The Sudden Love For Vintage Diamonds

[CharmyPoo]

Ditto to everything in fortekitty's first post. Saves me writing

 

[ccuheartnurse]

Hello Everyone...

I thought I would come out from the shadows for this thread. I rarely post, but I am always here.

I completely understand what Deb is saying. I still remember the early days of PS with vivid recollection. There were several passionate debates here: Branded vs Non-Branded stones, HCA Tool, then we moved on to Light Return & the myriad of ways to evaluate that. A simple set of eyes were no longer a legitimate way of validating a well cut stone, despite the "It's what your eyes see that matters". We started to believe "the numbers don't tell you it's a well cut stone". We needed a Brilliant Scope, & the like. This is where I get lost now because I haven't kept up with how the darn things are evaluated anymore. Back then you were never given advice to buy a J! LOL I remember having to really defend my G. LOL Then it was ok to buy a J because well, then you could buy a bigger stone. By then us oldies had developed DSS & we had to find another angle. No one back then bought anything lower than an SI-1 because the "integrity" of the stone might be compromised. LOL Now, an SI-2 is a fabulous idea! I'm chuckling to myself right now remembering the old days. Boy oh boy...times have changed. The marketing has changed. What hasn't changed is that everyone wants a beautiful diamond.

With the history of what I mentioned above, I too have been mystified that the vintage cuts have gained as much popularity as they have. I like them, don't get me wrong , & I can see buying one someday. The vintage cuts seem to always be a lower colour, say L or lower. I don't want to buy a creamy diamond. Obviously a lot do, the vendors are getting their vintage cuts patented & many are doing it so it must be profitable, as well as popular. Again, I'm not knocking the vintage cuts & those that really love & admire their beauty, their individual nuances & personalities. I don't spend a lot of time in RockyTalk because I want to see bling so I'm in the Show me the bling section. But from the times I have perused the threads on Rocky Talk (thats how I came across this one..LOL), that there are a ton of posts on advice for vintage & not so many for the modern brilliant that we know of today. That Cartier diamond is breathtakingly beautiful, even without arrows. LOL I would rock that rock!

If I understand Debs post, is that she was directing her inquiry more towards those vendors that cut & sell the vintage stones. At one point, they vehemently defended their diamonds for having the best light return (however that was evaluated). A diamond would be excluded from being a possibility because an arrow head might have leaned a little to the side or a heart wasn't quite full which lead to the debate that all these little discrepancies in cutting led to a decrease in light return. So..yes, I'm also in the camp that has noticed a definite shift towards the vintage & away from the modern ones (from today).

Judy


Edited to add: I probably should read the thread Deb was referring to. LOL

 

[AGBF]

Edited to add: I probably should read the thread Deb was referring to. LOL

There's no need for you to read anything else, Judy. As far as I'm concerned, you nailed the issue! I'm really glad to see you (even if you're always here).

Deb

 

[lambskin]

My love for vintage diamonds is sudden. I never really paid attention to old cuts until I found this forum. I am very traditional in my tastes and my recent fascination with older diamonds and new AVC diamonds frankly surprises me. I find the unique facet patterns beautiful-so different than the modern rounds. But an off color diamond is not desirable to me so if there is a hint of color, vintage or not, it is not for me. Also I hate,hate rose cuts. In a recent post I actually felt afraid to admit that I did not like the H&A cut. I just see a black star. Also, I am not a fan of the Crisscut diamonds-just too many facets despite the great light performance. But the Octavia...now that is progress! I do not know if it is marketing,hype, the economy, or supply( or all three) but If the diamond is pretty so be it.

 

[AGBF]

But the Octavia...now that is progress!

Ah...but the Octavia isn't a vintage cut! It is a brilliant new design by Karl K!

 

[cflutist]

I don't know much about vintage cuts, but what I'm wondering is it the allure of the faceting pattern and/or a combination of that AND the fact many are "warmer" colors allowing one to buy a larger diamond? If it is the faceting pattern that they love, has anyone bought a vintage cut graded say D-VVS2 that was cut from type IIa rough?

