The Sudden Love For Vintage Diamonds

[ericad]

Could you please expand on the idea that the increasing popularity of antique cuts started within the diamond industry? This may be a poor analogy but a lot of fashion trends actually start 'on the street' as it were, could the same not be said of antique cuts?

I do not really have any idea where the trend towards vintage cuts began. It may have been with consumers; with vendors; or in some relationship between the two.

The issue that has irked me and which made me start this thread was not that consumers turned from preferring round brilliants to preferring vintage cuts. (Not that all consumers have, of course.) The issue that irked me was not even that a few diamond merchants went into a smoky room and conspired to push vintage cuts over round brilliants. (It may have crossed their minds that this could be an alternate strategy if sales ever fell, but sales are not falling. Sales in China and India are wonderful. So this isn't the only way that they could make money selling diamonds.)

The issue that has irked me is that many of the diamond vendors selling right here in the United States to us were touting their scopes and discussing light leakage and scaring every new young man who came in here looking for a diamond with which to get engaged lest a diamond he picked didn't turn the correct color on a machine. They were monopolizing the many diamond boards that used to exist on the Internet. And now they are silent as consumers say that vintage stones with unmeasured light return are gorgeous.

Why can vintage diamonds be gorgeous with no light return while round brilliants have to go through all kinds of machines? What has happened, I asked? And I postulated that diamond prices rose. Actually, I quoted some other Pricescopers like Karl, as saying that diamond prices rose. So the merchants decided to sell bigger, lower color stones.

And I can believe that they (vintage stones) are not all ugly. Why should they be?

The two bolded statements are where you're gonna lose a lot of people.

They are inflammatory exaggerations, and it's generally not productive to try to have a conversation with someone who has already made up her mind that people's love of old cuts is part of a trade-wide conspiracy, and that old cuts offer zero light return.

I understand that your point is with regards to RB's and the movement towards light return as a measure of beauty, and the potential ulterior motives of dealers in general, but perhaps a more approachable way to ask the question is:

Why does light return matter so much for RB's, to the point of being critical in the selection process, yet genuine old cuts (excludes modern precision cuts) seem to be immune to the same light return criteria? Should consumers demand light return analysis for old cuts too, or do we need to reevaluate our zeal with regards to light return analysis on RB's?

See what I did there?

And my response to that question would be that maximum light return is not the only measure of beauty, and by applying it as a selection criteria for old cuts would be a great disservice to consumers because the beauty of an old cut is not balanced upon light return, but a combination of structure, light return, shape, and many other factors. If max light return was a significant measure of beauty for old cuts, people would only buy AV's and other new precision repro stones. Yet there are many who have seen both and PREFER the antique stones, even with increased leakage and lower symmetry/precision. Their appeal is impossible to quantify. And that's ok.

I really do not think you understand what I am saying or why I am saying it. I do not mind "losing people" as I am not selling anything. I have been bothered by something and I wanted to bring it up. Now I have.

AGBF

What I meant was that those types of exaggerations will be off putting to people and they'll just refrain from participating
(especially old cut lovers). I actually think it's an interesting topic and am enjoying thinking about it. The point of a thread is participation - makes for a better discussion. But that's my opinion, and this is your thread, obviously.

 

[Circe]

Erica - I agree with just about everything you've said in this thread, and admire how you've put it. Kudos.

Deb - what *is* your goal with this thread? So far half a dozen people have pointed out that your central premise, that this is an industry conspiracy to sell buyers a crooked bill of goods, is unsupported by actual vendor's individual practices. And so far the idea that the empower has no clothes has been derided by another good dozen people saying, well, mebbe, but dayum has he got the body to carry it off (or the rough equivalent - it's a weird metaphor to turn). Do you just want to state your dislike of the turn the board has taken? If there's more, if genuinely like to hear it: I respect your opinions and generally find your perspectives illuminating. But I'm afraid I'm not seeing the intent behind this thread as clearly as I'd like ....

 

[ericad]

I had a profound thought.

