Ideal cut emerald cuts at Brian Gavin

[Karl_K]

Todd,
With near tolk h&a ideal cuts there is a very limited range of contrast patterns. In fact the narrow range of the width of the arrows and a narrow table size range are the most visible differences. They are very tiny differences compared to the possible differences in patterns in step cuts.

ECs and other step cuts contrast patterns are a very important part of preference.
You can show someone equally bright diamonds with different contrast patterns and they may really dislike one and strongly prefer another.
Brian went with a wide and low number of contrast stripes.(VFs that show obstruction).
While a valid way of doing it and one that some will like, not everyone will like the bolder and fewer contrast patterns.
That is also very valid.
They may prefer more and narrower and less bold contrast stripes.
There is no one EC pattern that will be universally liked among people that have seen a lot of them.

That takes nothing away from my awe that he appears to have tackled the rough supply problem to bring a line of them to market.

 

[Todd Gray]

Todd,
With near tolk h&a ideal cuts there is a very limited range of contrast patterns. In fact the narrow range of the width of the arrows and a narrow table size range are the most visible differences. They are very tiny differences compared to the possible differences in patterns in step cuts.

ECs and other step cuts contrast patterns are a very important part of preference.
You can show someone equally bright diamonds with different contrast patterns and they may really dislike one and strongly prefer another.
Brian went with a wide and low number of contrast stripes.(VFs that show obstruction).
While a valid way of doing it and one that some will like, not everyone will like the bolder and fewer contrast patterns.
That is also very valid.
They may prefer more and narrower and less bold contrast stripes.
There is no one EC pattern that will be universally liked among people that have seen a lot of them.

That takes nothing away from my awe that he appears to have tackled the rough supply problem to bring a line of them to market.

I agree with you Karl, you are absolutely correct, there is a very limited range of contrast patterns in hearts and arrows round diamonds. However, as we both know there is a broad range of contrast patterns in emerald cut diamonds because the facet structure is not symmetrical as previously mentioned.

There are long sides, short sides, and the length of those sides change dramatically from diamond to diamond, whereas with a round brilliant cut diamond, the shape is round and the facet pattern is polished consistently with very little variance.

With regards to round brilliant cut diamonds, some people prefer the look of 80% lower girdle facet with 40.6 degree pavilion angle, and other people prefer 76% lower girdle facet length with a 40.8 degree pavilion angle and so on. Some people will prefer an emerald cut diamond with a length to width ratio of 1.30:1.00 and other people will prefer 1.40:1.00 and 1.50:1.00 and so on.

The reality is that because of the many different variations that each emerald cut diamond presents in terms of length, width, proportions and facet structure, e.g. 4-tier/3-tier pavilion, long corners, short corners, etc., the contrast pattern is going to be different for every emerald cut diamond.

Go to any site that offers the ability to compare diamond images side-by-side and run a search for emerald cut diamonds and just look at the wide range of contrast patterns available:


Something for everybody, right? Some people will prefer the look of one emerald cut diamond, while other people might prefer the pattern of light reflection found within another. That's not the point, I was just explaining the presence of blue in the ASET Scope images of the Brian Gavin Signature Emerald cut diamonds that somebody asked about.

 

[Karl_K]

Todd,
We are on the same page.
Just a little different interpretation on what was being asked.
You saw it as an ASET question, I saw it as a pattern question.
Between the 2 of us both sides are presented.

btw good to see you posting again!

 

[OoohShiny]

Great info, @Karl_K and @Todd Gray!

I think the point is that there is a wide variety of light performance to be found in diamonds of all shapes. But when it comes to emerald cut diamonds, would you prefer the light performance of the $5,000.00 diamond on the left, or the $34 million dollar diamond on the right?

