50% of Modern Round Brilliants Cut Today would be Considered Super-Ideal 10-20 Years Ago

[HDer]

Came across this interesting quote by Serg, who's apparently one of the pioneers in cutting technology:

if you compare best 50% MRB with 10 years old RB then all these modern diamonds are superideal in 10-20 years old industry standards.

What do people think?

 

[OoohShiny]

Came across this interesting quote by Serg, who's apparently one of the pioneers in cutting technology:



What do people think?

I think Serg is wise, knowledgeable, informed by years of experience, making an observation based on actual facts, and there's no 'apparently' about it.

I think unless you pretend inflation doesn't exist and invent a time machine to take all these current cheap-and-averagely-cut stones back to 1997 to sell at 1997 SuperIdeal prices, they remain cheap-and-averagely-cut in the present and a poor relation to the cutting-edge precision of the SuperIdeals available at this moment in time.

I think cutting will continue to improve and current SuperIdeals may be superseded in due course, at which point in time averagely-cut stones may be the same as today's SuperIdeals and Serg's observations will continue to ring true (and, ergo, the poorly cut stones of today and yesteryear will fade out of existence).

I think people would, in a similar vein, rather buy an iPhone 6 than an iPhone 2, because technology moves on.

I think this thread may actually be a poorly veiled attempt to further disseminate to vulnerable new members your unqualified personal opinion, that poorly cut stones are just as good as, or even better than, stones cut to deliver empirically-evidenced better performance.

 

[LLJsmom]

Horse and buggy...car...

 

[HDer]

@OoohShiny I actually have no agenda to push, not being the diamond business myself. And even as a consumer, I've already bought the stone on a non-refundable, non-upgradeable contract so really I'm just interested in the topic more than anything else.

But if what Serg is saying is correct, and your prediction that future averagely-cut stones would be considered super-ideal today is correct, then it leads to potentially some interesting conclusions:

1. There should be a discount applied to stones with AGS/GIA certificates over say 2 or 3 years old, because the standards for cut have changed over time, and are continuing to change.
2. As an "investment," and I write that in quotes, because I know in general cut diamonds are not a great investment, maybe focusing on cut is not the way to go? Because a diamond that's D colored or bigger or clearer will retain its rarity in the market on these factors, but a diamond that's super ideal cut today will eventually become normal in terms of cut, and much later even below average?
3. This is probably the most controversial, and probably the one you were alluding to, but maybe slightly above average-cut diamonds don't have such bad light performance if they would be considered super-ideal just a decade or two ago? I imagine there's some point of diminishing returns. Are we approaching that point?

 

[flyingpig]

1. AGS/GIA grading system has not changed within the last 2~3 years. Noone should buy a diamond with a 2~3 year old grade report as there could have been some damages to the stone. These are often preloved or trade-ins. I always recommend to have these stones re-graded
2. Some diamond vendors invested heavily on D color with strong blue fluo as investment couple decades ago. These were poorly cut. You try to sell those today. Poorly cut D color with strong fluo. Who wants that anymore? Terrible forecasting, terrible investment.
3. You are assuming super ideal cut performance is only from super ideal stones from super ideal cut vendors at super ideal cut price. This is not true. We often find diamonds with super ideal optic that are priced the same as "slightly above average-cut" diamonds. Why not buy a well crafted product at the same price or at 5~10% premium than a product produced for weight retention. A stone with poor craftmanship does not belong on my engagement ring.

 

[rockysalamander]

I've already bought the stone on a non-refundable, non-upgradeable contract so really I'm just interested in the topic more than anything else.

Have you received the stone yet? I didn't see pictures on your other thread...

 

[totallyfree]

There is nothing surprising about this statement. The same general idea can be applied to cars, electronics, medicines, building standards and a host of other goods and services. Which are all approaching, to some extent, minimal and diminishing returns until the next 'big leap' forwards. That big leap could be tomorrow (think progress in renewable energies) or it could be in 50 years, or even 100.

Buy want you want, enjoy it in the now and the present. Make an informed decision based on current info and standards, don't get hung up on future (or past!!) industry, market or economic conditions. Should someone with a 1990s diamond engagement ring be upset they paid a 'super ideal' premium for something that is considered 'average' today?

