hewing to a different set of standards. (Shout-out to Jon, and congrats on the 2nd patent!) I think the thing to keep in mind there is that there are multiple paths to "ideal" status. Apples to apples, right?

 

[Harpertoo]

I think Circe makes an important point by describing the bulk of PS vendors as caterering to niche markets. I do think they need to differentiate with unique products because the round brilliants seem in danger of being completely commodified with the help of the very tools vendors used to tout their superiority.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Deb, I haven't read through all the posts carefully because I don't have much time right now. But I think I agree with what you are getting at. I came here and learned that diamonds are the most beautiful when they are well cut. Therefore, in order to fulfill my desire for both an old style cut and excellent/ideal light performance, I got an AVR/OEC which is AGS graded and GOG does the light performance testing, too. There are well cut antique OEC's of course. The fine antique rings of Tiffany and Cartier will show you that fine cutting existed even then, even if light performance was looked at a little differently due to not having electricity. While I certainly do see nice OEC's being purchased by people here, I also see a lot of them being for sale on Pre-loved because people find something they like better. Some are going for stones in very low colors and not well cut, and I agree with you that I can't recommend that in good conscience. I do love the old style cuts, but I don't sacrifice everything I know about diamond quality when I shop.

If you haven't seen RandG's antique Cartier ring, you need to see it.

https://www.pricescope.com/blog/jewel-week-5-carat-cartier-art-deco-diamond-ring

 

[missy]

My mom collected vintage jewelry when I was a kid so I was sort of born into it. I appreciate vintage because of the story behind it (even if I have to make the story up in my head). I especially love inscribed pieces. But if I have a vintage piece, the perfectionist in me wants it to be fully vintage (i.e. have old cuts rather than "modern" cuts).

This is how I feel. And I am also an old soul at heart and the old cuts tug at my heart strings like no other cut does.
I appreciate modern cuts for what they are and their ideal light return and they are beautiful in their own right of course.

For me though the chunky facets and soft glow of an old cut just does me in like no other.
I love that they were cut so long ago to different standards and appreciate the history that goes with it. My grandmother's ER (which was her mother's ER) was the first old cut I fell in love with and I know that has a great influence over me. When I am wearing my ER I think of my grandma and she is with me and it makes me happy. And those OMG facets and broad flashes of light with all the beautiful colors coming from it, well, that doesn't hurt either.

 

[emmebee]

I definitely think that the old cuts have personalities, and they catch people's hearts. I absolutely think they are special and gorgeous. However, I think as was mentioned, it seems to be a niche group that appreciates them or even knows old cuts.

In my opinion, I would be hesitant to recommend an old cut to someone who is asking for opinions to buy a ring blindly for their SO, unless they know their SO appreciates old cuts. I just think the general population is not familiar with them, and if someone received an old cut (not optimized for light return), I think they would be surprised.

 

[Karl_K]

I love vintage cuts and the more recent versions of them.
They can and if chosen well do have every bit the performance of the best super-ideal RB but with a different look.

As far as lower color there is nothing inherently inferior with a lower color diamond.
They are what they are and some like them some don't.
My wifeys ering is a J and I would buy it again in a heartbeat!

I don't buy into the elitism that only a higher color and or clarity diamond is worth buying.
Being well cut is far more important!

 

[telephone89]

I relate it to people shopping vintage/thrift stores. The item might not be in perfect 100% amazing condition, or made of the same fabric chanel uses, or have a fancy label sewed on it, but not everyone else will have it. I don't want to look like a Gap or H&M clone, I like having things that are different, unique and special to me, why wouldn't I feel the same with my jewelery?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Deb, also, this is more of a PS thing than a major trend. The vast majority of stones sold for engagement rings, I am fairly certain, are still modern round brilliants and princess cuts. Sadly not that many people are knowledgeable about cut, so I am sure a LOT of ungraded stones are sold as well as those from inferior labs.

Again, I love some of the antique OEC's PSer's have bought. Some have gotten great bargains shopping on ebay, too. But there is a heck of a lot of risk doing that, so others pay retail. Prices have gone up as demand has. So bargains on really great OEC's are hard to find, as far as I am concerned.

Karl...I think of J as a higher color in the OEC's we are seeing bought by PSers. I'd say most are K and lower.

