Crown height in Old Mine Cut

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Yes..., I know you cant see an open culet which is one of the signs of old cutting techniques (& 1 of 3 [out of 4] criteria needed if large enough to earn the GIA OMB identification) but not enough I believe to confidently dismiss from afar. Even if my opinion was the same as yours on the stone at subject, I still wouldnt voice my opinion if not asked for. And if I was..., I would voice it as a hypothesis not as a clear fact.

GIA needs 3 criteria (they must work according to a system)..., I believe there are a few more signs (I dont call them criteria).

Some points of clarification:

In doing research for my recently published article https://www.pricescope.com/communit...-conventions-for-cushion-cut-diamonds.147789/ I was given insight into how GIA approaches traditional naming.

Quoting from my text:

1) Despite its use by the trade, GIA has not used the term Old Mine Cut or Old Mine Cushion on grading reports in at least twenty years if ever(my sources can't speak for times before they worked at GIA). An Old Mine Cut is a term applied properly to an early form of brilliant cut which was most common in the 18th century with nearly square or cushion shaped girdle outline.
2) Old Mine Brilliant - A traditional term used to describe an early form of the 58-facet Brilliant Cut with a nearly square or cushion shape girdle outline, a high crown, a small table, deep pavilion, and a large culet. These are a distinct style from the modern proportion sets seen today of the same 58-facet arrangement Cushion Brilliant.

The key points here are:

1) Old Mine Cut is something quite different than what I see here, and much closer to the natural shape of the rough.
2) Old Mine Brilliant represents a style of cutting and does not differentiate nor indicate the actual age of a stone. Just because a diamond satisfies 3 of the 4 criteria to earn this naming description does not make it an antique.

There is a lot more detail in the article which explains in my mind how logical and consistant the GIA naming conventions are now(post November 2009) but I'll leave that up to the reader to decide.

 

[diagem]

Looking for the knife-edge etc,,?

Yet on a significantly smaller face up & mounted image you felt confident to write:

"...It however doesn't look like an antique at all, looks recently cut.
Even if it was an antique(doubtful) it should still not be called an Old Mine Cut.
There is to my eyes nothing "Old" or "Mine Cut" about it, the nicely rounded girdle, square outline, and nice looking symmetry gives it away as recently cut.

Thank-you for your feedback.

Your point is taken that those famous huge diamonds (like the Regent or Maximillian) were cut with an extreme measure of skill, had smooth girdle outlines and excellent symmetry. Save for size and color they have some striking similarities (The Maximilian) to what we see in stones cut more recently in the vintage style. This is an amazing feat considering that their cutting methods may have been similar to the European bruting method shown here from Mawe's 1823 "A Treatise on Diamond and Precision Stones" and reprinted in Al Gilbertson's "American Cut The First 100 Years".

Cutting methods might have been similar but grinding/polishing were not similar to bruting, cleaving or knaats (knots) partitions etc..., so your example image of the bruting process is not relevant to resemble the polishing methods.



However those two examples that you posted were definitely cut with beauty in mind, by a master cutter, spending an enormous amount of time doing so. From what I have read the Regent took the better part of two years to complete. This is in sharp contrast to the average smaller stone found in that time period, where cutting for weight and adherence to the outline of the natural shape of rough was much more prevalent.

The average smaller Diamonds cut in that time period were even rarer (than at present) and mostly in the possession of Royalty (later also Aristocrats) and were not as abundant until much later with the discoveries of the African mines at the end of the 19th Century so your statement is IMO a bit too general. BTW, cutting for weight and adherence to the outline of the natural shape of rough still stands today in every cut category.

I beleive that the point made by both you and Coati is your preference for erring on the side of caution when viewing only a single photograph in considering the potential age of a diamond. That is a good point but I'll present the other side of this argument which is my preference.

I find far too often diamond dealers both online and in B&Ms like to romance a diamond in the vintage cutting style and tell a story about them being old, about them being an antique with history. Far too often these stories cannot be proven and seem implausible, and for every 100 diamonds that look similar to the OP's, maybe only a handful of them are actual true antiques and of those even fewer still can be age verified by the setting or by some other credible method. I would rather point out and make the poster aware of potentially false claims made about a stone being old especially when the visual clues point to this being less likely.

I am surprised you would think so as Diamonds are not degradable. Naturally taken the fact that Antique style cutting is a fairly new trend (both in manufacturing & marketing), I would safely figure the majority of Antique (style) Cut Diamonds are indeed genuinely old. As far as genuine romantic or marketing stories..., I would rather let nature & illusions take its course.

