Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Calling AVC owners - real life pro's and cons?????

diamondhoarder

diamondhoarder

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
1,011
I'd love to hear from AVC owners how your diamond "wears" in real life.

For example, according to the ASET images the open culet is an area of light leakage. The general thinking seems to be that light leakage is not attractive and leads to undesirable dark areas. So I'm wondering how does the open culet look once the diamond is set into a ring? Is there an annoying dark area in the middle of an otherwise bright, light diamond?

Also do they show dirt more easily than other cuts (like RB's) or does the ideal light performance mean that they still look good even when a bit dirty?

I have read many posts from people who have a new AVC and are really delighted with the colors it shows. I'm just interested to hear from people who have had them for a while what the pros and cons are?
 
They're really special and there aren't many real life cons to speak of.

I think the cons mostly pertain to buying side, not once you get them home. Not only are they pretty expensive per carat but you're extremely limited in where you can purchase them. GOG doesn't have much selection anymore and this is also severely hindering people who bought with them for their upgrade policy. August Vintage seems to have slightly better pricing and more inventory but still may not have what you want in stock and you also wouldn't get the upgrade policy. As far as I know, the only comparable product on the market are the Canera Antique cushions which are roughly the same price point and Victor doesn't seem to stock the lower colors and smaller sizes that GOG or August Vintage do. That leaves you with compromising on your specs or custom cutting, which might be a bit much for some people. Not being able to find the specs you want in market at any given time would probably not happen if you were searching for an MRB. They also face up smaller than MRBs but larger than any other modern cushion I've compared them to and larger than many true antique diamonds, so I suppose it's all relative.

The only other 'con' I can think of, is that cushions are a bit trendy right now and maybe we're coming out the other side of that trend. So it might feel a bit dated to have a cushion in a few years, maybe how people with a marquise felt coming into the 2000's? Sure it's an antique style, so almost by definition it can't be trendy. But most people don't know the difference and would lump them in with modern cushions anyway, especially since they look the same from a distance.

As for the culet, I don't really think of it as leakage, it's more of a stylistic feature that stays true to it's antique appearance and it's so small it's not really large enough for the 'leakage' to detract from the appearance. In real life it's like a pinhole. But I would hate if they didn't have them, they add such character. It seems none of the AVRs have them and that makes me sad!

One other quirk I've noticed - I happen to love NSEW prongs, but if you have prongs in those positions, unless they are very very small, they tend to reflect onto the maltese cross pattern under the table, making the 'arms' almost look like a heart.

Overall not too many cons. I don't have another significant diamond in my collection so I can't speak to other issues of comparison i.e. whether it shows dirt more than others shapes. One poster in a thread a long time that I would never be able to find now felt that her AVC didn't perform as well an RB, you can read her opinion on it here
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...-cushion-outshined-by-round-brilliant.181929/
 
Not an AVC owner but I have an OEC which also has an open culet. It’s basically a small dot that you really don’t see with all the rest of the facet reflections and sparkle.
 
AVC owner here - they have phenomenal light performance - the colors are amazing! But, if this makes sense, and this is just my opinion, the facets are almost too big (mine is a 1.43ct), and there is a lack of scintillation (sparkle) in the center of the stone, even though it is a beautiful light show. I also had an AVR (0.81ct) and I loved the size of the facets and the more consistent light play across the surface of the stone. The larger flat facets of the maltese cross in the AVC do show water spots, etc a bit more than a smaller facet will, but even when dirty, the stone still performs well.
 
diamondhoarder said:
For example, according to the ASET images the open culet is an area of light leakage. The general thinking seems to be that light leakage is not attractive and leads to undesirable dark areas. So I'm wondering how does the open culet look once the diamond is set into a ring? Is there an annoying dark area in the middle of an otherwise bright, light diamond?
Click to expand...
Don't forget that ASET images are only currently taken from one angle - 90 degrees / head-on - and that ASET images of stones will look different once it is on an angle and moving around (which better reflects how you see it in real life), with areas of leakage becoming areas of reflection, and vice versa.