I'm glad it's not just me that was underwhelmed when seeing that stone

I think the thing that I don't like is when all (or most) of the centre facets are 'off' at the same time - it seems there are not very many ECs that 'walk' contrast across the face of the diamond as it is tilted/rotated, and many that are mostly 'on' and then mostly 'off' once it gets head-on

 

[diamondseeker2006]

No, they would definitely have to only make one shape/ratio, and "magnify" it for larger carat weights. Still...the idea of an ideal cut EC with big chamfered corners and a culet?

(edited to add: I now see others responded to you previously, but I had not read through all the posts!)

You need to follow Gem Concepts on IG and check out their site. Yoram cuts outstanding antique asschers and emerald cuts. They are the best I have ever seen.

http://gemconcepts.net/old-emerald-cut-diamond/

Here's an antique asscher pic I have saved, but he does emerald cuts, too.

 

[Todd Gray]

Todd,
We are on the same page.
Just a little different interpretation on what was being asked.
You saw it as an ASET question, I saw it as a pattern question.
Between the 2 of us both sides are presented.

btw good to see you posting again!

Hi Karl,

Completely accurate and I think we've done a great job of answering the question from multiple perspectives. "Some people say that perception is projection, and other people say that projection is perception" LOL

 

[Todd Gray]

Great info, @Karl_K and @Todd Gray!

I'm glad it's not just me that was underwhelmed when seeing that stone

Somehow for $34M I just expected something more?

 

[lambskin]

There is a modern 'fancy cut' EC that I am aware of-the Crisscut. It is widely advertised in high end magazines. It has extra facets and IMHO looks too busy and detracts from the symmetry and geometry of the EC. I don't have a pic I can post-sorry.

 

[Karl_K]

There is a modern 'fancy cut' EC that I am aware of-the Crisscut. It is widely advertised in high end magazines. It has extra facets and IMHO looks too busy and detracts from the symmetry and geometry of the EC. I don't have a pic I can post-sorry.

The crisscut is a very old gemstone cut called the scissor cut applied to diamond and renamed. It adds some flash to lower RI material over the EC cut but in diamond, I too find it overly busy until you get to very large diamonds.
Its a different look than an EC.

 

[RetroTreeGal]

The crisscut is a very old gemstone cut called the scissor cut applied to diamond and renamed. ...
Its a different look than an EC.

I like it on its own, but not as an option for a step cut. Ive never seen it, but it just occurred to me that the crisscut may look awesome as an alternative to the crushed ice look for FCDs.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Really great discussion.
I agree, kudos to Brian for doing what it took to make this happen.
If only it would be possible to be able to include a wide variety of LxW ratios- as well as different corner size and culet and contrast pattern/size variations.
Theoretically, it is possible, but each variation needs to be worked out, then produced in quantity.

Todd- those 9 stones- what an excellent chart ( for what to avoid

 

[Rockdiamond]

I like it on its own, but not as an option for a step cut. Ive never seen it, but it just occurred to me that the crisscut may look awesome as an alternative to the crushed ice look for FCDs.

Like anything else, there's compromises. We've had stones that were similar to Crisscut in Fancy Yellows. Yes, they can be very nice - less likely to have an even color throughout.

 

[Todd Gray]

Really great discussion.
I agree, kudos to Brian for doing what it took to make this happen.
If only it would be possible to be able to include a wide variety of LxW ratios- as well as different corner size and culet and contrast pattern/size variations.
Theoretically, it is possible, but each variation needs to be worked out, then produced in quantity.

Todd- those 9 stones- what an excellent chart ( for what to avoid

Hi Rockdiamond,

As you know, it is extremely difficult to find an emerald cut diamond that is cut well. That screenshot of nine emerald cut diamonds is a perfect example of the dilemma most people face when trying to buy an emerald cut diamond.

At the same time, everything is a matter of perspective and personal preference and what appeals to one person might not appeal to another. With that in mind, there might be some people who like the look of one of those nine diamonds, while it's fair to say that we prefer something different

 

[Tekate]

the one on the left looks better to me. But I know nothing about emerald cuts other than I love them when they hit some lights.. such huge flashes.