Regards,
CCL

 

[diagem]

Yes..., I know you cant see an open culet which is one of the signs of old cutting techniques (& 1 of 3 [out of 4] criteria needed if large enough to earn the GIA OMB identification) but not enough I believe to confidently dismiss from afar. Even if my opinion was the same as yours on the stone at subject, I still wouldnt voice my opinion if not asked for. And if I was..., I would voice it as a hypothesis not as a clear fact.

GIA needs 3 criteria (they must work according to a system)..., I believe there are a few more signs (I dont call them criteria).

Some points of clarification:

In doing research for my recently published article https://www.pricescope.com/communit...-conventions-for-cushion-cut-diamonds.147789/ I was given insight into how GIA approaches traditional naming.

GIA work according to a system..., they need to! GIA's approaches to cut identification/naming and/or plotting is so out of sync with reality sometimes (especially on non-regular cuts) that IMO they are not an authority on that specific subject. So please excuse me for not commenting further as they are also unwilling to listen

Quoting from my text:

1) Despite its use by the trade, GIA has not used the term Old Mine Cut or Old Mine Cushion on grading reports in at least twenty years if ever(my sources can't speak for times before they worked at GIA). An Old Mine Cut is a term applied properly to an early form of brilliant cut which was most common in the 18th century with nearly square or cushion shaped girdle outline.

I would say Old Mine Cuts were brilliant cut facet design possessing a much wider variety of shapes rather than nearly square..., the cushion shape originates from the old cutting techniques and not from shaping. All other irregular shaped brilliants from those times were also Old-Mine Cuts.

2) Old Mine Brilliant - A traditional term used to describe an early form of the 58-facet Brilliant Cut with a nearly square or cushion shape girdle outline, a high crown, a small table, deep pavilion, and a large culet. These are a distinct style from the modern proportion sets seen today of the same 58-facet arrangement Cushion Brilliant.

Like I said above..., OMB is a GIA term so there is no discussion.

The key points here are:

1) Old Mine Cut is something quite different than what I see here, and much closer to the natural shape of the rough.

True..., but do take into consideration that the natural cutting process on a octahedron will result in a nice cushion shaped Diamond which will need minimal bruting.

2) Old Mine Brilliant represents a style of cutting and does not differentiate nor indicate the actual age of a stone. Just because a diamond satisfies 3 of the 4 criteria to earn this naming description does not make it an antique.

There is a lot more detail in the article which explains in my mind how logical and consistant the GIA naming conventions are now(post November 2009) but I'll leave that up to the reader to decide.

 

[HoyaLawyaBride]

Oh my! I had no idea (or intention) to start such a heated debate! I appreciate CCL's concern about potentially false representations about a stone's age, but in my case there was no representation that the stone itself (or the setting, which is admittedly a reproduction) was actually old. The term "antique cushion" was used only by me to describe the chunky facet style. I didn't pay more for any romantic stories-- the stone itself is romantic to me based on the style of the cut.

I hope everyone is still friends after this debate! Old or new, the fact that people are learning about these antique cuts and falling in love with them makes both of your unique knowledge and skill sets an increasingly valuable asset. So thanks!

 

[diagem]

Oh my! I had no idea (or intention) to start such a heated debate! I appreciate CCL's concern about potentially false representations about a stone's age, but in my case there was no representation that the stone itself (or the setting, which is admittedly a reproduction) was actually old. The term "antique cushion" was used only by me to describe the chunky facet style. I didn't pay more for any romantic stories-- the stone itself is romantic to me based on the style of the cut.

I hope everyone is still friends after this debate! Old or new, the fact that people are learning about these antique cuts and falling in love with them makes both of your unique knowledge and skill sets an increasingly valuable asset. So thanks!

Educational debates are good as long as they are civil.
This one is IMO.

CCL is showing great knowledge in the field for such short period of learning and I respect him for it. Although I dont agree with some of his argument styles on other debates he conducts but that is his style. I choose to engage with the ones I feel good with.
I am trying to show that theoretical knowledge is just a piece of the pie as far as overall knowledge. Practical knowledge must be learned & practiced on the playing field and both are needed to really understand. And as with other fields..., there just are no shortcuts. Investing a lot of time is necessary.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Oh my! I had no idea (or intention) to start such a heated debate! I appreciate CCL's concern about potentially false representations about a stone's age, but in my case there was no representation that the stone itself (or the setting, which is admittedly a reproduction) was actually old. The term "antique cushion" was used only by me to describe the chunky facet style. I didn't pay more for any romantic stories-- the stone itself is romantic to me based on the style of the cut.

I hope everyone is still friends after this debate! Old or new, the fact that people are learning about these antique cuts and falling in love with them makes both of your unique knowledge and skill sets an increasingly valuable asset. So thanks!