@diagem illustrated this well with his tilted ASET images of @Jimmianne's Gemconcepts vintage-y asscher:
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...-code-name-mildred.236249/page-6#post-4337522

In this case the culet itself is still showing as a white square of leakage, but as you can see if you look at the 15-degree tilt image, where the square culet is showing in the crown facets to the right of the diamond (the kozibe effect, I think?), it is now orange, indicating it is reflecting light out of the crown steps.

You can see this effect in the actual vintage-y diamonds themselves - this isn't Jimmianne's diamond but is the same cut, and you can see the dark (leaking) square of the culet itself is reflecting light back through the crown facets on the left :)
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bj44MlZh2In/?taken-by=gemconcepts

In summary, and from what I can understand, not all leakage is bad - it can be used to create contrast against reflecting facets, with an increase in contrast creating increases in perceived brightness (if I understand @Serg's research correctly) and can it be a side-effect of using a particular facet to reflect light towards other areas of the stone 'for the greater good' lol.


The above is just what I have inferred myself from my reading of the forum and related websites, though, so I am open to being corrected if I am completely wrong! :lol:

Personally speaking, I do think it would be interesting and also useful if more stones had tilted ASET images provided, especially fancy cuts that have different flavours and may not perform well on a static. head-on ASET but are beautiful in real life when moving - I think this is something that would meet with @Rockdiamond's approval, as he has often expressed the view that current ASET images are not the be-all-and-end-all of fancy cut assessment!
 
The thread @OFY posted is actually the thread I was going to link to. I really like the comment by
@dreamer_dachsie in that thread referring to the older, chunky-faceted diamonds as "personal cuts."

A friend of mine has a moissanite that I'm pretty sure is an AVC or similar cut (I know, not a diamond, but it's all I have to compare to) and I think this description is fairly accurate. Old-style cuts like AVCs and AVRs are not going to catch your eye from across the room, as they lack the scintillation of a well-cut MRB, and they also may not appear as "Glow-y white" as an MRB. But what they lack in scintillation, they make up for in those beautiful, pastel flashes of color. I think the large-faceted old cuts produce much more color (fire) than well-cut MRBs of the same size, as their virtual facets are much larger.

So not really any "cons" per-say. Just depends on if you prefer the blinding white, show-stopping brilliance and scintillation of an MRB or the color-show from an AVR/AVC. :)
 
Thanks everyone who posted so far. All that info is really helpful. I'm not sure that the slow scintillation rate will really do it for me, even though I love to see color and fire in diamonds.
 
I will piggy back on the above staments and say that when I see myself in a mirror from a distance, my AVR is whiter and has more scintillation than my AVC, even though they are both G color - the AVC has a more steely grey appearance. The scintillation in the AVR is great - it's plenty sparkly, and I prefer it over an ideal cut mrb, which just look "messy" to me (my opinion).
 
I love my AVC and will (most likely) never change it for another shape. I love love love the tall crown, it makes the stone interesting to look at from every angle. This is especially cool if you do have a large culet because of the kozibe effect, looking like confetti. Another really nice thing, the large facets. They certainly do show pastel colors but how much depends on the lighting situation. Under a tree it is *all pastels!* but indoors away from a window it is more normal.
I really like the culet. My stone is set in platinum, making the culet look just like another facet, white/light grey. It does not look like a "hole" and is never black.

Cons: I dont like the stone in my kitchen lighting. It goes yellow and the facets become mushy and blurry. My RB didnt do that. Diamonds (any shape) have their bad moments and I have the feeling that RBs perform better in more situations. I can live with that but it is a sad fact.
Cons: they are not readily avaliable for an upgrade :blackeye:
 
Great inputs.

With regards to sparkle scintillation I'd just like to add a little clarity as various descriptions are being explained in this thread ... some with regards to appearance in spot lighting, others in office/diffuse daylighting. Fire & Sparkle scintillation is what we see under spot lighting. Brightness and patterned scintillation is what we see in ambient day lighting.

When you're talking ideal cuts and modern vs vintage, when you enter the vintage arena scintillation will either be fast or slow depending on facet structure and design. As pointed out by ECF but put in other words ... AVR will have faster scintillation than an AVC because under the table there are more perceivable facets and reflections. Ie. an 8 petaled flower as opposed to 4 primary leaves of a 4 leaf clover/maltese cross.