 

[Marigold3]

I also am usually a lurker, but wanted to post a question. It seems that most posters agree that cut is king. Yet why are old cuts described as "wonky" yet having charm and personality accepted more than modern rounds which fall out of the acceptable HCA scores? I personally sense a bias on the forum that if an old cut has less than ideal light return (excluding modern old cuts like the august vintage line) it is ok, but posters generally say "don't buy" if it is a modern round with less than ideal light return.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Cheryl, my understanding is that many of the higher color OEC's or OMC's were recut into modern cuts. That's why it seems there are a lot more lower colors in the antique stones.

Forte Kitty and Charmy are two that I was thinking of when I talked about people finding treasures on ebay for great prices! Those kind of finds don't come around often. But they have beautiful stones, and I have seen ForteKitty's in person!

Deb, I have used these OECs as examples of finely cut ones before. You have to look at all the smaller pictures to get a better look at the stones.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Magnificent-Vintage-Platinum-Old-European-Cut-Diamond-Dangling-Earrings-/181543279497?pt=US_Fine_Earrings&hash=item2a44d29b89

 

[FrekeChild]

I also am usually a lurker, but wanted to post a question. It seems that most posters agree that cut is king. Yet why are old cuts described as "wonky" yet having charm and personality accepted more than modern rounds which fall out of the acceptable HCA scores? I personally sense a bias on the forum that if an old cut has less than ideal light return (excluding modern old cuts like the august vintage line) it is ok, but posters generally say "don't buy" if it is a modern round with less than ideal light return.

Because MRBs are a dime a dozen. As I like to say over in CS, you can figure out the stats you want, go to a diamond site and odds are, you can find a stone, or MANY that fit your criteria. If you widen your requirements, even more diamonds come up. MRBs just aren't that rare. Even ideal cut MRBs are far more plentiful than antique cut stones, just in general.

Plus, the technology is different. Antiques were cut over a hundred years ago, when the diamond cutting technology was far less advanced than it is today. With modernity, advances in technology, machine improvements, and the introductions of high powered magnification and computers meant that diamonds could be cut more precisely and quickly.

So there are a TON more MRBs out there than there are OECs/OMCs. As there should be. And we should be pickier and more selective when evaluating them and looking to purchase, for the pure reason that there are just more choices.

Why should we pick a stone that has a flaw when there are probably 25 more with similar stats that are one click away?

 

[Dancing Fire]

My love for vintage diamonds is sudden. I never really paid attention to old cuts until I found this forum. I am very traditional in my tastes and my recent fascination with older diamonds and new AVC diamonds frankly surprises me. I find the unique facet patterns beautiful-so different than the modern rounds. But an off color diamond is not desirable to me so if there is a hint of color, vintage or not, it is not for me. Also I hate,hate rose cuts. In a recent post I actually felt afraid to admit that I did not like the H&A cut. I just see a black star. Also, I am not a fan of the Crisscut diamonds-just too many facets despite the great light performance. But the Octavia...now that is progress! I do not know if it is marketing,hype, the economy, or supply( or all three) but If the diamond is pretty so be it.

You will not see the black star under most lighting condition..

 

[makemepretty]

I don't think sellers are taking advantage of people buying vintage now, I've always felt those paying for what a piece of paper said were being taken. I think the vintage buyers who buy what they truly love are NOT being taken advantage of and they know exactly what they are looking for. Those who are buying because of the "trend" are the same people who years ago would have bought it because ALL THE NUMBERS ARE EXACTLY WHAT PRICESCOPERS SAID THEY SHOULD BE. Yes, I'm yelling.

I've felt bad for those people who come on here and ask "What do you think of my diamond, I love it but this is what the paper said..." If you love it, don't ask a bunch of strangers for their opinion. Then they get told...it's steep, it's deep, it's the wrong color, it's a 4 and should be a 2(end of the world!).

I fell into that trap in my early years. Did I see a *gasp* dreaded fish eye? I thought I did but I was wrong, it was cut perfect but it's amazing what your mind will tell you after reading all the experts opinions. Then I grew up and bought what I LOVED and I've been happy ever since. In fact, a little too happy because without people telling you what to buy, you instantly know if you love it or not.