 

[Rockdiamond]

As you know, it is extremely difficult to find an emerald cut diamond that is cut well. That screenshot of nine emerald cut diamonds is a perfect example of the dilemma most people face when trying to buy an emerald cut diamond.

Hi Todd,
While a do agree that there's plenty of really bad emerald cuts out there, and it's possible- or even likely that online shoppers are hobbled by a bad selection overall. But based on my personal experience, I do not agree that finding a well cut one is extremely difficult if one has access to real goods on the market. Same as ovals, marquises, and other fancy shapes. India has really upped its game on cut. Yes, there's a lot of bad ones- but the good ones are indeed out there.

 

[Todd Gray]

Hi Todd,
While a do agree that there's plenty of really bad emerald cuts out there, and it's possible- or even likely that online shoppers are hobbled by a bad selection overall. But based on my personal experience, I do not agree that finding a well cut one is extremely difficult if one has access to real goods on the market. Same as ovals, marquises, and other fancy shapes. India has really upped its game on cut. Yes, there's a lot of bad ones- but the good ones are indeed out there.

I have direct access to the market and know many of the suppliers who produce fancy shape diamonds that are cut better than most, but the degree of consistency is the issue and the majority of suppliers do not provide ASET and Ideal Scope images for fancy shape diamonds. The reason for not providing reflector scope images is simply because the majority of fancy shape diamonds do not fare well under those conditions.

At the same time, every once in a while there is that rare fancy shape diamond that is cut like a dream and fares well under ASET/Ideal Scope, but they are so few and far between. Perhaps your experience is different and you know where to find fancy shape diamonds that look amazing under ASET/Ideal Scope but I find things to be more hit and miss.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Todd,
It might be the particular market we are both in. NYC is still pretty vibrant- and a lot of goods are here.
Markets in places like Israel have been ravaged.
But the other aspect is that I am not trying to find stones that look good in ASET/IS- rather I use my eyes to find stones that look good in real life.
Even with as much info that ASET/IS provide, it's still physical inspection that truly separates the dogs from the winners. There are fancy shape stones that look far better in person than an ASET may suggest
I believe a dealer looking at a stone with a weak ASET image that's gorgeous in person is doing a disservice to the consumer by eliminating the stone simply because the ASET looks weak.

Regarding consistency- in some ways, consistency is the enemy of creativity. Personally, I love when one fancy shape stone does not look exactly like the next.

I believe we agree in principle- but maybe our life experiences may be different.

 

[Todd Gray]

Hi David,

There is no doubt that a hands-on approach provides an advantage in the selection process, and we all approach to buying diamonds differently. I prefer the more scientific approach that tools like ASET/Ideal Scope provide since they make it easier to demonstrate light performance to the average consumer because it saves a lot of time and money shipping diamonds back and forth.

It goes without saying that it is possible to find some beautiful diamonds that fall outside the ideal spectrum, such as the rare 60/60 round diamond that has just the right offset for crown/pavilion angle and performs well under ASET/Ideal Scope.

But in my experience, they are so few and far between that it is more efficient for me to focus on the middle range of proportions within the ideal cut range. I don't live in NYC or any of the major diamond centers, so I don't have the advantage of being able to sift through thousands of diamonds to find the one.

There are many diamonds that face-up well under certain lighting conditions, but which do not perform well under the diffused lighting that we tend to live and work under in this modern age. What I like about ASET is the insight it provides about where a diamond is gathering light from and how it demonstrates how evenly the diamond is reflecting that light back up to the observer.

It stands to reason that if a diamond looks good in real life but does not perform well under ASET that a diamond that does perform well is going to look even more incredible. However, the main advantage that reflector scope images provide consumers is the peace of mind of having another perspective by which to make an informed decision.