 

[Karl_K]

Karl...I think of J as a higher color in the OEC's we are seeing bought by PSers. I'd say most are K and lower.

That's kewl I love mno well cut diamonds too.

 

[VRBeauty]

My OEC 3-stone ring (formerly Uppy's James Meyer 3-stone - https://www.pricescope.com/forum/show-me-the-ring/james-meyer-three-stone-oec-t120753-90.html) "sparkles like crazy" even though the stones are old and would probably have pretty poor ASETs and HCA's well below above "2". I love wearing it and always get compliments on it. And I was able to buy it for considerably less that the same design would have cost if set with ideal-cut diamonds of the same size, color, and clarity. I also appreciate the "wow" factor of a well-cut MRB, but generally I find the OEC more interesting to look at, and I love the kozibe effect that some OECs display. I'm not a big fan of OMCs though since I've seen several OMCs with poor light performance.

Gypsy is right. If you like naked emperors, go watch one parade in the street.

If liking OECs makes me a fool, or a dirty old lady, so be it.

As I mentioned, I also like MRB's. I don't personally see a need to create camps, take sides, cast aspersions on those who favor one style or the other. In the immortal words of somebody or other, "people vary."

 

[ForteKitty]

Some people seem to think that all old cuts are crap, and while a lot of them are, some of them aren't. There are well cut old diamonds with amazing light return, and I happen to own one. (okay, fine, I own quite a few!) The pretty ones are really, really pretty! And like the broad spectrum of "modern round brilliants", the poorly cut old diamonds can be very ugly as well. There is a huge spectrum! I've been around this forum just as long as you, Deb, so I'm not some random newbie who has no idea what I'm talking about. I know a tiny bit.

Here is my pet peeve: If someone comes to PS asking for advice on an old cut diamond, they should at least be able to identify what a good old cut looks like... or what an old cut even looks like. So many people claim to "looooove old cuts" and post links asking if "this is a good oec/omc", and can't even identify what an old cut is supposed to look like. They'll post a bunch of horribly cut round diamonds and get pissy when they can't figure out why people don't like any of them. If you don't know what it looks like, how can you say you want one?!? It's like someone who adamantly demands a blue car while pointing at a red bicycle. Alright, end of my old cut rant.

A lot of PSers who have old cuts ALSO have ideal cut round brilliants. I've met quite a few of these PSers' jewelry in person. I own ideal rounds as well. Colorless ones, too! I just don't wear them. Most days, I do not wear any jewelry, but when I do, I reach for my vintage pieces. Some have tiny diamonds much smaller than my colorless mrbs or colorless fancy cuts, so that throws the size hypothesis out the window. It's all about the pattern and the personality. I take great joy in staring at the faceting pattern of my 9.9mm oec. She is the oec love of my life and I would never sell her... I just stare at her in her box sometimes like a creepy stalker. It has nothing to do with her size. If you were to ask me to choose between a D ideal cut round vs my much lower colored one which has what to me is the perfect pattern, both of the same size, I'd pick mine in a heartbeat. Or I'd get the D and sell it, then buy mine and keep the $$ difference. I have already sold a bunch of GIA colorless diamonds in the past few years, and I have zero regrets. I will always keep the 0.43 D VS2 ideal round I bought when I landed my first real job, but that is for sentimental reasons. Everything else can go.

 

[FrekeChild]

Fortekitty and Circe summed up how I feel about it. I always said I wasn't a diamond girl, but antique cuts made me realize I just didn't like MRBs. The only large modern cut diamond I have belonged to my mother, a princess, and it will likely be first, last and only. Antique diamonds - and TRUE antique cuts at that - or nothing. I am regularly horrified to hear of antiques being cut into MRBs. It makes me so sad.

 

[Travelgal]

As I read through the postings, I am surprised that more people haven't commented

GIA says that on the history of diamonds that during the 1870s less than 1 million carats of diamonds were produced. By 1920, approximately 3 million carats were produced. In the 1970s this amount increased to 50 million and over 100 million by the 1990s. There are more diamond mines that produce "high quality stones" than there were back in the early 1900s.

There are so many cool things about vintage diamonds- they are rare, no 2 are alike, they were cut to reflect light from across the room, they are conflict free, they weren't mass produced and they all have a history. I love the fact that they aren't "perfect." Diamonds were meant to be selected by the eyes. There are old dud diamonds, there are modern dud diamonds. Not all vintage diamonds are cheaper than their modern equivalents.