Educational debates are good as long as they are civil.
This one is IMO.

CCL is showing great knowledge in the field for such short period of learning and I respect him for it. Although I dont agree with some of his argument styles on other debates he conducts but that is his style. I choose to engage with the ones I feel good with.
I am trying to show that theoretical knowledge is just a piece of the pie as far as overall knowledge. Practical knowledge must be learned & practiced on the playing field and both are needed to really understand. And as with other fields..., there just are no shortcuts. Investing a lot of time is necessary.

No argument from me, impossible to learn the trade from behind a computer. Your experience and comments are appreciated even when we disagree, I can learn from your great experience. I see a disproportionate number of reproduction vintage style diamonds on pricescope, far more than the antique ones. It is also my understanding that many of the true antiques have already been recut into rounds, but perhaps this is not representative of the general market as a whole.

 

[diagem]

No argument from me, impossible to learn the trade from behind a computer. Your experience and comments are appreciated even when we disagree, I can learn from your great experience. I see a disproportionate number of reproduction vintage style diamonds on pricescope, far more than the antique ones. It is also my understanding that many of the true antiques have already been recut into rounds, but perhaps this is not representative of the general market as a whole.

You are welcome...

PS is a tiny drop in this industry, Although its nice to feel PS is a small world with a lot of information on what is unfortunately a very secretive industry, we are still far from the mainstream (and that is the reason PS is so special).
I have been cutting Antique type cuts for over a decade now and only in the last couple of years more players got into this scene..., PS is a place I have been communicating about Antique Cuts since 2004.

Unfortunately the majority of Antique type cushions these days are cut by houses that have little to no knowledge in Antique faceting designs and finishes which are too many to categorize (different periods fit different nuances which greatly impact the right appearance of the Era).

Also like mentioned above..., Antique Cuts are not only Cushions..., there is a huge variety of shapes and nuances out there that fit different demand.
I myself cut and market approx 10 different types of Antique Cushion shapes & facet designs, I have clients that use asymmetrical cuts (that are almost indistinguishable from the genuine Antiques including wear & tear marks ) to the highly symmetrical cuts.

The world of Antique cuts spreads over numerous Centuries (actually 1000's of years but cuts were recorded starting in the second millenium), Its a whole world of possibilities.
Your understanding is partially correct that many true Antiques were recut to modern stones; a lot of higher quality stones were recut to moderns as it made economical sense to do so..., it did less in the lower colored material, thats the reason most real Antiques out there are of second & third water (tinted material). But luckily high value in old handcrafted jewelry was always considered by connoisseurs which made it possible for a lot of great old pieces to be preserved including the original stones of the specific Era's.

 

[nettestars]

Hello Everyone-

Interested in a stone from a reputable (reputable on PS) company that I was told was an antique cushion/old mine brilliant. However, the table is is 58% and the certificate does not state that the crown angles are greater than 40 degrees. I would appreciate learning from you ladies/gents how these stats will affect the look of the stone. I have been assured that it is aesthetically beautiful though. The details of which I mentioned above though are hard for me to judge in a photo.

Thanks for the help in advance!

 

[diagem]

Hello Everyone-

Interested in a stone from a reputable (reputable on PS) company that I was told was an antique cushion/old mine brilliant. However, the table is is 58% and the certificate does not state that the crown angles are greater than 40 degrees. I would appreciate learning from you ladies/gents how these stats will affect the look of the stone. I have been assured that it is aesthetically beautiful though. The details of which I mentioned above though are hard for me to judge in a photo.

Thanks for the help in advance!

Based on reality, a 58% table combined with a <40 degree crown angle can definitly be considered an Antique Cushion/Old Mine CUT..., according to GIA, these numbers will automaticaly disqualify the Diamond in subject of earning the Old Mine BRILLIANT shape identification.

On the other hand..., I have met plenty of GIA Old Mine Brilliants which didnt meet 3 of 4 criterea needed and also the opposite.

Go figure!

As far as the look of this specific stone..., it is imposible to predict without physicaly seeing the stone or at least a few images.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Hello Everyone-

Interested in a stone from a reputable (reputable on PS) company that I was told was an antique cushion/old mine brilliant. However, the table is is 58% and the certificate does not state that the crown angles are greater than 40 degrees. I would appreciate learning from you ladies/gents how these stats will affect the look of the stone. I have been assured that it is aesthetically beautiful though. The details of which I mentioned above though are hard for me to judge in a photo.

As a consumer you may want to make a distinction between real antique and vintage cutting style. GIA does not make this distinction with its Old Mine Brilliant naming convention.