The threads of endless jewelry purchasing to make them happy but it's not quite what they want(it is however what the Pricescope Kool-Aid says is perfect) doesn't make them happy so they continue to look then buy then post on here, then regret. They will never find the one until they learn to know themselves.

This is long and all the experts don't agree, it's worth what that piece of paper(GIA only) said it's worth... but I love when I see a piece of jewelry posted that was passed down and we Oooh and Ahhh over it(we don't tell them, that's a horrible diamond, swap it out with one with these numbers I think that's why the vintage era is so popular now, we want that feeling of "heirloom" jewelry.

 

[arkieb1]

Vintage everything is in fashion, vintage clothing, vintage furniture, the vintage inspired "look" in styling houses, stars, movies. Tiffany did a wonderful 1920s inspired range of jewellery for the Great Gatsby movie. Times change fashion reinvents itself. I don't think people pedalling old cuts are pushing overpriced goods I think they are pedalling other options other than RBs, and that is a GREAT thing not something anyone should be upset with.....

I could never talk myself into loving RBs and I've owned a lot of them so finding old cuts has lead me to loving diamonds all over again.

 

[AGBF]

I also am usually a lurker, but wanted to post a question. It seems that most posters agree that cut is king. Yet why are old cuts described as "wonky" yet having charm and personality accepted more than modern rounds which fall out of the acceptable HCA scores? I personally sense a bias on the forum that if an old cut has less than ideal light return (excluding modern old cuts like the august vintage line) it is ok, but posters generally say "don't buy" if it is a modern round with less than ideal light return.

Because now light return is not important anymore. First it was crucial. Now it doesn't matter. Creamy diamonds with facets and charm are fine. That seems to be what I am hearing. I don't care what anyone likes, but I don't want to hear from the experts first that ideal diamonds don't leak light and then that they can leak light. Look back at the posting by ccuheartnurse.

Deb/AGBF

 

[Marigold3]

Frekechild, that makes perfect sense that you can be pickier with a larger inventory. I didn't realize vintage old cuts were so hard to find as there are quite a few posted in this forum. I have seen some and I do think some are beautiful. I just think the MRB gets a beating yet posters are more gracious with old cuts with "personality" but it seems it's because they are so hard to find. Just to share, my upgrade is not a MRB so this is not personal for me. I hope my post is not misunderstood. I truly enjoy viewing all the bling here!

 

[chrono]

Because now light return is not important anymore. First it was crucial. Now it doesn't matter. Creamy diamonds with facets and charm are fine. That seems to be what I am hearing. I don't care what anyone likes, but I don't want to hear from the experts first that ideal diamonds don't leak light and then that they can leak light. Look back at the posting by ccuheartnurse.
Deb/AGBF

Deb,
Who are these experts you are referring to? Perhaps this question is best posed directly to these experts you are referring to so that they can explain their reasons why.

 

[arkieb1]

Finding a well cut genuine antique diamond is a difficult thing to do especially when you live in a country where they are not in fashion nor are they popular. It took me over 2 years many trips to antique jewellery shops to examine heaps of smaller old cut stones and many hours of reading to find mine.

I still don't get the premise Deb that they MUST be ugly or creamy or lower to look at. They might be unattractive to you but they are obviously not unattractive to everyone else or why would so many people on here own them, it isn't clever marketing, it isn't just fashion, most of the members here with the nicest old cuts to my eyes have owned many diamonds and have worked their way to what they own.

There IS no one correct answer why they are so popular, for some its price, for others they get a larger size for their money, better value, for others like me they want something both unique and RBs really don't visually appeal in the same way. I've owned a perfectly cut RB and the transitional I own performance wise is far more appealing to my eyes.

As to why people have lowered their expectations of the specs of RBs they want to purchase in the past 10 years that's easy price, price, size and price. People want more diamond (bigger stones) for their dollar simple as that. Why does everyone on here these days recommend perfect cuts in RBs, because they are a safe bet, for the average clueless person that appears here for advise who doesn't understand steep and deep and crown angles and so on a clean stone with a decent HCA is a safer bet than one that is not.