Take this GIA Excellent cut round diamond that I looked at earlier today. Most people would look at the clarity photograph and the diamond grading report and assume that it's going to perform well. However, an experienced diamond buyer like yourself will immediately recognize where things could be improved.

However, the addition of the ASET/Ideal Scope and Hearts and Arrows Scope images make it easier for a consumer without much diamond buying experience to see that the diamond is not delivering the highest volume of light return under the table facet.

It's likely that the trade members and prosumers on this forum focused right in on the two o'clock position under the table facet, but how many consumers with average diamond buying experience would have done so? But they might notice how light is reflecting differently in that section in the ASET/Ideal Scope images without receiving any coaching at all.

But at the end of the day, it is important that we acknowledge that everybody has a different approach to how they buy diamonds. Some of us take a hands-on approach and buy based on what looks good to our personal sense of balance and beauty, while others use a combination of that in conjunction with the various tools that are available and one approach is not necessarily better than another.

I like to think that diamonds are like sports cars that offer different levels of precision and performance. Some people set out to buy a Porsche 911 and they will be perfectly happy with that decision, while another person has their eye set on a Porsche 911 turbo, and somebody else wants the higher performance of a G3 and is willing to pay the price.

As more and more suppliers take the initiative to provide reflector scope images for their diamonds, it becomes easier and easier for online diamond buyers to make an informed decision. Some will decide to buy the very best and others will decide that something like the GIA Excellent cut diamond pictured above is good enough for their needs.

It's not for us to decide which is the better choice for them, but rather to help them be aware of the differences, so that they may make an informed decision that fits their needs and preferences. The good news is that everybody decides what is right for their particular situation and I find that each of us attracts people who take a similar approach to buying things, which is why this forum is so exciting and diverse in opinion.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Great post Todd- I agree that each of us has different ways to appreciate stones- and how to select them.
Important to point out that Fancy Shapes and rounds present totally different considerations regarding reflector images- and indeed, buying in general.

Another aspect which I don't see getting "fixed" are variations from one ASET picture to the next. Or trying to compare to CG ASET's
As of now, there's simply no accepted method of photography on ASETs
Of course the same can be said for real pictures/videos.
But it's my experience that folks can more easily decipher a picture of a diamond than they can an ASET image ( again focusing on fancy shapes here)
There's no general agreement on exactly how useful ASET is in fancy shapes at determining how they look in real life, in diffused lighting. Tilt that Marquise Emerald cut or Marquise a few degrees ( as people will do in real life), and the ASET changes radically.
Again, we all have different ways of selecting- but I have seen too many examples of fancy shaped stones that did not look great in ASET imagery, yet looked amazing in person.
But without a doubt, many readers of this forum will want to see ASET- and they are not wrong in any way.

You've also got another fan of having that engine hang out behind the rear wheels

 

[Todd Gray]

Hi David,

You are correct, every diamond shape has its own considerations that are specific to the characteristics and facet structure of that variable.

You are also correct that "fixed" ASET images taken in the straight-on face-up vantage point do not provide accurate insight into the light performance of a diamond because that position will always show the diamond in its best light-so-to-speak.

However, the ASET image that the AGS Laboratory provides on their Light Performance Diamond Quality Document (DQD) is not a fixed image, but rather a compilation based on the results of scanning the diamond in multiple positions, which provides a more accurate representation of light performance and creates a harsher grading environment.

With this in mind, fancy shape diamonds submitted to the AGSL for grading on the Light Performance grading platform are subjected to those varying degrees of tilt and consumers are provided with an in-depth evaluation of how that diamond makes use of the light available to it from multiple vantage points.

At the same time, the real challenge with fancy shape diamonds is that each one is cut slightly different than the next, and very few diamond cutters produce anything besides rounds with any sense of consistency. Which is why it is wonderful to have so many experts here on this forum who can provide people with additional insight and guidance in hopes that they can select a better performing diamond than they might otherwise have chosen.