If you post a link or an image to the stone in question as well as the vendor it may make it clear which of the two it is.
There are no sponsoring PS vendors that offer true antique stones, although JBEG does post here.

Thanks for the help in advance!

Based on reality, a 58% table combined with a <40 degree crown angle can definitly be considered an Antique Cushion/Old Mine CUT..., according to GIA, these numbers will automaticaly disqualify the Diamond in subject of earning the Old Mine BRILLIANT shape identification.

On the other hand..., I have met plenty of GIA Old Mine Brilliants which didnt meet 3 of 4 criterea needed and also the opposite.

The opposite being a Cushion Brilliant. Prior to Nov. 2009 GIA graders were given wider latitude in making a judgement call if they felt a stone fit the vintage outline style or not. In present day the criteria are more strict, but even so some stones may still receive this name even if the table is slightly larger, or the crown angles aren't quite as steep, this is still a judgement call made by the graders.

 

[diagem]

... but even so some stones may still receive this name even if the table is slightly larger, or the crown angles aren't quite as steep, this is still a judgement call made by the graders.[/color]

Thats what I meant when I said above..., GIA is not an authority on this specific subject, the contrary is more likely..., GIA adds to the already present confusion.
Personal grader judgements are in opposition to criteria.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

... but even so some stones may still receive this name even if the table is slightly larger, or the crown angles aren't quite as steep, this is still a judgement call made by the graders.[/color]

Thats what I meant when I said above..., GIA is not an authority on this specific subject, the contrary is more likely..., GIA adds to the already present confusion. Personal grader judgements are in opposition to criteria.

Diagem,

It is a little disheartening to read your disparaging comments about GIA and grading labs in general.
As a recognized authority and cutter of antique reproductions you would be an ideal resource to help change things if you approached things a little more positively. It has been my experience the grading laboratories are listening and may be open to change. I have open communication with members of GIA and AGSL grading labs and they are certainly not ignoring the suggestions I have made, and areas of inconsistancy I brought forward when writing my article. I don't beleive the two major labs are intentionally trying to add to confusion. Once one understands what they are and are not communicating on their grading reports there shouldn't be as much confusion, my article was written with this purpose in mind.

I would be happy to read a comprehensive guide(or even a short note) from you on the numerous signs, criteria, or any other classifications you suggest to aid in the proper identification of true antique stones versus modern reproductions versus vintage cutting styles. This would be a more positive and educational way to attacking this problem rather than years worth of negative comments on these forums. Understandably, these properties and signs would have to be judged by viewing the stones in person, but many of these things I hope can also be illustrated from good photographs with the right lighting and multiple viewing angles.

Regards,
CCL

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

You are welcome...


Also like mentioned above..., Antique Cuts are not only Cushions..., there is a huge variety of shapes and nuances out there that fit different demand. I myself cut and market approx 10 different types of Antique Cushion shapes & facet designs, I have clients that use asymmetrical cuts (that are almost indistinguishable from the genuine Antiques including wear & tear marks ) to the highly symmetrical cuts.

That would be really interesting to see, especially a purposely planned assymetric one with wear and tear marks.
You must have a really interesting operation, are there a large number of cutters that you work with?

 

[diagem]

... but even so some stones may still receive this name even if the table is slightly larger, or the crown angles aren't quite as steep, this is still a judgement call made by the graders.[/color]

Thats what I meant when I said above..., GIA is not an authority on this specific subject, the contrary is more likely..., GIA adds to the already present confusion. Personal grader judgements are in opposition to criteria.

Diagem,

It is a little disheartening to read your disparaging comments about GIA and grading labs in general.
As a recognized authority and cutter of antique reproductions you would be an ideal resource to help change things if you approached things a little more positively. It has been my experience the grading laboratories are listening and may be open to change. I have open communication with members of GIA and AGSL grading labs and they are certainly not ignoring the suggestions I have made, and areas of inconsistancy I brought forward when writing my article. I don't beleive the two major labs are intentionally trying to add to confusion. Once one understands what they are and are not communicating on their grading reports there shouldn't be as much confusion, my article was written with this purpose in mind.

I would be happy to read a comprehensive guide(or even a short note) from you on the numerous signs, criteria, or any other classifications you suggest to aid in the proper identification of true antique stones versus modern reproductions versus vintage cutting styles. This would be a more positive and educational way to attacking this problem rather than years worth of negative comments on these forums. Understandably, these properties and signs would have to be judged by viewing the stones in person, but many of these things I hope can also be illustrated from good photographs with the right lighting and multiple viewing angles.