Hopefully some of the vendors will see this thread and add comments as well.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I also am usually a lurker, but wanted to post a question. It seems that most posters agree that cut is king. Yet why are old cuts described as "wonky" yet having charm and personality accepted more than modern rounds which fall out of the acceptable HCA scores? I personally sense a bias on the forum that if an old cut has less than ideal light return (excluding modern old cuts like the august vintage line) it is ok, but posters generally say "don't buy" if it is a modern round with less than ideal light return.

Because now light return is not important anymore. First it was crucial. Now it doesn't matter. Creamy diamonds with facets and charm are fine. That seems to be what I am hearing. I don't care what anyone likes, but I don't want to hear from the experts first that ideal diamonds don't leak light and then that they can leak light. Look back at the posting by ccuheartnurse.

Deb/AGBF

Deb, I think I am not understanding. Jonathan at Good Old Gold sells newly cut antique style stones WITH ideal light performance. He has an idealscope image, etc. for every stone. He also sells some true antique stones and provides idealscope or ASET for those. He specializes in well cut stones and believes in complete disclosure. Victor Canera is also selling ideal cut old style cuts. Those are the only two PS regulars that are having old style stones cut to ideal light performance.

The places most PSers are buying antique stones are ebay, Old World Diamonds, Jewels by Grace, and Love Affair Diamonds. None of those ever specialized in selling ideal cut stones or mrb's, although you may find a few on consignment at the latter two.

So I am not really seeing that any vendors have changed their focus. Can you clarify? I thought you meant that PS members have changed focus. I will agree with that. As I said before, some people here have gorgeous antique stones that were well cut. I don't buy into the wonky thing at all because you can find outstanding antique cut stones such as the one I posted from RandG and ForteKitty's etc. (there are many but I would leave someone out and that is why I am not attempting to name them all!). But I think there are a lot of stones that end up on Pre-loved because people bought a less than great one and end up dissatisfied (and some of those remain for sale for a long time). As FK has said, she found her holy grail diamond and will never sell it because she'd never find a better one (not to mention it was an incredible deal!). If I ever run across a stone like hers, you'd better believe I'll buy it if the price is right. But I will never sacrifice cut quality because fine antique stones are out there! (Oh, and Yenny's oval OMC was originally in a Tiffany ring. It is a gorgeous stone, too!)

 

[Karl_K]

I also am usually a lurker, but wanted to post a question. It seems that most posters agree that cut is king. Yet why are old cuts described as "wonky" yet having charm and personality accepted more than modern rounds which fall out of the acceptable HCA scores? I personally sense a bias on the forum that if an old cut has less than ideal light return (excluding modern old cuts like the august vintage line) it is ok, but posters generally say "don't buy" if it is a modern round with less than ideal light return.

Because now light return is not important anymore. First it was crucial. Now it doesn't matter. Creamy diamonds with facets and charm are fine. That seems to be what I am hearing. I don't care what anyone likes, but I don't want to hear from the experts first that ideal diamonds don't leak light and then that they can leak light. Look back at the posting by ccuheartnurse.

Deb/AGBF

Deb, cut research evolves we know a lot more about diamond cut now and how it interacts with human vision and have a long way to go before we have a solid understanding of it.
One of the things that has been evolving is an understanding of the 2 eyed view of diamonds.
IS and ASET evaluate the one eye view of diamonds which is not how most people view diamonds.
Interestingly enough I am one of the people that a one eyed view is closer to reality as I have one strong eye and one weak one that has gotten much worse in since I hit 40 but has always been that way.
I process sight in a much stronger one eye centric view than most people.

Anyway one of the things found was that minor under table leakage is not as big an evil as it was once viewed as being.
It has also been found that the 8* style painted diamonds the impact on scintillation far outweigh the any positive effects of a solid red IS image.
Cut research evolves and will continue to evolve we are still in the toddler stages where back in the day we were in the infant stages of cut research.

edit: Deb I was going to send you an email but I seem to have lost your email address.
I had Andrey edit my name in your post above, I don't like my full name on public boards, I am a little paranoid. No biggie and I am not mad at you about it :}

 

[AGBF]

I had Andrey edit my name in your post above, I don't like my full name on public boards, I am a little paranoid.

