Should Fancy Colored Diamond Cutters focus more on cut?

I think it is great that they are looking more at cut. The reason I love FCD is not only because of color since colored gems usually beat FCD hands down on that aspect (of course diamonds are harder which is a plus for FCD vs colored gems).

The biggest reason for wanting FCD is for the light return that diamonds have in a material that is not colorless. So while there will always be people who don't care about cut I think that many consumers will love having access to well cut FCDs.

Higher polish and symmetry grades are not my definition of good cut.
Good light performance is.

As you all know I have bought 20 FCDs and returned 8 and am left with 12.
Some have very fine light performance and others have windowing but I kept them since the color was so groovy.
The 8 I returned were mostly because I didn't care for the light performance and the color was not groovy enough to compensate for that.

FCDs are expensive so they are usually cut for two things, to save weight and to strengthen the color to shoot for a more valuable color grade.
Light performance usually takes a back seat.
Yes, of course I'd like them to cut them for better light performance.

BTW polish and symmetry are not guarantees of good light performance, they indicate how precisely and skillfully the cutter followed the recipe.
What if the cut recipe sucks, as in SAVE WEIGHT AND PUMP UP THE COLOR?
A cut recipe for a horrid steep deep with terrible light performance may still get Ex Ex polish and symmetry grades.
I'd rather have a diamond cut to a good recipe for light performance, like an Octavia or an ACA, that does not get EX EX over a dull an dead diamond that got an EX EX.

I think uneducated buyer can be fooled into thinking EX EX polish and symmetry mean good cut.
Good cut, (good light performance) is much more difficult to quantify, especially to buyers willing to spend 1 hour learning before making their purchase.

Hey RD,
Well, I've seen some pretty badly cut FCDs that could certainly use some improvement. Too deep , not symmetrical,windows or just plain wonky and all just to keep the carat size up. So, if that's what you're talking about then, yes, I think it would be good to have better cutting. But I have to agree with Kenny that excellent polish and symmetry will not necessarily make a better performing FCD, so not sure how important that is.

I did not read Davids post properly.

I just skimmed through and assumed you where also talking about improving cut. Honestly I don't really care about symmetry and polish (I love old cuts so that kinda comes with the territory). I would definitively not pay extra for it.

While I understand that improving color/retaining weight is of great importance I think that for some colors, especially the brown scale, improvements in cut would be feasible.

Kenny brings up some good points- things I've been saying for years.
I am not suggesting that EX polish symmetry means a diamond is necessarily well cut.
But that does not mean that a cutter does not need to take steps to achieve that grade.
In round diamonds, it's a given at this point.
Even if there's limited visual difference between a G VG and EX in terms of pol or sym in some cases ( not all)- those grades are taken as an indicator of excellence- as long as other aspects are there.

But as I mentioned, a cutter would need to take extra steps to get from G to VG or EX.
Let's assume we're starting with a well cut cushion or radiant that has good light performance in the realm of what we want to see in a fancy colored modified brilliant.
Is it worth some additional price if it's got better pol/sym grades?


BTW- a commonly repeated misconception how so many stones are cut with weight retention as the sole motivation of the ( implied to be greedy) cutter.
There's a set of very complex decisions that need to be made to get from rough to polished diamond.
Of course the polished weight is one of the considerations- however that aspect needs to be balanced with so many others. There are indeed some stones that appear to have a single minded design purpose- of maintaining weight- but there's also many other cases where a thick girdle ( for example) was needed for a complex combination of reasons. Orientation of grain, placement of imperfections, etc.

Written by natascha » July 12th, 2012, 3:53 pm::oops: I did not read Davids post properly.

I just skimmed through and assumed you where also talking about improving cut. Honestly I don't really care about symmetry and polish (I love old cuts so that kinda comes with the territory). I would definitively not pay extra for it.

While I understand that improving color/retaining weight is of great importance I think that for some colors, especially the brown scale, improvements in cut would be feasible.

This is a great point!!!
Brown diamonds are totally different than yellow diamonds in the way they show their color.
I've seen brown stones that face up had an extremely deep color- yet they seemed pale from the side.
The depth and placment of grain/imperfections in some cases is integral to the display of color.
IOW- cutting an RBC brown with a gazoomba thick girdle gets you the ability to maximize depth of color. Take that stone and cut it to AGS 0, and you'll have a pale looking stone.

Written by Rockdiamond » July 12th, 2012, 4:54 pm:

Written by natascha » July 12th, 2012, 3:53 pm::oops: I did not read Davids post properly.

I just skimmed through and assumed you where also talking about improving cut. Honestly I don't really care about symmetry and polish (I love old cuts so that kinda comes with the territory). I would definitively not pay extra for it.