In general, and this applies across the board for modern and vintage ... the more facets and reflections the faster the scintillation. This however comes at the expense of fire or the size of the flashes we behold in spot lighting. If I were to make a linear scale of diamonds with ideal optics concerning "speed of scintillation" it'd go something like this.

1. AVC slowest scintillation, largest fire.
2. AVR slower scintillation, large fire
3. Round brilliant cuts with 70% lower halves (transitional) slow scintillation, large fire.
4. Ideal Round brilliant cuts: (75-80% lower halves) medium speed scintillation/medium sized fire.
5. Solasfera Ideal Cuts: fast scintillation, smaller fire
6. Star 129; super fast scintillation, low fire

Each of these cuts are beautiful in their own right and each possess various personalities that appeal to different people. One is not better than the other but in the end you get the one that speaks to you most. If you note most of my videos encompass diamond optics and appearance not only in spot lighting but most importantly outdoor natural ambient lighting which is most popular. Hope that helps. :))

Rhino
 
Rhino said:
Great inputs.

With regards to sparkle scintillation I'd just like to add a little clarity as various descriptions are being explained in this thread ... some with regards to appearance in spot lighting, others in office/diffuse daylighting. Fire & Sparkle scintillation is what we see under spot lighting. Brightness and patterned scintillation is what we see in ambient day lighting.

When you're talking ideal cuts and modern vs vintage, when you enter the vintage arena scintillation will either be fast or slow depending on facet structure and design. As pointed out by ECF but put in other words ... AVR will have faster scintillation than an AVC because under the table there are more perceivable facets and reflections. Ie. an 8 petaled flower as opposed to 4 primary leaves of a 4 leaf clover/maltese cross.

In general, and this applies across the board for modern and vintage ... the more facets and reflections the faster the scintillation. This however comes at the expense of fire or the size of the flashes we behold in spot lighting. If I were to make a linear scale of diamonds with ideal optics concerning "speed of scintillation" it'd go something like this.

1. AVC slowest scintillation, largest fire.
2. AVR slower scintillation, large fire
3. Round brilliant cuts with 70% lower halves (transitional) slow scintillation, large fire.
4. Ideal Round brilliant cuts: (75-80% lower halves) medium speed scintillation/medium sized fire.
5. Solasfera Ideal Cuts: fast scintillation, smaller fire
6. Star 129; super fast scintillation, low fire

Each of these cuts are beautiful in their own right and each possess various personalities that appeal to different people. One is not better than the other but in the end you get the one that speaks to you most. If you note most of my videos encompass diamond optics and appearance not only in spot lighting but most importantly outdoor natural ambient lighting which is most popular. Hope that helps. :))

Rhino
Click to expand...
:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Bookmarking!!
 
I've owned my AVC for several years now and I cannot think of any major cons.

My favorite aspects are the broad flashes of light I see in real life and the high crown profile of my AVC!

IMG_4353.jpg
 
I love the high crown of AVC's, too! I also like the colors that show in the stone, even though mine is light yellow! I'd like to have a big ol' AVC, but I wouldn't give up my AVRs to do it!

I don't see any cons. I think it is more a matter of personal taste and preference.
 
The only con for me is that they make me want a collection of them instead of just one! Like DS said it really is more a matter of personal preference than anything else. I can’t think of any functional or performance related cons. I’ve owned three AVC’s and they have all been spectacular. If you’re considering one the best thing is to see one in person. As is the case with any diamond actually!
 
I will add that AVCs vary more than AVRs because their shapes vary a lot. Culet sizes vary, too. I love JDDN's last AVC in the setting it was in. To me, it helps to have an idea how you want to set an AVC before you choose the stone. Of course, you might want to choose a stone you love and then decide on the best setting. So it can work either way! I know I have preferences of some AVCs over others, so like JDDN also said, it is good to order your top 2 or 3 to look at if you are uncertain. I have done that before and it is worth the shipping costs to be sure of what you love.

Best case scenario is to have an AVR and an AVC.:lol: Oh, and I have superideal cuts for studs, so I have covered my bases!
 
Rhino said:
AVR will have faster scintillation than an AVC because under the table there are more perceivable facets and reflections. Ie. an 8 petaled flower as opposed to 4 primary leaves of a 4 leaf clover/maltese cross.
Click to expand...

Rhino, are you still producing the star AVCs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top