Thank you for taking care of this, Karl. I am so sorry! I never even noticed that you didn't use your full name on the Internet! I would have assumed, had it ever come to that point, that being in the trade and being a designer, that you would use your full name and want it known. However, it never came even close to point of assumption ("making an a** out of u and me" and all that). I had seen you go from Storm to KarlK and was sure you were using the full name.

You know how stupid I can be. Please accept my apologies.

Deb

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

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

Interesting topic. Pricescope doesn't represent even close the market at large which still prefers GIA XXX modern rounds by a wide margin especially in Asia which is where the biggest sales growth is happening today. LED and Fluorescent lighting is the preferred type of lighting these days and the Modern Round Brilliant(GIA grading terminology) does very well in this type of lighting.

I don't think the preference for old cuts is sudden at all on here. Vintage faceted cushions and Rounds(OEC, Transitional etc) have been popular for some time especially with jewellery enthusiasts. In recent years posters seem more educated on the differences between true antiques and recently cut vintage faceted rounds and cushions which were less available in the past. Vintage faceted stones have an appealing charm and do especially well in candle light(the most common lighting when they were designed) or in strong spot lighting.

The overall tone and preferences of the informally recognized "prosumer" and the composition of participating trade members has been the most dramatic change in focus on pricescope over the last couple of years. Whether it is because of the higher prices of diamonds have shifted preferences or because most of the active cut minded trade or prosumers have stopped or dramatically reduced posting here the result is the same.

Opinions are less scientifically supported and cut diversity has been stressed to the point where stringent standards for light performance do not seem nearly as important as they once were for fancy shapes. The notable absence of voice of those vendors who used to stress cut quality and cut education has been felt. Price is likely a big factor these days and save for the handful of trade members who happen to specialize in "ultra ideal H&A" rounds I don't think there is a loud enough voice on these boards to warrant the justification for "Ideal Light Performance" and its associated price premium.

Ebay, Etsy and DiamondBistro are seen as more viable options these days and given the high diamond prices relative to other goods there is renewed interest in finding a "bargain". With a lack of voice advocating for stringent cut quality standards and an automatic self validation of purchase mentality these options will continue to grow in popularity.

I don't see anything necessarily wrong with how preferences have shifted on here, it seems like there is more choice and "Personal Preference" is king. Less factual knowledge, and more naked opinion being provided in more recent threads but if one seeks knowledge reading the archives or articles can provide abundant resources. In short the "cut nuts" have left the building and cutting for "Ideal Light Performance" doesn't seem as popular or given as much emphasis as it once was.

Just my 2 cents, feel free to disagree.

 

[Lisa Loves Shiny]

Yes, perhaps there is a motive to market vintage diamonds. But there are buyers who prefer the look of a well cut OEC or transitional cut diamond and they were here long before the marketing began. To each his own, but as always it is best to educate yourself on what you want from a diamond. We bought my transitional cut diamond that is in my e-ring long before we knew anything about diamonds, and it is still the prettiest diamond I have ever seen for it's size. My eyes saw beauty even though I was not educated at the time. I have no regrets.

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

Deb, cut research evolves we know a lot more about diamond cut now and how it interacts with human vision and have a long way to go before we have a solid understanding of it.
One of the things that has been evolving is an understanding of the 2 eyed view of diamonds.
IS and ASET evaluate the one eye view of diamonds which is not how most people view diamonds.

It has also been found that the 8* style painted diamonds the impact on scintillation far outweigh the any positive effects of a solid red IS image.

Karl stating the above as fact and an "evolution" in cut understanding is disappointing IMO.