While I understand that improving color/retaining weight is of great importance I think that for some colors, especially the brown scale, improvements in cut would be feasible.

This is a great point!!!
Brown diamonds are totally different than yellow diamonds in the way they show their color.
I've seen brown stones that face up had an extremely deep color- yet they seemed pale from the side.
The depth and placment of grain/imperfections in some cases is integral to the display of color.
IOW- cutting an RBC brown with a gazoomba thick girdle gets you the ability to maximize depth of color. Take that stone and cut it to AGS 0, and you'll have a pale looking stone.

Very interesting. It has been my impression that there is a market for pale/light browns in well cut stones. Especially in old style cuts. The optics of that style combined with soft browns is just amazing (a bit bitter here, lost a bidding war for a stunning light brown OEC, people just went nuts for it). Additionally there are people who like colorless diamonds in modern cuts but enjoy warmer tones in old cuts. And several of these don't want yellow stones but are looking for a more champagne tone. In spite of this several cutters seem to focus much more on the yellow scale, including you David. Why do you think we are not seeing more browns cut in older styles?

Don't be misled.
Please read this GIA article on polish and symmetry.
What it is, and what it isn't.

http://www.gia.edu/diamondcut/pdf/polish_and_symmetry.pdf

Written by natascha:

Written by Rockdiamond » July 12th, 2012, 4:54 pm:

Written by natascha » July 12th, 2012, 3:53 pm::oops: I did not read Davids post properly.

I just skimmed through and assumed you where also talking about improving cut. Honestly I don't really care about symmetry and polish (I love old cuts so that kinda comes with the territory). I would definitively not pay extra for it.

While I understand that improving color/retaining weight is of great importance I think that for some colors, especially the brown scale, improvements in cut would be feasible.

This is a great point!!!
Brown diamonds are totally different than yellow diamonds in the way they show their color.
I've seen brown stones that face up had an extremely deep color- yet they seemed pale from the side.
The depth and placment of grain/imperfections in some cases is integral to the display of color.
IOW- cutting an RBC brown with a gazoomba thick girdle gets you the ability to maximize depth of color. Take that stone and cut it to AGS 0, and you'll have a pale looking stone.

Very interesting. It has been my impression that there is a market for pale/light browns in well cut stones. Especially in old style cuts. The optics of that style combined with soft browns is just amazing (a bit bitter here, lost a bidding war for a stunning light brown OEC, people just went nuts for it). Additionally there are people who like colorless diamonds in modern cuts but enjoy warmer tones in old cuts. And several of these don't want yellow stones but are looking for a more champagne tone. In spite of this several cutters seem to focus much more on the yellow scale, including you David. Why do you think we are not seeing more browns cut in older styles?

We're in total agreement natascha!

I LOVE to find K-L-M stones that GIA gives the "light brown" designation to. In best cases they tend to be open to the suggestion of pink.....essentially "borrowing" the color when set properly. I also love TLB ( top light brown) OMB's, OEC's etc that have brown elements in many cases.
That type of brown follows a more traditional path when it comes to cut. You do want a nice profile, not too heavy on the girdle- more like a colorless fancy shape.
But these stones are so rare that one might be tempted to extend certain parameters you'd hold tight to in a search for other colors.
A big reason these TLB's are so hard to find? Irradiate many light browns and they're likely to turn blue. A nice irradiated blue goes for more than that faint brown. So they're snapped up by the "nukers"
Darker browns are far more common on the market.
The type of stones I'm thinking of would not simply not work in a traditional cut. The very grain that gives the stone color will make it totally dull of it's that aspect is not exploited.

Written by kenny » July 12th, 2012, 5:31 pm:Don't be misled.
Please read this GIA article on polish and symmetry.
What it is, and what it isn't.

http://www.gia.edu/diamondcut/pdf/polish_and_symmetry.pdf

Hi Kenny,
Is there anything specific you are referring to?
I do not believe anything I've written contradicts the GIA article. Its a fairly in depth article, yet there are still some ambiguous points.
Part of what I see being misunderstood is the physical relationship to some aspects under discussion- for example polish.
When GIA writes about polish
"Good: noticeable polish features are seen face-up at
10X magnification.The luster of the diamond may be
affected when viewed with the unaided eye"

Here's a few qualifiers:
1) the use of the word "may" ( referring to luster). Implicit- and often times true, is it may not affect luster.
2) When it comes to examination using a 10x magnification, it should really be pointed out that a fair amount of experience identifying these aspects is necessary.
Polish features are seen- if one knows exactly what to look for. They are by no means obvious on a stone of "good" polish.