If you line up 20 IS images of "top tier" H&A stones (or triple EX RB's, or whatever), the corresponding stones will all pretty much look the same in person. Because H&A is a repeatable cut and these stones are produced in high volumes to very specific cut patterns.

Now, if you line up 20 IS or ASET images of OEC's with similar light performance (let's assume you could even find 20 stones that perform similarly in ratio of red/blue/green), EVERY STONE WILL LOOK MARKEDLY DIFFERENT. Crown heights, table sizes, facet patterns, culet size and kozibe, LGF lengths, etc. will all be different from stone to stone, resulting in a completely different look.

So it's fair to say that light performance is relevant to selecting an RB because it's easy to find RB's that exhibit a particular standard of light return, and once you find one, it's guaranteed to look like every other in its class. And to then simultaneously say that it's LESS relevant to selecting an OEC because an IS image won't tell you anything about what the OEC will actually look like, or whether it will appeal to you. Antique stones are not being reproduced using repeatable and predictable patterns - they've already been cut long ago. They are each completely unique from the next in material and visible ways, even if their light performance is the same. So while on the surface it seems like a double standard, it's actually completely logical.

And I think THIS gets to the heart of Deb's original post. Deb says there's a double standard with old cuts which are not held to the same standards as RB's and it's because we're getting hoodwinked by sneaky vendors who are now trying to capitalize on the "lower" standards for old cuts. I say that there's no way to apply RB standards to OEC's and it's because they are, truly, a different animal altogether. A different species. It's perfectly reasonable for a vendor to say that IS isn't as helpful for old cuts because the picture is far more complex than with an RB, and that this is a logical and HONEST opinion.

Do I win a prize? I'm feeling super deep right now!!!

Basically you can't hold old stones to a particular cut standard because they weren't cut to any specific standard. So you'll never find two with similar scope results, let alone nearly identical ones, so there's no way to apply the technology as a selection tool, only ever, perhaps, as an elimination tool for problem stones.

 

[kenny]

I also don't understand the point of this thread.

People just like different stuff.
That's a problem?

 

[ericad]

I also don't understand the point of this thread.

People just like different stuff.
That's a problem?

I think Deb's point is that she sees a double standard and that, because the same vendors who are insisting that "cut is king" for RB's in one breath (using tools like IS) will, in the next breath, say that you can't apply the same tools for evaluating old cuts. She sees this as a conspiracy because diamond prices have gone up, so now the same vendors are marketing "lesser" old cuts because they're still a bit cheaper than RB's, so they can capture more wallet share. She thinks it's shady and that the recent surge in popularity of old cuts is because all us vendors had a special meeting to push old cuts onto everyone, so now all of a sudden we're pretending that light performance doesn't matter.

At least that's what I interpret her point to be. I might just be losing my shit after spending half the day chasing my tail on this thread, lol.

 

[chrono]

I sort of agree and disagree because if one is to consider an OEC as a Fancy cut, then it has to be judged as a Fancy cut where no two stones are cut identically (table, crown, facet pattern, etc). So, yes, the IS and ASET will be different from stone to stone but is still relevant because it tells me how and where my diamond is reflecting light or not reflecting light, the angle and possibly the type of light where the diamond might perform its best or its least. So yes, the ASET and IS does tell me exactly what the OEC will look like and how it behaves. Isn't that the purpose of the IS and ASET?

 

[ericad]

It tells you about the light performance, yes. But it doesn't tell you how you will like other things, like culet size, larger versus smaller table, LGF length, crown height - all of the things which, in combination, make up the stone's PERSONALITY. That is the thing which cannot be quantified.

So yes, IS will tell you if a stone is leaky and how much light it's reflecting in that single static face up image. If light return is the only thing that makes the OEC beautiful to you, then it's useful. But it most certainly will not tell someone whether or not they'll like a particular OEC. And, in thinking about it, I would say the same for all fancies. Too many other variables contribute to the stone's beauty, even sometimes wonk and quirk can make a diamond beautiful.

As a rejection tool for problem areas ("mushy" under the table, however you define that, to use your example), yes, could be helpful. But beyond that, let's say you find 10 OEC's with promising IS images - from that point on, it will tell you nothing about which stone you'll like best in person. And each stone will be completely and utterly unique.