My preliminary research has indicated the two eye versus cyclops vision point is very likely overstated by the Cut Group and is far from quantified nor proven or peer reviewed sufficiently. It is dependant on viewing distance and the distance between ones eyes which is not a constant for everyone. At many viewing distances and for those who have their eyes closer together it may have little effect at all. I discussed this with two vision specialists just recently.

As far as 8* crown only painting versus an unpainted girdle, it may be your opinion that "far outweigh" is an accurate term I would disagree. There are small "flavor" differences in brightness and scintillation patterns between unpainted and slight crown only painting amongst superideal H&A rounds. These difference are small in comparison to differences between both and other diamonds not cut to such exacting Tolk proportion standards.

 

[Laila619]

This will sound blunt, but why does it matter to you if some people like and want to buy vintage diamonds? Old cuts are lovely, and they are filled with history and stories untold. Not everyone wants a formulaic E VS2 round. I suspect a lot of posters on PS can afford whatever they want, and thus it's not about getting a big diamond for less money.

ETA: Also, there are plenty of old cuts with pretty sizzling light return! Just as there are some really ugly, badly cut round brilliants.

 

[Karl_K]

I had Andrey edit my name in your post above, I don't like my full name on public boards, I am a little paranoid.

Thank you for taking care of this, Karl. I am so sorry! I never even noticed that you didn't use your full name on the Internet! I would have assumed, had it ever come to that point, that being in the trade and being a designer, that you would use your full name and want it known. However, it never came even close to point of assumption ("making an a** out of u and me" and all that). I had seen you go from Storm to KarlK and was sure you were using the full name.

You know how stupid I can be. Please accept my apologies.

Deb

Deb your not stupid at all your one of the smartest people I know.
Its not a huge deal.

 

[ericad]

Diamonds are like people - different cuts have different personalities. Old cuts, fancies, colored diamonds, colored gems - they're not cut to have the light return of an RB and they each have their own following. Eye of the beholder, and all that. Why do I refer to RBs as "modern" RB's? Because labs frequently grade OECs as RBs, and OECs are considered the precursor to the current, or modern, RB. There is a relationship, and a distinction, there.

Is max light return the only measure of beauty? Of course not, or else no one would want an EC or a colored diamond.

Why take it personally that someone could love a rose cut more than an H&A cut? That's like saying we must all follow the same standards of beauty for people too - everyone must find only blond hair or green eyes attractive and anything else is inferior. That would be nuts, right?

I'll take a "misfit" (sarcasm) old cut over a precision cut any day of the week, and that's how I felt long before I was in the trade. My love of old cuts is what brought me to the trade in the first place. I just love them, unapologetically. And if someone else loves a precision cut, great for her. Glad that there are so many choices out there for people!

 

[AGBF]

This will sound blunt, but why does it matter to you if some people like and want to buy vintage diamonds?

Actually, it doesn't sound blunt. It sounds hostile.

Deb/AGBF

 

[mrs-b]

Deb, I think I am not understanding. Jonathan at Good Old Gold sells newly cut antique style stones WITH ideal light performance. He has an idealscope image, etc. for every stone. He also sells some true antique stones and provides idealscope or ASET for those. He specializes in well cut stones and believes in complete disclosure. Victor Canera is also selling ideal cut old style cuts. Those are the only two PS regulars that are having old style stones cut to ideal light performance.

The places most PSers are buying antique stones are ebay, Old World Diamonds, Jewels by Grace, and Love Affair Diamonds. None of those ever specialized in selling ideal cut stones or mrb's, although you may find a few on consignment at the latter two.

So I am not really seeing that any vendors have changed their focus. Can you clarify? I thought you meant that PS members have changed focus. I will agree with that. As I said before, some people here have gorgeous antique stones that were well cut. I don't buy into the wonky thing at all because you can find outstanding antique cut stones such as the one I posted from RandG and ForteKitty's etc. (there are many but I would leave someone out and that is why I am not attempting to name them all!). But I think there are a lot of stones that end up on Pre-loved because people bought a less than great one and end up dissatisfied (and some of those remain for sale for a long time). As FK has said, she found her holy grail diamond and will never sell it because she'd never find a better one (not to mention it was an incredible deal!). If I ever run across a stone like hers, you'd better believe I'll buy it if the price is right. But I will never sacrifice cut quality because fine antique stones are out there! (Oh, and Yenny's oval OMC was originally in a Tiffany ring. It is a gorgeous stone, too!)

