Emerald Step Cuts, Vintage vs. Modern

[ndnyhagen]

Is there a significant difference in a vintage Emerald Step cut as opposed to a modern Emerald Step cut? I assume from reading various threads that color ranges might be different. I love the chunkier faceting that antique and vintage cuts seem to have. I imagine that this cut, however, has not varied much since it''s inception. Does anyone know?
Thank you!

 

[valeria101]

Something is telling me this is not about emerald cuts but some other shape.

Is it a square stone: old Asscher versus the modern stones called 'square emerald cut'...

Otherwise, an example of the vintage cut you mention should help.


There are some random filings under 'vintage emerald cut' in my database... so to speak. But I don't know if there is an established type for such stones, as there is some preconceived norm of what 'old asschers; are supposed to look like (regardless of what such stones present in old jewelry from different periods look like). There is a rather exotic modified brilliant cut that is recognized as a precursor of the emerald cut. And then, it seems that the huge variation of proportions of modern emerald cuts cover all possible basis. Perhaps what is more difficult to find today are the baguette-like stones from Art Deco jewelry - emerald cuts with barely cut corners. Also, it seems that deco jewelry also spanned fancy variations on the step cut (say, deep cut corner at other than 45 degrees, more rows of facets... large open culets ... that sort of thing) and these are less appreciated these days.

Does any of this sound familiar?

 

[ndnyhagen]

Ana,
I am a bit partial to the Emerald Step cuts set in the Art Deco style. (Double prongs, bullet cut side stones, etc.) Of all of the fancy cuts, however, the Emerald Cut seems to have cutting standards and ideals that are all over the map. My curiosity is simple: Would I be getting a radically different Emerald Step cut in a vintage stone than I would with a modern cut one?
Thank you!

 

[valeria101]

Date: 2/10/2006 11:58:59 AM
Author: ndnyhagen

Would I be getting a radically different Emerald Step cut in a vintage stone than I would with a modern cut one?

Thanks for the clarification.

Hope someone would know to qualify the average deco versus the average modern EC.

IMO, you could find modern cut EC that have the look of anything found in Art Deco settings. I wonder if emerald cuts were more given more cutting attention back then. Which would make sense, since rounds had a long way to go until stealing the stage

I sure wish Mr. Sherwood rescues this thread from obscurantism!

As you can see, I don't know all that much to tell.


Anyway, since you mentioned Deco rings & 'bullet sides' ...

This is what Aspey was making out of it around 1915. The diamond looks very much 'modern' to me. And... it doesn't look like the style went out of favor ever since. It could have been made yesterday, as far as can tell.

 

[ndnyhagen]

Ana,
That Aspey ring is dreamy, gorgeous and just all around perfect! Thank you for posting. I''d love to see how other fellow experts weigh in on this issue. I would love a sense of history with my upcoming e-ring. If a vintage EC was that much different than a modern cut EC, then it might be worth the search.
Thanks!

 

[widget]

Hi...

Here are two stones that were both cut in the 20s/30s..

The one on the left is described by the GIA as a "square step cut". The one on the right, which I''d call a ''generic asscher'' is simply described by the GIA as: "Emerald Cut"..

MAYBE the difference is that the ''square step cut'' has fewer facets, no windmills, and a larger table???

widget

 

[widget]

oops, forgot to attach pic:

 

[ndnyhagen]

Widget,
Great pictures. They just kind of deepen the mystery though, don''t they? I''ll be anxious to see who else can help me through any distinguishing charecteristics of vintage EC vs. modern EC.
Thank you!

 

[GGLW]

Ana,
That EC with bullet sides you posted is TO DIE FOR!!! I love i! If only I hadn''t already picked out my setting...grrrr...
I have never seen one like that in person. You always have the most amazing pics!
Sorry to the OP that I don''t know anything about vintage vs. modern, but I''d say get that ring that Ana posted and you can''t go wrong!!!!

 

[Mrsgardener]

BEAUTIFUL!!!!!!!!

 

[ndnyhagen]

Can anyone else weigh in?

 

[windowshopper]

when i was looking i loved the older rings and their mounting but often the stones had very ordinary qualities............so i started looking and i discovered that the older stones were not much different except they tended to be longer and narrower AND had higher crowns. But again we are talking about higher quality stones old and new. When i had my stone appraised the apprsaiser said that it was like an old harry winston. if you look at the stones on leon meges site they clealry have much higher crowns than your typical EC''s...........

 

[valeria101]

Date: 2/10/2006 5:09:34 PM
Author: ndnyhagen

Widget,
Great pictures. They just kind of deepen the mystery though, don''t they?

I would call the stone to the left (side stone next to the emerald) a baguette... Maybe it has one more step on the pavilion, but I can''t tell. You will find them today in some eternity bands, usually small stones. In Art deco jewelry some larger are found. These stones don''t necessarily have larger tables.

This one below was listed by Whiteflash. I''d guess it was collected from older jewelry at some point...

It wouldn''t be fair to say this is a good example of your average vintage EC, for that I fully agree with what ''Windowshopper'' says.

But it may be that such stones were a bit more popular and widespread in the 30s than they are today.

Here''s one:

 

[windowshopper]

I think Emerald cuts and cushions are most personal--meaning that every one is different and fills a different ideal. I have a friend with one that has a table of 75% and she thinks that makes for the best EC--a large table ...................I sacrificed size for a higher crown and color............

 

[singer]

Since we''re talking about emeralds and asschers, check this dreamy ring out!

 

[Kaleigh]

Oh singer that is drool worthy.

 

[valeria101]

This one is a bit of a puzzle. I know nothing about the diamond - aside weight (2.8cts) and seller (Karen Bleifer). I think the stone went to a buyer in the meantime, but the electronic portrait below has remained in my diamond picture folder under ''To Solve''. Looks intriguing to me... and can''t say I have seen ony other of the sort, online or off. The cut reminds me of step cut sapphires from 1850s jewelry. But this isn''t a sapphire allright! And the emerald cut on diamonds is more recent, I thought.

Anyone cares to give it a guess?

 

[windowshopper]

Date: 2/13/2006 7:28:07 AM
Author: valeria101
This one is a bit of a puzzle. I know nothing about the diamond - aside weight (2.8cts) and seller (Karen Bleifer). I think the stone went to a buyer in the meantime, but the electronic portrait below has remained in my diamond picture folder under ''To Solve''. Looks intriguing to me... and can''t say I have seen ony other of the sort, online or off. The cut reminds me of step cut sapphires from 1850s jewelry. But this isn''t a sapphire allright! And the emerald cut on diamonds is more recent, I thought.

Anyone cares to give it a guess?

wow now that is one beautiful stone

 

[ndnyhagen]

Ana,
You''ve got one heck of a diamond picture folder!