Regards,
CCL

CCL, it has nothing to do with disparaging.
GIA (& others) is a Lab which markets its services of “evaluating the qualities/attributes of Diamonds & other Gemstones”.
There are scientific factors as there are subjective factors. Not all must be automatically taken as “The World’s Foremost Authority in Gemology”.

Some factors I don’t agree with but there are plenty I do.
I never said GIA adds confusion intentionally but their grading systems on some factors do add confusion unintentionally.

Nobody is stopping their members from participating in academic discussions here on PS, I believe certain key members of GIA and other labs were invited numerous times to participate.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

CCL, it has nothing to do with disparaging.
GIA (& others) is a Lab which markets its services of “evaluating the qualities/attributes of Diamonds & other Gemstones”.
There are scientific factors as there are subjective factors. Not all must be automatically taken as “The World’s Foremost Authority in Gemology”.

Agreed, neither lab claims to be an expert on antique cutting styles. They generally avoid the issue and focus on the shape outline and general cutting style description. The cutting style part, unfortunately, has history and politics behind it, and will still be slow to change. Particularly in GIA's case they are protecting a very large grading business and changes have to be carefully considered by compliance as to not be seen unfavourably.

Some factors I don’t agree with but there are plenty I do.
I never said GIA adds confusion intentionally but their grading systems on some factors do add confusion unintentionally.

Nobody is stopping their members from participating in academic discussions here on PS, I believe certain key members of GIA and other labs were invited numerous times to participate.

Despite a great number of excellent educators and researchers at both GIA and AGSL, members of both grading laboratories are prohibited from participating in informal discussions or communicating details about their grading practices in online public forums.

 

[diagem]

You are welcome...


Also like mentioned above..., Antique Cuts are not only Cushions..., there is a huge variety of shapes and nuances out there that fit different demand. I myself cut and market approx 10 different types of Antique Cushion shapes & facet designs, I have clients that use asymmetrical cuts (that are almost indistinguishable from the genuine Antiques including wear & tear marks ) to the highly symmetrical cuts.

That would be really interesting to see, especially a purposely planned assymetric one with wear and tear marks.
You must have a really interesting operation, are there a large number of cutters that you work with?

Yes, I consider myself lucky as my work is also my hobby. 
Antique cuts and Jewelry are my passion but only a part of my operation. I run a Company that basically cuts all ‘out-of-the-ordinary’ type cuts either designed by us or [co]designed & ordered to specific requirements of our clientele.
From the asymmetric Antique types to the super precise Octavia as example of a joint development with Karl K (aka strmrdr).

But since I am not a huge fan of Internet exposure I would rather not discuss details of my operations.

Hope you understand.

 

[diagem]

CCL, it has nothing to do with disparaging.
GIA (& others) is a Lab which markets its services of “evaluating the qualities/attributes of Diamonds & other Gemstones”.
There are scientific factors as there are subjective factors. Not all must be automatically taken as “The World’s Foremost Authority in Gemology”.

Agreed, neither lab claims to be an expert on antique cutting styles. They generally avoid the issue and focus on the shape outline and general cutting style description. The cutting style part, unfortunately, has history and politics behind it, and will still be slow to change. Particularly in GIA's case they are protecting a very large grading business and changes have to be carefully considered by compliance as to not be seen unfavourably.

Some factors I don’t agree with but there are plenty I do.
I never said GIA adds confusion intentionally but their grading systems on some factors do add confusion unintentionally.

Nobody is stopping their members from participating in academic discussions here on PS, I believe certain key members of GIA and other labs were invited numerous times to participate.

Despite a great number of excellent educators and researchers at both GIA and AGSL, members of both grading laboratories are prohibited from participating in informal discussions or communicating details about their grading practices in online public forums.

CCL, I am not talking about "Antique cutting styles" specifically , but the wide range of fancy styles & faceting designs in general.

In regards to academic discussions ..., I believe in transparent education with no conditions attached.
Me too I dont discuss all details of my practices on the public forum.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Yes, I consider myself lucky as my work is also my hobby. 
Antique cuts and Jewelry are my passion but only a part of my operation. I run a Company that basically cuts all ‘out-of-the-ordinary’ type cuts either designed by us or [co]designed & ordered to specific requirements of our clientele.
From the asymmetric Antique types to the super precise Octavia as example of a joint development with Karl K (aka strmrdr).

But since I am not a huge fan of Internet exposure I would rather not discuss details of my operations.

Hope you understand.[/color]

Yes a fair response thank-you.
Your company sounds very interesting when I go to visit my cousins in Ramat Gan, I hope I can meet with you some day.

 

[diagem]

If you promise to behave..., with pleasure .