But most importantly, deciding what factor(s) is (are) important for your stone and communicating them. Spread (not carat), vs fire/brilliance vs colour are all individual. And if you don't, or can't, get those factors in order for a surprise engagement say, have faith that the metrics currently used (ie, ideal/super premium etc for rounds) have been workshoped and roadtested, and will almost certainly give you a stone that screams sparkly diamond!! for a majority of the population

 

[HDer]

Have you received the stone yet? I didn't see pictures on your other thread...

Yekeutiel said Tuesday.

 

[Karl_K]

20 maybe but not 10, iv been around here just a few months short of 14 years and that many would not make super-ideal from back then.

 

[Serg]

I wrote about diamonds had been cut recently and diamonds are in polishing process now.
Many Jeweller shops have many diamonds had been cut more than 10 years ago and usually it was not best diamonds even 20 years ago.

If 50% modern diamonds on Manufactures stage are similar to 10-20 years 'super-ideal' but 25%-50% of a shop stock is very old then you can not find more than 25%-40% 'super-ideal' diamonds in this shop.
10-20 years old diamonds would have just 3-5 years old grading report very often. Before 2005-2010 many diamonds had not a grading report from GIA, IGI, AGS,IGI.
My opinion that almost all such unsold diamonds had been send to grading after 2010 .

 

[HDer]

Interesting. I didn't realize older, unsold diamonds were so prevalent.

 

[valeria101]

20 maybe but not 10, iv been around here just a few months short of 14 years and that many would not make super-ideal from back then.

Yes

 

[valeria101]

What do people think?

The limit of perception is behind, as narrowly defined for H&A RBC.

Everything else is forward ...

 

[HDer]

The limit of perception is behind, as narrowly defined for H&A RBC.

Are you saying that H&A RBC is as good as it will get when it comes to what people can perceive? Are they the "retina display" of diamonds?

 

[Rockdiamond]

What a great subject!
1) the term "super ideal" has ZERO actual meaning beyond a promotional use. The only reason there were no "super ideal" diamonds 20 years ago because no one coined the term yet.
There were, however, Ideal cut diamonds. That was a phrase coined by Lazaare Kaplan.
2) as opposed to technological items, such as an iphone, older diamonds do not suffer deficits in real performance. In fact, we have many PS member that love the performance of antique stones better than newer ones.
And- the "LK Ideal Cut" stones of 20 years ago are just as nice as the super ideals of today IMO

Serg- If 20-50% of a seller's diamonds are "very old" they'd be out of business...no?

 

[oldminer]

The finest cut diamonds of 20 years ago often incorporated the cutting parameters of today as well as offering a somewhat broader range of very beautiful, well cut diamonds which would not be considered Ideal-Cut by the current standards. Diamonds are a pure element and therefore highly consistent in how they handle light. "Standards" and "Fashion" can change over a few years to become nearly unrecognizable. The value of diamonds, the market structure of the most colorless being the highest value of the near colorless series makes logical sense, but it is not a natural event dictated by the laws of nature. The long term value found in diamonds historically is also not dictated by natural law. History is a good teacher of what makes sense to people and gives strength to the argument that there is some permanence to the way diamonds are marketed and treasured, but one cannot predict how the next 10 or 20 years will go. I fully expect the automation of many aspects of grading will help eliminate the doubt factors that pop up when it comes to color, clarity and cut grading. There is resistance to the demise of subjective grading, but there is also a growing desire from the public to get serious about adopting objective grading strategies. In that region, I suspect there will come many challenges and definitive changes, mostly for the better over the long run.

 

[msop04]

What a great subject!
1) the term "super ideal" has ZERO actual meaning beyond a promotional use. The only reason there were no "super ideal" diamonds 20 years ago because no one coined the term yet.
There were, however, Ideal cut diamonds. That was a phrase coined by Lazaare Kaplan.
2) as opposed to technological items, such as an iphone, older diamonds do not suffer deficits in real performance. In fact, we have many PS member that love the performance of antique stones better than newer ones.
And- the "LK Ideal Cut" stones of 20 years ago are just as nice as the super ideals of today IMO

Serg- If 20-50% of a seller's diamonds are "very old" they'd be out of business...no?

I understand that the term "super ideal" wasn't coined 20 years ago... but I don't think that is the issue. The technology was not around to produce such precise cuts either, regardless of what it would later be termed. People like what they like, but there's no denying that the precision achieved in "super ideals" is much better than those cut before this technology was available. So it's really not a matter of "nicer," but of accuracy and precision in regards to the cut that is achieved.