Maybe old diamonds don't have the same fire and brilliance of a new diamond- but how else is a vendor going to command top dollar if they don't have tools telling you their diamonds are better than the rest? Emerald cuts don't have the same brilliance as a round cut, but it doesn't mean one is better than the other. I like the history of old diamonds. I like that some are wonky. I've liked them since I was 5 and used to wear my grandmothers ring.

Maybe vintage stones are a trend, but with the internet and online shopping they are available and visible to more people. People are seeing rings they like online, googling them, identifying them as antique/vintage stones and many are choosing them over modern stones.

 

[pyramid]

I remember us being told by gemmologists and vendors that the old cut was unwanted, dealers couldn't sell them as they had been cut for old type hanging lights. I remember a photo being posted by a vendor to show us it and someone showing an interest and being told to forget it as they wouldn't like it. That all the high color dianmonds had been recut to round brilliant by the rich people who owned them and antique diamonds were brown, were also told not to buy antique rings as most of them had been worn out and would be more trouble than they were worth and that most of the good ones were only reproductions and no none would want that. Now people are custom making reproductions.

The thing that gets me is the charts where we were told the evolution of diamond cut from table cut, to rose cut, to old mine cut to oec to transitional and then to round brilliant and how the sparkle had improved over the years with new learning from mathematicians including Tolkowsky. I remember a woman from Wales who posted her large diamond and was told by the lab and by appraisers that it was an Old English Brilliant which was cut around the time of the oec moving to transitional and how it was better like in between them, as they were cut in London to high standards and this didn't last long so most people had only seen the old european cut. Now diamond cut is going backwards it seems.

This is not a sudden shift now, it was sudden when it happened but it has been around a few years now.

I remember people being warned to watch out when buying old cut diamonds as they were being cut now by some people and sold as old when they were new. Then people did a shift here and went buying modified brilliant new cut cushions.

What's old is new as they say.

I remember reading somewhere about people staining lace curtains with tea to give them the old look, so I think this old look came in not just with jewellery. I thought it was just a fad but not sure now.

I notice hearts and arrows on the other hand are hardly mentioned no
Now it is just idealscope for light return to check a diamond.


I wonder if with the recession we are going back in time, I mean someone bought all these low color large diamonds before, so what happened to make us start buying small white diamonds, probably the people who couldn't buy a 3 carat n color vvs2, so they went for high color to be near the high color large diamonds the rich were buying. I remember reading that Debeers had a promotion for eternity rings to use up their small diamonds, so wonder if this is when people bought them. This then grew maybe to getting G color 75 points and 1 carat but now it is back to larger diamonds again and what one can afford. Maybe it goes in circles like clothes fashion, we know that yellow gold and white gold is supposed to.

Maybe we were just informed wrong by those who were trying to sell to us, I wonder. In the UK i never knew anyone with a large diamond of any color so I don't know. Does anyone here have large heirloom diamonds of 3 carat and lower color and can they tell the story of their ancestors getting them and why they would have gone for size over color? I would be really interesting if we could go back in time and see all these old large diamonds being bought and see if the buyers drooled over large high color diamonds (the ones that were all recut) and so copied them, like people are doing with celebrities now. Being Scottish I don't know a lot about the history of diamonds as it would have been in the USA.

 

[Gypsy]

Gypsy is right. If you like naked emperors, go watch one parade in the street.

"

I just said that people's tastes vary. I adore TRUE VINTAGE old cut rounds. Tranny's and OECs. I really do. I much prefer them to MRB. I thought I hated rounds. Then I just realized I don't like Hearts and Arrows and MRB rounds. I love Trannys and OECs.

I've seen a LOT of them. And seen a LOT of MRB's, many of them ideal cuts.

I just prefer OECs. GOOD OECs. And I do know how to spot them and shop for them. I just need


I'm a fancy girl at heart. I value personality. These stones have it.

 

[pyramid]

http://www.langantiques.com/university/index.php/Brilliant_Cu

This charts the getting to the round brilliant, it did not sit alongside old cuts as a round diamond it was seen as progression.


As AGBF wrote it was always referred to as the Round Brilliant, this modern is a new word slipped in since the old cuts became vogue again.

