Step-Cut "Rules"

[clearfading]

Would you ever buy a step cut that is deemed "shallow?" (Under 60% depth) Why or why not?
Would you ever buy a step cut that the depth is less than the table percentage? For example 65% table, 63% depth. Why or why not?
Thanks!

 

[Karl_K]

yes to both
Why? Because a well cut asscher could have those numbers.

 

[headlight]

I would buy a step cut based on a physical appearance that is visually pleasing to me.

 

[Rockdiamond]

One time I bought an emerald cut at 59.9% depth...my world changed. My car would not start, I couldn't sleep. It was horrible.


It was joke....look at the diamond, not the numbers

 

[clearfading]

This step-cut breaks all the "rules" large table, shallow cut (57.3%) but has an interesting look to it. Best thing is to inspect in person, I imagine? As a video with dark areas showing up may be leakage or camera obstruction?

 

[Rockdiamond]

This is an interesting and relevant topic, despite my facetious answer before- thanks for posting it.
Looking at the picture, I could not say for sure I know what the stone looks like in person- but I have seen many larger tabled, shallower depth emerald cuts that were amazing.
Such stones will get knocked in an online discussion. There are many reasons for this- chief among them:
1) difficulty in taking pictures of this type of stone. Specifically due to leakage and camera caused obstruction. Leakage is not always negative, despite the fact that the word itself makes it sound pretty bad.....
2) due to issue #1, it's easy to see how online advisors will gravitate towards stones with smaller table, and higher crown ( which will also bring higher overall depth)

What does get lost sometimes is the fact that step cuts can play really funny games with the light which make them look like they have smaller table when they don't.
And the shallower stone will tend to have greater spread. So if we did a side by side, real-life comparison, many people will gravitate to the larger stone.

 

[Karl_K]

This step-cut breaks all the "rules" large table, shallow cut (57.3%) but has an interesting look to it. Best thing is to inspect in person, I imagine? As a video with dark areas showing up may be leakage or camera obstruction?

yea obstruction and not enough information to draw solid conclusions.

 

[Karl_K]

One time I bought an emerald cut at 59.9% depth...my world changed. My car would not start, I couldn't sleep. It was horrible.


It was joke....look at the diamond, not the numbers

Rofl
We did bring an EC in that was 57.x depth when I was working for you. You looked at it and said blah its going back right away so it must have been pretty bad.
Which tells us nothing about any other stone of that depth but was interesting.

 

[clearfading]

@Karl_K @Rockdiamond does this video shed any light? Thank you

 

[Karl_K]

yea it helps looks like it has a large area that shows deep obstruction more than the rest of the stone. Not a good thing.

 

[OoohShiny]

@Karl_K @Rockdiamond does this video shed any light? Thank you

An ASETscope image would be very useful in aiding assessment, I reckon.

 

[clearfading]

@OoohShiny I agree but vendor doesmt have one. I have one but was wondering if it was even worth having shipped to me. Thanks

 

[AV_]

... large table, shallow cut (57.3%)

I am quite the fan of this look - diamonds like arrays of mirror shards that fade I/O with movement. Perhaps too simplistic for large stones - not that I have seen any over 3 carats, but at that point I am wishing for more play already.

Then, there seem to be infinite ways to make beautiful shallow step cuts - www 58/71 & www 60/63 & ... I remember a pair of near 50/50 yellows - superb...

Then, again, WWW

 

[AV_]

... difficulty in taking pictures of this type of stone.

Everything is too close up.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Everything is too close up.

This is a conundrum- you need to get very close to photograph the details on something the size of a diamond. Which can distort things.
But another aspect is that most of the systems for photographing diamonds has them rotating on a turntable. Sitting on the pavilion.
So you're never really looking at the stone straight on and the angles directly off heads on- which is how you'd view it in person.
I love the way a well cut step cut dances as you tilt it left to right.
I'm super lucky- I get to look at t a lot of diamonds, straight from cutters.
I generally examine the diamond before the GIA report. In this way, I'm looking at the diamond with an open mind.
There've been many step cut cases where a 70% table can look like a 58% table until I take a loupe to the stone.

As my old buddy Karl mentioned- we were looking at a 57% depth emerald cut one time that blew wind.
But we've also looked at emerald cuts that had "perfect' numbers that didn't float my boat either.
I just saw a stone with larger than numerically desired, and a bit less than 60% depth, and it rocked the house. It also looked larger than it's weight would indicate.
Totally a case by case basis.....

 

[Karl_K]

Totally a case by case basis.....

That is what makes them hard to select but also why I like them.
There is a large varity of apperace in well cut stones vs super-ideal rounds where the goal is to make them the same in the major details.

 

[AV_]

This is a conundrum- you need to get very close to photograph the details on something the size of a diamond. Which can distort things.

But another aspect is that most of the systems for photographing diamonds has them rotating on a turntable. Sitting on the pavilion.

So you're never really looking at the stone ... which is how you'd view it in person.

Off the cuff,

If the position were realistic, zooming out is still not the same as shooting/seeing(!) from adistance, but perhaps this is not too important, the position of the stones is. It is nice to drive those turntable videos on a touch screen, which is what I am always using these days, quite natural, but I ever wish to pick them up, of course, & put them - between two fingers on the back of the hand. Not controlled motion is nauseating.

Diamonds are details that draw attention, so some magnification makes them fill as much of the given frame as they might in person; how much - I haven't thought that far [stage design!]


Then, magnification does breed illusions; eg. seeing details of a less than two mm pearl at 100KX made it HUGE to me - I wouldn't even drop the thing from the tweezers anymore, after two years, it is back to poppy seed size [end of digression.] What is seen every day matters & much else adds to it, one way or another. Seeing diamonds at 10X on a turntable makes sense, but it cannot stand alone - it beggars belief; there is nothing in those shots that looks like stone in hand, no reference for size/light/colour like a holder could be. IMHO, let there be props.


2p