I think I'm with diamondseeker on this one. I'm not really seeing any vendors change their tune from perfectly cut round brilliants to badly cut, very warm old cuts - which may mean I'm missing something here. Deb - can you extrapolate?

For myself, I have some of both. When I wear rb's, I want them to be white and blinding. But when I wear old cuts, I want them to be soft and - yes - warmer. To me it's the difference between sunlight and moonlight, or a blinding spotlight and candle light.

What I have seen recently, though, is a lot of old cut stones that make me cringe a little; badly cut, highly included, high tint. Which is not to say there aren't a lot of horribly cut rb's - of course there are. But I do think money and the desire for size and to keep with fashion has a lot to do with it and has led to some pretty bad choices.

So in my opinion, there is definitely a 'too far' when it comes to tint - but it's far lower in old cuts than in rb's. I think that suits the 'style' of light return from an old cut, whereas I think it's at odds with a rb.

Of course, there are some very bad, awfully cut, VERY old stones - but at that point, you're buying history, not light return, and that's a completely valid reason to buy a diamond - or a piece of jewelry - also. I think it's worth remembering that a ring is a piece of jewelry - not just a diamond - so there's more to it than the diamond alone. For myself, the diamond is the easy part (my tastes are not exotic and are easily met either by signature cut rb's or by one of GOG's AVR's or AVC's). The hard part is the metal work, and finding great metalsmiths seems far harder these days than it used to.

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

I don't know much about vintage cuts, but what I'm wondering is it the allure of the faceting pattern and/or a combination of that AND the fact many are "warmer" colors allowing one to buy a larger diamond? If it is the faceting pattern that they love, has anyone bought a vintage cut graded say D-VVS2 that was cut from type IIa rough?

Golaconda rough, no way that exists anymore.

If you are really rich you could track down an auction for those famous "Blue Whites" but you'd have to knock over a bank or museum to get one.

Or go to the louvre to see the regent.

 

[Laila619]

This will sound blunt, but why does it matter to you if some people like and want to buy vintage diamonds?

Actually, it doesn't sound blunt. It sounds hostile.

Deb/AGBF

Sorry you feel that way. It's an honest question since you started the topic. And you did imply that people are blind to the emperor not wearing any clothes, etc.

There are a lot of beautiful antique diamonds with lovely light return. They are by no means inferior diamonds.

 

[AGBF]

This will sound blunt, but why does it matter to you if some people like and want to buy vintage diamonds?

Actually, it doesn't sound blunt. It sounds hostile.

Sorry you feel that way. It's an honest question since you started the topic. And you did imply that people are blind to the emperor not wearing any clothes, etc.

There are a lot of beautiful antique diamonds with lovely light return. They are by no means inferior diamonds.

First of all I will start with with a quotation I have used on Pricescope before. Even if it was an "honest" question, as Jane Austen said, "Honesty is a much overrated virtue".

Second of all, since when do we ask why someone poses a question on RockTalky? if we are going to start asking why everyone asks the questions they do on RockyTalky, why start with me unless you don't like my question and the things that I am saying?

Some of your negative feelings about what I posted leaked out above when you said that I had "started this topic" as if I had committed a crime by so doing and implied that by using the metaphor of the Emperor having no clothes that I had done something equally heinous. How was I at fault by doing either thing? You are hiding behind the "honest question" to defend the statement you wrote below:


"There are a lot of beautiful antique diamonds with lovely light return. They are by no means inferior diamonds."

You couldn't bear to have someone even discuss the topic of whether vintage cuts were being sold because the price of diamonds went up!!!

So no, I don't believe you asked an "honest question". Maybe you thought you did. But maybe you were fooling yourself about your unconscious motives.

I don't mind "blunt" at all. I dislike "hostile", however. "Hostile" parades as honest but is really angry and vituperative underneath the surface.

AGBF