 

[arkieb1]

I think Deb the problem with what you are stating is that all old cuts are crap cuts and this simply isn't true. There are OECs cut by hand that have hearts and arrows and many without arrows that are beautifully cut and beautiful performers and transitionals with fat arrows that will give a modern round brilliant a good solid kick in the performance department too. Add to that modern old cuts, cut for light performance like GOGs stones, Victor's stones and others and what you have is a vast array of simply stunning Antique cut diamonds.

Sellers for years have been pushing badly cut round brilliants and misgraded EGL diamonds in the mid to lower colours that are just as ugly to me as badly cut antique stones are to you. I owned 9+ modern cut diamonds before I figured out they were not doing anything for me visually and turned to old cuts.

I don't think a love of vintage or antique is just on here, it is out in the real world as well. Once pop idols and film starts appear with wearing vintage diamonds then somehow they become fashionable. The trend on P/S was they were purchased once upon a time because they were more affordable, now something like a AVR or an AVC costs more than a modern cut stone, demonstrating how popular they have become.

As to lower coloured diamonds I agree with the others, the increasing price of diamonds has made purchasing mid to lower colours more desirable options for people on a budget out in the real world. In the P/S world I put it down to the fact that people here are more educated, they go and look and try or have owned a range of stones and work they way into seeing all stones are beautiful irrespective of colour. Having said that colour is subjective we all have a threshold for what we like and will accept and what we find yuck. For some people that is a K for some a U for others a G.

There has also been a phenomenon on here and out in the real world of people desiring larger diamonds, years ago 1 carat was large, then 1.50 carats, then 2.00 carats and then 3.00+ and something has to give. If you like size (and I confess I am guilty of this myself) then something has to give budget wise, more often than not colour is that compromise.

 

[ForteKitty]

Perhaps this isn't a linear digression of cut as some make it out to be. People are now exposed to different cuts of the past and they're branching out. H&A has been around for a long time now, and is so common and part of the norm that I expect buyers to be informed about it. Perhaps that's why most people aren't harping on about H&A anymore?

Pyramid, I would love to know the history of my big oec and why the ex owner picked it out over other diamonds. Unfortunately, it was left unclaimed in a bank safe and eventually turned over to the State of Texas and sold on ebay, so I will never know. I always imagined that a rich oil tycoon with no descendants used to lovingly wear it as a tie pin, as it was well loved. I didn't purposely go for size over color. It wasn't even supposed to be an engagement ring since I was just looking for fun and bought it on a whim! I love this pattern and have not seen another like it, and I (at one point) owned about 15 very well cut ~1ct+oecs, and I still own some colorless and near colorless diamonds. I've seen much bigger and whiter (colorless)diamonds that did absolutely nothing for me. Not even a tiny skip in my heart.

 

[Circe]

I'm just going to restate something that may have been lost in all my earlier blather: aesthetics are not teleological. We're not moving towards a platonic ideal. We're just testing out all our options with the passage of time. Trends sweep the masses, individual styles and preferences will be retained from among them by individuals.

Or, as Kenny would say ... people vary!

 

[Gypsy]

Arkieb raises great points. I've been lucky enough to see many well cut OECs. And they are killer performers.

If you ever have a chance to see Coati's 3 carat M in person, it will COMPLETELY change the way you view old cuts. That stone was my first OEC in person.

And yes, many of them are poorly cut. But Many aren't.

The majority of MRB's out there are poorly cut too. You can't judge a cut by it's poor performers. Majority of Ovals are terrible performers. Cushions too.

You have to judge a cut by it's nicest performers. And let me tell you, a nice cut OEC can go head to head with anything.

And you have to realize that OECs and Transitional diamonds are fancy cuts. So you have to judge them as fancies.

Disliking the old cut trend because they aren't MRB's and aren't perfectly cut to modern standards is like disliking the cushion trend. The majority of cushions out there cannot go head to head with a MRB. Yes, there are branded ones that can. But the majority can't. Does that mean that people who love them are getting something inferior?

No.

You can dislike old cuts because they don't appeal to you. But you can't discount them as inferior any more than you can Emerald Cuts or Cushions or any other fancy cut. Because that is what they are. Fancy cuts.

And if this doesn't make sense, I'm sorry. Cough syrup.