...and the cut of antique stones vs modern ones isn't really a good example with regards to this topic. They're a completely different animal altogether.

 

[HDer]

And- the "LK Ideal Cut" stones of 20 years ago are just as nice as the super ideals of today IMO

I wonder how the average LK ideal diamond would perform in a modern grading environment with regard to cut score HCA and ASET/idealscope.

I did read that most OECs if graded as MRBs would fare badly with fair or poor cut grades even. But like other people have said they're not really comparable as people like them for their nostalgia, charm and color.

I also agree that diamonds are different from iPhones. Most people buy smartphones thinking that they will need to buy a new one in two to three years whereas the conversation around diamonds is always something that someone will keep for a lifetime and even pass down multiple generations.

 

[LLJsmom]

I wonder how the average LK ideal diamond would perform in a modern grading environment with regard to cut score HCA and ASET/idealscope.

I did read that most OECs if graded as MRBs would fare badly with fair or poor cut grades even. But like other people have said they're not really comparable as people like them for their nostalgia, charm and color.

I also agree that diamonds are different from iPhones. Most people buy smartphones thinking that they will need to buy a new one in two to three years whereas the conversation around diamonds is always something that someone will keep for a lifetime and even pass down multiple generations.

I like them specifically for the cut.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi all,
I'd like to suggest that we all not "snipe" at each others motivations.
Let's face it, we're living in a world where disagreement has gotten out of control.
I've been posting online in diamond forums since about 2002.
It has gotten very ugly at times.
Looking at our world today, it seems like arguing over how to cut or evaluate a diamond is actually a very "nice argument" to have.
As a seller, people have questioned my motivation plenty of times.
I'm still here because my motivation for posting is educational.
HDer seems like someone who just wants to learn and discuss.

I have some tough questions to ask and points to make- please- it's not personal.
Let's debate peacefully

 

[Rockdiamond]

I understand that the term "super ideal" wasn't coined 20 years ago... but I don't think that is the issue. The technology was not around to produce such precise cuts either, regardless of what it would later be termed. People like what they like, but there's no denying that the precision achieved in "super ideals" is much better than those cut before this technology was available. So it's really not a matter of "nicer," but of accuracy and precision in regards to the cut that is achieved.

...and the cut of antique stones vs modern ones isn't really a good example with regards to this topic. They're a completely different animal altogether.

Hi msop04!
Can you specify the technology you're referring to?
Have you compared a well cut diamond cut 20 years ago to one cut today?

The fact is, "Super Ideal" has as much to do with the seller, and terms of sale as the cut itself.
If a guy has a stone purchased from a super ideal vendor, and they're selling it on Craig's list, its technically not a super ideal anymore

 

[msop04]

Hi msop04!
Can you specify the technology you're referring to?
Have you compared a well cut diamond cut 20 years ago to one cut today?

The fact is, "Super Ideal" has as much to do with the seller, and terms of sale as the cut itself.
If a guy has a stone purchased from a super ideal vendor, and they're selling it on Craig's list, its technically not a super ideal anymore

I'm not speaking of the nomenclature, but of the actual precision of cutting.

ETA: If cutting diamonds to give the optics of "super ideals" we have today were possible 20 years ago, why was this not done? Also, if it were possible, was it not done to maximize weight (i.e. hit the magical carat marker -- such as 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, ect -- in order to increase the price at the expense of "sparkle"?

Referring to the bolded above... If I buy a an ACA (WF's super ideal) and decide to sell, it's still an ACA. It's still the same diamond cut to ACA standards. Same goes for HOF, BG, and Wink's stone. The quality of cut is still there, regardless of if it's being sold by the vendor or other third party. That's why you can get more on for such stones in a pre-loved sale.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Ah, I see.
I believe you've got the wrong impression.
The best cutters of 20 years were able to cut with the same precision as today, based on the technology.
Increases in technology have made it easier for lesser skilled cutters to achieve the precision of the best cutters- and improve yeild.

Have you ever compared a super ideal to a stone cut 20 years back in person?

 

[Rockdiamond]

2. Some diamond vendors invested heavily on D color with strong blue fluo as investment couple decades ago. These were poorly cut. You try to sell those today. Poorly cut D color with strong fluo. Who wants that anymore? Terrible forecasting, terrible investment.