My point on this thread isn't that light return tools are useless on old cuts. Of course they're not. They tell part of the story, and IMO a less important part than many other parts that make up its appearance (that is to say that an OEC with "excellent" light return might have a facet pattern that I find ugly, while an OEC with "mediocre" light return but a killer pattern will make my heart skip a beat. Make sense?). My fear is that pushing for IS images on old cuts will cause many buyers to miss out on their dream old cut because PSers advise against stones based on some arbitrary standard of light return, and make that the key factor of a stone's beauty.

And I don't think the point of the thread was even about the merits of the tools for old cuts, but rather whether there's an industry-wide conspiracy to push old cuts onto consumers and create an artificial demand for inferior products (because it sounds like Deb dislikes old cuts and considers them inferior because they don't perform to the same light return standards as RB's).

 

[decodelighted]

I wholeheartedly disagree that this is about *cost*. I wanted a vintage stone back in the early 2000s - and would have preferred a Vintage Asscher (which are much more expensive than generic or even Octavia! - because of their rarity). Trends go in cycles ... and people were just sick of the cookie-cutter "perfect" bland old headlight-looking Round Brilliant.

People want to be SPECIAL SNOWFLAKES and have something unique. No two antique stones are the same. The light plays differently. Pastels. Kaliedescopic beauty. Glimmer. Subtle. Not JAZZ-HANDS SPARKLE.

Ask all the people buying expensive French Cut eternity bands how they feel about "cheaping out" with something LESSER. As. If.

 

[chrono]

I can see the culet size, table size, and some other things with the ASET. I can guesstimate the pattern and crown height from a top down and a profile picture. From what I've been reading from the other threads on RT, there are some experts here CAN tell you the personality of the stone from the ASET. Not me though; I'm not well versed enough to read it that well. I've seen the ASET posted and these men/women can predict how it behaves under various lighting. I do not recall the name of the vendor but he was able to guesstimate the LGF length, which part of the diamond will do what-not and etcetera. I admit to being very impressed. Isn't that the personality of the diamond? Sure, it cannot be quantified but it can be described. Being that this is considered a Fancy, I would think that an IS would be useless but not an ASET. ASET has 3 different colours and each one has different meaning to it; when put together, it tells the full picture.

 

[ericad]

People want to be SPECIAL SNOWFLAKES and have something unique. No two antique stones are the same. The light plays differently. Pastels. Kaliedescopic beauty. Glimmer. Subtle. Not JAZZ-HANDS SPARKLE.

Ummmm...I think I just found my new signature! LOVE! Might have to quote you in future, FYI, lol. I promise to give credit!

 

[chrono]

My point on this thread isn't that light return tools are useless on old cuts. Of course they're not. They tell part of the story, and IMO a less important part than many other parts that make up its appearance (that is to say that an OEC with "excellent" light return might have a facet pattern that I find ugly, while an OEC with "mediocre" light return but a killer pattern will make my heart skip a beat. Make sense?). My fear is that pushing for IS images on old cuts will cause many buyers to miss out on their dream old cut because PSers advise against stones based on some arbitrary standard of light return, and make that the key factor of a stone's beauty.

And I don't think the point of the thread was even about the merits of the tools for old cuts, but rather whether there's an industry-wide conspiracy to push old cuts onto consumers and create an artificial demand for inferior products (because it sounds like Deb dislikes old cuts and considers them inferior because they don't perform to the same light return standards as RB's).

Erica,
I agree with you that light return tools are not useless on old cuts and I thought that's what Deb wanted to discuss. Just out of curiousity, have you seen an OEC with "excellent" light return but an ugly facet pattern? Yes, I've seen quite a few OECs with "mediocre" light return but with a fantastic pattern. I also agree that the ASET (not IS) should be used but not be the "be all and end all" tool for selecting the right OEC. It should be used as ONE of the selection tools.

I hope Deb comes back to clarify her intent on this thread.

 

[decodelighted]

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

The same way CAR "merchants" can keep a straight face selling everything from Smart Cars to Bentleys. Light return is just ONE FACTOR. Just as "fuel efficiency" is ONE FACTOR. "Merchants" sell the gamut. Cuz People Vary.