The challenge that consumers face when buying a diamond is that most vendors will assure them that the diamond they are looking at is the best. However, the obvious response to this claim is compared to what?

GIA does not provide crown or pavilion measurements for fancy shape diamonds, nor do they provide a cut grade. The AGS Laboratory provides additional insight by providing consumers with this missing piece of the puzzle and then adds the bonus of ASET. That's nice, but if additional insight is provided in the form of an Ideal Scope image, that's even better, right?

And then if the vendor also provides a clarity photograph and perhaps a video, now we're able to make a more informed decision, which is even better. And then if the vendor has a reputation such as yours, for being selective in their evaluation process, now we're golden, right? And the customer is able to buy online or offline with a greater sense of confidence and that's what it's all about.

We live in exciting times David and we've seen so many technical advances throughout our many years in the diamond business. I'm excited to see the advances being made in the arena of diamond cut quality and light performance, aren't you?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Totally Todd.
I have spent many hours with diamond cutter buddies discussing exactly this- as I'm sure you and I would, over a beer ( or 3
The intricacies of fine make are exactly what will keep the discussion- and the very market for fine makes- thriving.
I'm a big fan and proponent of AGSL. Regardless, I can make a case that the AGSL light performance standards actually hurt the lab. The reason is that there's no workable metric to properly incorporate scintillation.
My point is that, as it stands, submitting to AGSL is limited to cutters going for one specific goal.
Threre are plenty of amazing cut styles which are not designed to make 0 light performance by current AGS standards.
Not that I have an answer- but as it stands AGSL is only for cutters who fit into he narrow box as it's currently drawn. Therefore the vast majority of super well cut stones being produced are being sent to GIA. This limits the potential influence of AGSL. Which is a shame.

 

[valeria101]

.
@Todd Gray Does anyone care that the standard measures of 'light return' diminish the impression of colour ?

 

[Todd Gray]

Hi David,

This would be a great conversation for us to have over a few drinks and I'm sure we would enjoy talking about this into the wee hours of the morning! It is a shame that more diamond cutters are not able to produce diamonds that perform well in the ASET Light Performance environment.

Obviously, you see this from one perspective and I see it from the other, so we should leave this conversation for a time we can sit down at JCK and pour on endlessly into the night, emphatically defending our respective positions on the subject and likely get nowhere since I'm certain that neither of us takes our position lightly. At the same time, I know it would be a blast and with the ready supply of diamonds available at JCK to be used as examples, I'm sure we'll have fun!

 

[Todd Gray]

.
@Todd Gray Does anyone care that the standard measures of 'light return' diminish the impression of colour ?

Please elaborate.

 

[OoohShiny]

I think @valeria101 is referring to the situation where cutting a coloured diamond to 'ideal cut' standards improves light return and, thus, reduces the amount of colour that can be seen in the stone?

 

[valeria101]

Please elaborate.

There was quite a bit of talk around here about cut & colour (some on this thread: www). I am not sure what 'amount of colour' means in this context - certainly something to do with perception at least as much as spectrophotometry (recalling Hofer), else I'd say exactly what @OoohShiny wrote.

Listening to my pleasure of seeing things, for what it doesn't matter: the dance of shaded patchwork in a coloured diamond with strong 'contrast brilliance' (this might be local lingo, due to @Serg, I think) is a good thing, although I hear that consistent face-up colour is more 'in' these days - at least for grading purposes ... which I may have much more freedom to throw away than you, perhaps ...

2c

 

[Todd Gray]

I think @valeria101 is referring to the situation where cutting a coloured diamond to 'ideal cut' standards improves light return and, thus, reduces the amount of colour that can be seen in the stone?

If that is the case, fancy color diamonds are cut with the focus on intensifying the color, which is an entirely different situation than colorless to near-colorless diamonds where the focus is on light performance.

 

[GearGirly]

This site is so dangerous, I mean I want it all lol!

 

[marcy]

I was pretty excited to receive the email from BGD.