Hi fp,
Are you speaking of vendors you know personally?
Before we opened DBL in 1999, I was a wholesale diamond dealer- since about 1985+-
Succesful dealers know how to pick well-cut stones- that's why they stayed successful.
When I was training with Harry Winston in the 1970's, yes, a premium was placed on super high color, fluorescent diamonds.
But I don't recall seeing badly cut stones fall into that category.....poorly cut stones have been a bad investment for a dealer since I've been doing this- so they trade at YUGE discounts- even back then.

 

[msop04]

Ah, I see.
I believe you've got the wrong impression.
The best cutters of 20 years were able to cut with the same precision as today, based on the technology.
Increases in technology have made it easier for lesser skilled cutters to achieve the precision of the best cutters- and improve yeild.

Have you ever compared a super ideal to a stone cut 20 years back in person?

This is what I meant. There will always be the "Da Vinci's" of cutting (before and after advances in technology) but those are few and far between. Cutting to super ideal standards for the masses with said newer technology is what I'm referring to. So, I think we may be on the same page regarding this, just going about it in different ways.

I've seen several older family members' diamonds, but of course I have no clue as to what their actual grading from today's GIA/AGS would be. And I've never seen the old cert, assuming there was one. Some were obviously better cut than others.

 

[flyingpig]

Hi fp,
Are you speaking of vendors you know personally?
Before we opened DBL in 1999, I was a wholesale diamond dealer- since about 1985+-
Succesful dealers know how to pick well-cut stones- that's why they stayed successful.
When I was training with Harry Winston in the 1970's, yes, a premium was placed on super high color, fluorescent diamonds.
But I don't recall seeing badly cut stones fall into that category.....poorly cut stones have been a bad investment for a dealer since I've been doing this- so they trade at YUGE discounts- even back then.

The information is from a reputable trade member here. There is a post.

 

[HDer]

There is resistance to the demise of subjective grading, but there is also a growing desire from the public to get serious about adopting objective grading strategies.

Yes some kind of quantifiable objective measure would have been super helpful to me as a consumer. Unless the consumer has unlimited money there's always some trade off to be made whether that's size or cut or color or clarity. For size it's easy as it's a number whether caratwise or width wise. But for cut it'd be nice to get beyond "super ideal is best" and "yes, you can tell."

HDer seems like someone who just wants to learn and discuss.

I have some tough questions to ask and points to make- please- it's not personal.

Thank you. Yes I try not to take it personally. Also I do recognize that I'm new and am learning to back off if the disagreements get too heated.

 

[Rockdiamond]

The information is from a reputable trade member here. There is a post.

If you can find it, I'd gladly debate them. It's not really that important though.....

 

[Rockdiamond]

ETA: If cutting diamonds to give the optics of "super ideals" we have today were possible 20 years ago, why was this not done? Also, if it were possible, was it not done to maximize weight (i.e. hit the magical carat marker -- such as 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, ect -- in order to increase the price at the expense of "sparkle"?

Referring to the bolded above... If I buy a an ACA (WF's super ideal) and decide to sell, it's still an ACA. It's still the same diamond cut to ACA standards. Same goes for HOF, BG, and Wink's stone. The quality of cut is still there, regardless of if it's being sold by the vendor or other third party. That's why you can get more on for such stones in a pre-loved sale.

To your first point: the best cut stones of 20 years ago would make super ideal.
Just because a diamond has a new GIA report does not mean it was cut yesterday.
As far as maximizing weight: This IS an area where technology has made a big difference- because people that are not extremely skilled can cut stones that are well cut.
So from my perspective, badly cut stones were indeed more common 20 years back. They were ( and are) easy to spot.


To the second point: If you buy a Super Ideal from a dealer, they are going to offer advantages a private seller can not- so it's really not the same deal for the buyer- even if it's the same stone.

Price: if you find a buyer that knows the selling points of what we're calling "Super Ideal" on the secondary market, yes, you could probably get a better price ( but nowhere near the retail price)
BUT- a tiny percentage of shoppers on the secondary market have this understanding.

 

[valeria101]

Are you saying that H&A RBC is as good as it will get when it comes to what people can perceive? Are they the "retina display" of diamonds?

H&A RBC is a very narrowly defined object - at its best.

RBC is a wild garden - relatively ...