 

[chrono]

I wholeheartedly disagree that this is about *cost*. I wanted a vintage stone back in the early 2000s - and would have preferred a Vintage Asscher (which are much more expensive than generic or even Octavia! - because of their rarity). Trends go in cycles ... and people were just sick of the cookie-cutter "perfect" bland old headlight-looking Round Brilliant.

People want to be SPECIAL SNOWFLAKES and have something unique. No two antique stones are the same. The light plays differently. Pastels. Kaliedescopic beauty. Glimmer. Subtle. Not JAZZ-HANDS SPARKLE.

Ask all the people buying expensive French Cut eternity bands how they feel about "cheaping out" with something LESSER. As. If.

I disagree that OECs have glimmer and are subtle. The well cut OECs are flashy and can be "in your face" under the right light conditions.

 

[ericad]

I can see the culet size, table size, and some other things with the ASET. I can guesstimate the pattern and crown height from a top down and a profile picture. From what I've been reading from the other threads on RT, there are some experts here CAN tell you the personality of the stone from the ASET. Not me though; I'm not well versed enough to read it that well. I've seen the ASET posted and these men/women can predict how it behaves under various lighting. I do not recall the name of the vendor but he was able to guesstimate the LGF length, which part of the diamond will do what-not and etcetera. I admit to being very impressed. Isn't that the personality of the diamond? Sure, it cannot be quantified but it can be described. Being that this is considered a Fancy, I would think that an IS would be useless but not an ASET. ASET has 3 different colours and each one has different meaning to it; when put together, it tells the full picture.

I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one, Chrono. Again, ASET gives you part of the story on an old cut. How important that part is will vary from person to person. I would never consider light return to be the same as personality. Rose cuts have tons of personality, but terrible light return. So light return and personality are completely different, IMO.

I've screened literally thousands of old cuts over the years, and I've looked at a fair number under IS and ASET, and I see it as a potentially slightly useful tool for some people to help in rejecting old cuts with certain problem areas. But that's where the value ends for me until someone can show me an application for old cuts that is genuinely helpful with matching buyers to their perfect old cut stone, which I? see as being about so much more than light return. Clearly you disagree, and I'm thrilled that these types of tools exist for people to use as they find helpful. It's great to have lots of choices!

 

[chrono]

Not a problem. I've been pondering this myself as I see many buying old cuts based only on a single picture, sometimes an outdoor video is included. Does this mean that one has to request a video of the stone under various light conditions (obviously outdoors under a tree is its prettiest look, fluorescent, halogen, incandescent, LED, etc) to gauge the full personality of the old cut stone?

 

[ericad]

My point on this thread isn't that light return tools are useless on old cuts. Of course they're not. They tell part of the story, and IMO a less important part than many other parts that make up its appearance (that is to say that an OEC with "excellent" light return might have a facet pattern that I find ugly, while an OEC with "mediocre" light return but a killer pattern will make my heart skip a beat. Make sense?). My fear is that pushing for IS images on old cuts will cause many buyers to miss out on their dream old cut because PSers advise against stones based on some arbitrary standard of light return, and make that the key factor of a stone's beauty.

And I don't think the point of the thread was even about the merits of the tools for old cuts, but rather whether there's an industry-wide conspiracy to push old cuts onto consumers and create an artificial demand for inferior products (because it sounds like Deb dislikes old cuts and considers them inferior because they don't perform to the same light return standards as RB's).

Erica,
I agree with you that light return tools are not useless on old cuts and I thought that's what Deb wanted to discuss. Just out of curiousity, have you seen an OEC with "excellent" light return but an ugly facet pattern? Yes, I've seen quite a few OECs with "mediocre" light return but with a fantastic pattern. I also agree that the ASET (not IS) should be used but not be the "be all and end all" tool for selecting the right OEC. It should be used as ONE of the selection tools.

I hope Deb comes back to clarify her intent on this thread.

Newly cut repro OEC's and cushions have excellent light return, yet the facet patterns of some of the branded cuts don't appeal to me. Does that count? As for old stones, I have actually seen some with good light performance yet I don't care for the pattern, which makes it ugly to me (I didn't mean universally ugly - who am I to say?)

And let's take a moment to discuss patterns: there's snowflakey, flowery, checkerboardy, maltesey, arrowey, etc., and then from there people ask for subcategories, like chubby arrows, or round flowery facets. Most people genuinely only love one pattern style over the others, and no amount of light return will make them love a different pattern more.

 

[chrono]

Newly cut repro OEC's and cushions have excellent light return, yet the facet patterns of some of the branded cuts don't appeal to me. Does that count? As for old stones, I have actually seen some with good light performance yet I don't care for the pattern, which makes it ugly to me (I didn't mean universally ugly - who am I to say?)

And let's take a moment to discuss patterns: there's snowflakey, flowery, checkerboardy, maltesey, arrowey, etc., and then from there people ask for subcategories, like chubby arrows, or round flowery facets. Most people genuinely only love one pattern style over the others, and no amount of light return will make them love a different pattern more.

Great example, as I happen to agree with you that some of the facet patterns of the newly cut antiques do not appeal to me even though they have fantastic light return. I am glad we are able to discuss this amicably; this is a learning experience for me. So the gist of it is that some people put stronger stock into pattern preference over almost perfect light return.

 

[ericad]

Not a problem. I've been pondering this myself as I see many buying old cuts based only on a single picture, sometimes an outdoor video is included. Does this mean that one has to request a video of the stone under various light conditions (obviously outdoors under a tree is its prettiest look, fluorescent, halogen, incandescent, LED, etc) to gauge the full personality of the old cut stone?

If you're dealing with a seller who is willing to do this, then I say ask! I've done it for people many times upon request, even though it's not in my standard portfolio of pics and videos. And I mean really specific requests, like "please send me a clip of the stone under fluorescent office type lighting because that's where I spend most of my day." And I do it!

And if the vendor or seller won't or can't do that, then odds are that this vendor can't send you an ASET either. So make sure you have a good return policy and see it in person for evaluation, then do what you need to do to determine if it's for you or not.

It's great if people want to look at old cuts under these scopes, but it's a different can of worms entirely to contemplate asking old cut vendors to supply scope pics as a new standard. Is it out of the question? No, but it's important to talk through the implications of that, and what it could mean for many consumers who think they can make a decision based on just a single ASET pic and a couple of static photos. That would be a disservice to consumers and to old cuts, I think.

 

[ericad]

Newly cut repro OEC's and cushions have excellent light return, yet the facet patterns of some of the branded cuts don't appeal to me. Does that count? As for old stones, I have actually seen some with good light performance yet I don't care for the pattern, which makes it ugly to me (I didn't mean universally ugly - who am I to say?)

And let's take a moment to discuss patterns: there's snowflakey, flowery, checkerboardy, maltesey, arrowey, etc., and then from there people ask for subcategories, like chubby arrows, or round flowery facets. Most people genuinely only love one pattern style over the others, and no amount of light return will make them love a different pattern more.

Great example, as I happen to agree with you that some of the facet patterns of the newly cut antiques do not appeal to me even though they have fantastic light return. I am glad we are able to discuss this amicably; this is a learning experience for me. So the gist of it is that some people put stronger stock into pattern preference over almost perfect light return.

From my experience, what I get asked for most often ranks like this:

1. size and other specs (color, clarity, budget)
2. facet pattern (often very specific)
3. a stone with no "problems" like damage, excessive leakage, darkness, etc.

Beyond that, buyers almost never use words like "ideal performance" other than to describe that they want a stone with no performance problems, and that is bright, lively, etc.

Performance-wise, the most common request is "no darkness under the table" - many old cuts photograph dark and that scares a lot of people, even if the diamond isn't dark at all in person. They're tough buggers to capture on film.

So most of the time, the most important criteria I've seen from buyers revolves around facet pattern and specs, rather than nuances of light return. Once we narrow down the pool to a few options, the deciding factor is almost always facet pattern.

 

[pyramid]

[quote="Karl_K|1412743354|3764088

Improved cutting has made the lower end high precision round market open to the high volume players that used to be open mostly to specialty shops like WF, GOG, Wink and others.
The very top of the high end market is still more of a specialist area but the competition is pushing prices down. Being just H&A and AGS0 with a few pictures and decent customer service isn't enough to put a vendor into decent by online diamonds standards profit margins anymore.
[/quote]


What do you mean by 'The very top of the high end market' ?

 

[AGBF]

I didn't mean to be absent for so long, but Rocky Talky threads move quickly and I had a busy day. (I no longer work "outside of the home", which means that I run around outside of the home, far away from a computer, on some days. In other words, I am not in an office!)

Today I took my daughter up to Community College from 11:00 to 12:50 (doing errands while she was in class); returned home to get my 94 year-old father and took him to a 2:45 appointment with his internist in another town; and now have a few minutes before taking my daughter to her volunteer work helping Spanish speaking immigrants (in another town) from 6:30 to 8:00 PM. If I still had a "real job", I wouldn't be able to take care of everyone!

I want to address questions, but don't know if I will have the time to do so right now.

Erica, I want to thank you, however, for all the deep thinking you gave to vintage cut and light return. I think it was wonderful to watch you reflect on the subject. I also don't know if it is fair to name names here, but I think it is rather amazing that Jonathan, who was always one of "the engineers" who played with numbers and scopes and toys to measure light return on round brilliants (and princess cuts, too) used his knowledge about light return when he took an interest in vintage cuts. No one could accuse him of ceasing to care about light return after espousing its importance!

I hope to respond to more comments later.

AGBF

 

[telephone89]

Erica - I agree with just about everything you've said in this thread, and admire how you've put it. Kudos.

Deb - what *is* your goal with this thread? So far half a dozen people have pointed out that your central premise, that this is an industry conspiracy to sell buyers a crooked bill of goods, is unsupported by actual vendor's individual practices. And so far the idea that the empower has no clothes has been derided by another good dozen people saying, well, mebbe, but dayum has he got the body to carry it off (or the rough equivalent - it's a weird metaphor to turn). Do you just want to state your dislike of the turn the board has taken? If there's more, if genuinely like to hear it: I respect your opinions and generally find your perspectives illuminating. But I'm afraid I'm not seeing the intent behind this thread as clearly as I'd like ....

I love this.

And +1 to the rest of the post.
To me, it sounds like she wanted to shame people who own these stones as being cheap or brainless sheep. Which I don't appreciate Look forward to hearing more. I certainly learned a lot reading this thread!

 

[FancyIntense]

I have always loved the yummy fire in old cuts, but I hate taking the size hit in mm.

 

[diagem]

Late to this thread but here are my 2c's....

Two different cutting philosophies, methods and products.
One is precision cutting, obviously a process worth pursuing which we still are in its infancy. The potential is enormous but it takes much more than is currently being practiced. I am not talking about RB's only but about most fancy shapes as well. As we are talking about the most valuable material, I believe the value however costly to achieve is well worth it's while if executed correctly.
Antique cuts on the other hand are also not as simple as one might think.
Most newly antique cuts are a simple faceting application to its Historic simplicity using modern technology. Truth is, there is much more to it...
Antique cuts enjoy small patina nuances which bring out their Historic feel and unique visual characteristics. These nuances are not found on most modern antique replicas produced today.
These nuances come with a lot of education (as with everything else) and genuinely understanding the History of cutting and how it evolved in the past hundreds of years.

....and this explains why it is a real privilege to have an antique style stone cut by Yoram.

For those who desire and require precision and modern technology, yes. And there are still others who have seen both old and new in person and prefer the old. It's wonderful that consumers have all options available to them, and a place like PS to learn about the possibilities and choose what speaks to them.

Thank you DS for the compliment, I just hope I don't get slapped for self promotion on that one...
Funny ericad, actually in order to cut most of my period cuts I don't utilize any precision or modern technologies at all..., just skill and knowledge. Just as cutters did in the old days

 

[ericad]

I have always loved the yummy fire in old cuts, but I hate taking the size hit in mm.

Well, since old cuts still sell for less than RB's, I always tell people to go with the mm size they want, then the extra carat weight is a bonus. As in, "old cuts weigh more for their face ups size" (versus "old cuts face up small for their weight").

The glass is half full, right?!

 

[ericad]

Late to this thread but here are my 2c's....

Two different cutting philosophies, methods and products.
One is precision cutting, obviously a process worth pursuing which we still are in its infancy. The potential is enormous but it takes much more than is currently being practiced. I am not talking about RB's only but about most fancy shapes as well. As we are talking about the most valuable material, I believe the value however costly to achieve is well worth it's while if executed correctly.
Antique cuts on the other hand are also not as simple as one might think.
Most newly antique cuts are a simple faceting application to its Historic simplicity using modern technology. Truth is, there is much more to it...
Antique cuts enjoy small patina nuances which bring out their Historic feel and unique visual characteristics. These nuances are not found on most modern antique replicas produced today.
These nuances come with a lot of education (as with everything else) and genuinely understanding the History of cutting and how it evolved in the past hundreds of years.

....and this explains why it is a real privilege to have an antique style stone cut by Yoram.

For those who desire and require precision and modern technology, yes. And there are still others who have seen both old and new in person and prefer the old. It's wonderful that consumers have all options available to them, and a place like PS to learn about the possibilities and choose what speaks to them.

Thank you DS for the compliment, I just hope I don't get slapped for self promotion on that one...
Funny ericad, actually in order to cut most of my period cuts I don't utilize any precision or modern technologies at all..., just skill and knowledge. Just as cutters did in the old days

Touche! So the branded cuts you're doing (for GOG, or DBL, or whomever you cut for) aren't utilizing any kind of modern analysis at all? Just you, your eyes, on the cutter's wheel? And then I assume you're not using any of the knowledge that's been developed since the time of true vintage OEC's and cushions, for example knowledge about angles and symmetry, etc. And what about tools - assume you're using the same tools that were being used 100+ years ago? Nothing new? What about electricity - are you using electricity?

I'm not being cheeky (well, maybe a little)! Genuinely curious, because I really don't know much about cutting (the physical act of stone cutting, that is) today versus then. I just know that repro cuts tend to all look very uniform and similar, and there are people (myself included) who just prefer the softness of old stones. It's hard to articulate - repros are just...clinical looking. Not that there's anything wrong with that - just not my cup of tea. They're so perfectly symmetrical that they feel...wrong.

And really, it's ok for people not to like repro cuts just like it's ok for people to prefer them over vintage stones. There's something for everyone out there. Just make sure you're not recutting any old stones, kay? Because that's when I start to seriously wig out.

I will say that I'd take a Yoram french cut any day of the week. They are divine. But you didn't hear me say that. (but I'd kill for a nice big one, like 1.5ct, to put into a gemstone halo. Hint, hint.)

 

[OreoRosies86]

I tend to think the real issue is there are some people who spent big money on the perfect-by-industry-standards diamonds of D color and excellent cuts back the the day when it was the last word. Then it sticks in their craw to see warmer, less expensive, differently cuts garnering the same accolades. When people say "I hate this trend" maybe it is that they hate that they spent so much money on something that isn't the end all be all in the market anymore.

 

[Karl_K]

[quote="Karl_K|1412743354|3764088

Improved cutting has made the lower end high precision round market open to the high volume players that used to be open mostly to specialty shops like WF, GOG, Wink and others.
The very top of the high end market is still more of a specialist area but the competition is pushing prices down. Being just H&A and AGS0 with a few pictures and decent customer service isn't enough to put a vendor into decent by online diamonds standards profit margins anymore.

What do you mean by 'The very top of the high end market' ?[/quote]
As a trade member I can not name any brand or line or vendors stones as better than another so this will not be the answer your looking for.
I consider the very top end where everything is as near to good as it can get as possible not just good enough to be ags0 and h&a.

 

[diagem]

Late to this thread but here are my 2c's....

Two different cutting philosophies, methods and products.
One is precision cutting, obviously a process worth pursuing which we still are in its infancy. The potential is enormous but it takes much more than is currently being practiced. I am not talking about RB's only but about most fancy shapes as well. As we are talking about the most valuable material, I believe the value however costly to achieve is well worth it's while if executed correctly.
Antique cuts on the other hand are also not as simple as one might think.
Most newly antique cuts are a simple faceting application to its Historic simplicity using modern technology. Truth is, there is much more to it...
Antique cuts enjoy small patina nuances which bring out their Historic feel and unique visual characteristics. These nuances are not found on most modern antique replicas produced today.
These nuances come with a lot of education (as with everything else) and genuinely understanding the History of cutting and how it evolved in the past hundreds of years.

....and this explains why it is a real privilege to have an antique style stone cut by Yoram.

For those who desire and require precision and modern technology, yes. And there are still others who have seen both old and new in person and prefer the old. It's wonderful that consumers have all options available to them, and a place like PS to learn about the possibilities and choose what speaks to them.

Thank you DS for the compliment, I just hope I don't get slapped for self promotion on that one...
Funny ericad, actually in order to cut most of my period cuts I don't utilize any precision or modern technologies at all..., just skill and knowledge. Just as cutters did in the old days

Touche! So the branded cuts you're doing (for GOG, or DBL, or whomever you cut for) aren't utilizing any kind of modern analysis at all? Just you, your eyes, on the cutter's wheel? And then I assume you're not using any of the knowledge that's been developed since the time of true vintage OEC's and cushions, for example knowledge about angles and symmetry, etc. And what about tools - assume you're using the same tools that were being used 100+ years ago? Nothing new? What about electricity - are you using electricity?

I'm not being cheeky (well, maybe a little)! Genuinely curious, because I really don't know much about cutting (the physical act of stone cutting, that is) today versus then. I just know that repro cuts tend to all look very uniform and similar, and there are people (myself included) who just prefer the softness of old stones. It's hard to articulate - repros are just...clinical looking. Not that there's anything wrong with that - just not my cup of tea. They're so perfectly symmetrical that they feel...wrong.

And really, it's ok for people not to like repro cuts just like it's ok for people to prefer them over vintage stones. There's something for everyone out there. Just make sure you're not recutting any old stones, kay? Because that's when I start to seriously wig out.

I will say that I'd take a Yoram french cut any day of the week. They are divine. But you didn't hear me say that. (but I'd kill for a nice big one, like 1.5ct, to put into a gemstone halo. Hint, hint.)

I guess I didn't explain myself well enough.
Cutting to optical symmetry is one side of our business (and fairly new and I must admit extremely intriguing and challenging), most of our products are still various period cuts. OEC's and OMC cushions are just two cuts which are popular on PS but period cuts are a world full..., hundreds of years worth....

 

[AGBF]

Erica - I agree with just about everything you've said in this thread, and admire how you've put it. Kudos.

Deb - what *is* your goal with this thread? So far half a dozen people have pointed out that your central premise, that this is an industry conspiracy to sell buyers a crooked bill of goods, is unsupported by actual vendor's individual practices. And so far the idea that the empower has no clothes has been derided by another good dozen people saying, well, mebbe, but dayum has he got the body to carry it off (or the rough equivalent - it's a weird metaphor to turn). Do you just want to state your dislike of the turn the board has taken? If there's more, if genuinely like to hear it: I respect your opinions and generally find your perspectives illuminating. But I'm afraid I'm not seeing the intent behind this thread as clearly as I'd like ....

I love this.

To me, it sounds like she wanted to shame people who own these stones as being cheap or brainless sheep. Which I don't appreciate Look forward to hearing more. I certainly learned a lot reading this thread!

I am not going to say I won't post anymore. I am not going to say, "Good bye, Cruel Pricescope". Instead I am going to to say that I am so angry right now that if I don't step away from the keyboard, I will type something I will regret. And one person whom I truly love and respect on this board, Karl, knows that when I am under stress I can lose my temper and that I am actually a kind person who regrets it when I do. All I will say now is that you do not know me, telephone89.

AGBF