Old Cut Nuts... Have you switched from RB to Old Stone?

[Gypsy]

I agree with with Ericad. I personally love the quirks of fancies and consider true antique/vintage stones fancy cuts. Whereas I consider the AVR's much closer to RB with the same 'cookie cutter' issue Aljdewey pointed out.

It's like saying RB's are superior to emerald cuts. No, they aren't. They are just different. If you love Emerald cuts you aren't going to be happy with an RB. And if you love RB's you aren't going to be happy with an EC. There is no better. There is just different.

 

[armywife13]

I can point you to about 1000 customers who would disagree with you pretty strongly on this, Jonathan. And I haven't met anyone who has had to buy and return multiple antique stones in order to find a keeper. We each have our own bias here, but I think suggesting that most antique stones are "poorly" cut is a pretty broad and subjective statement. Maximum light return and the application of modern technology are not the only measures of beauty. Antique diamonds weren't cut for light return according to modern technological standards, it's true, but that doesn't make them "poor" or, in other words, inferior to newly cut goods.

There's room in the marketplace for true antiques as well as reproductions - no need to fear monger. Remember, your AV line wouldn't exist without all the antique diamonds that inspired it. If they're all so leaky and obstructed and poorly cut, it's a wonder so many antique dealers stay in business.

The market for antique diamonds is strong and, it's my belief, will only continue to get stronger as time marches on. There will never be any more antique diamonds than there are today. They are rare treasures for those who love and appreciate them. Of course, they're not for everyone. And it's wonderful that the beauty of antique diamonds has been renewed via modern cut antique style stones such as Jonathan's AV line and the other newly cut OEC and OMC type stones available. They're stunning as well, and have their own niche in the marketplace. They're perfect for those who crave precision and technology, but still want the facet style of an old cut. But for those who prefer the history, rarity, one-of-a-kindness and romance of a true antique stone, it's fortunate that there are still many available which haven't been recut and lost forever.

I agree with with Ericad. I personally love the quirks of fancies and consider true antique/vintage stones fancy cuts. Whereas I consider the AVR's much closer to RB with the same 'cookie cutter' issue Aljdewey pointed out.

It's like saying RB's are superior to emerald cuts. No, they aren't. They are just different. If you love Emerald cuts you aren't going to be happy with an RB. And if you love RB's you aren't going to be happy with an EC. There is no better. There is just different.

+1

 

[TravelingGal]

Well, maybe one needs to look a bit more, but as a new owner of a lovely ring, I can honestly say my center OEC (which is early, so reminds me of a OMB) gives my ex/ex cushion a run for its money in all the lighting environments I've seen so far. No head obstruction either that I've noticed. I LOVE the character of the stone...and the character is sparkle sparkle bright sparkle sparkle!!

 

[Rhino]

The reason why PS regulars back in the day were not thrilled about them (including me) is that they are generally cut poorly and have optics that suffer either from extraneous leakage or head/body obstruction. It's good if you can cherry pick or have someone cherry pick for you who understands what appearance it is you prefer. Otherwise it can turn into a very expensive and drawn out venture of buying, returning, buying, returning etc. until you've found the right one and many do not have the patience for it.

All the best,
Rhino

I can point you to about 1000 customers who would disagree with you pretty strongly on this, Jonathan. And I haven't met anyone who has had to buy and return multiple antique stones in order to find a keeper. We each have our own bias here, but I think suggesting that most antique stones are "poorly" cut is a pretty broad and subjective statement. Maximum light return and the application of modern technology are not the only measures of beauty. Antique diamonds weren't cut for light return according to modern technological standards, it's true, but that doesn't make them "poor" or, in other words, inferior to newly cut goods.

There's room in the marketplace for true antiques as well as reproductions - no need to fear monger. Remember, your AV line wouldn't exist without all the antique diamonds that inspired it. If they're all so leaky and obstructed and poorly cut, it's a wonder so many antique dealers stay in business.

The market for antique diamonds is strong and, it's my belief, will only continue to get stronger as time marches on. There will never be any more antique diamonds than there are today. They are rare treasures for those who love and appreciate them. Of course, they're not for everyone. And it's wonderful that the beauty of antique diamonds has been renewed via modern cut antique style stones such as Jonathan's AV line and the other newly cut OEC and OMC type stones available. They're stunning as well, and have their own niche in the marketplace. They're perfect for those who crave precision and technology, but still want the facet style of an old cut. But for those who prefer the history, rarity, one-of-a-kindness and romance of a true antique stone, it's fortunate that there are still many available which haven't been recut and lost forever.

Hi Erica,

Please don't misunderstand. I am not in disagreement with you. I'm speaking from a strictly gemological perspective. When it comes to the issue of diamond grading and I put a genuine OEC on our Sarin and under the microscope to grade, the symmetry and proportions are generally all over the place. Many are in fact poorly cut. In that sense an Ex/Ex or Id/Id is in fact better than a good/good or good/fair. The cutters of that time did what they could with the material they had and there was a predominating philosophy behind the cutting. If a person prefers that by all means that is what they should get. I would not try to persuade them away from it. I just believe that when a person shops for OEC's (old or new) they should familiarize themselves with the varying types of appearances that can be found within them and not just roll over and play dead just because a diamond is an OEC. That's all.

All the best,
Rhino

PS: Gypsy, there is nothing you said that I disagree with either.

 

[Haven]

I agree with with Ericad. I personally love the quirks of fancies and consider true antique/vintage stones fancy cuts. Whereas I consider the AVR's much closer to RB with the same 'cookie cutter' issue Aljdewey pointed out.

It's like saying RB's are superior to emerald cuts. No, they aren't. They are just different. If you love Emerald cuts you aren't going to be happy with an RB. And if you love RB's you aren't going to be happy with an EC. There is no better. There is just different.

I completely agree with Gypsy.

 

[Rhino]

I agree with with Ericad. I personally love the quirks of fancies and consider true antique/vintage stones fancy cuts. Whereas I consider the AVR's much closer to RB with the same 'cookie cutter' issue Aljdewey pointed out.

It's like saying RB's are superior to emerald cuts. No, they aren't. They are just different. If you love Emerald cuts you aren't going to be happy with an RB. And if you love RB's you aren't going to be happy with an EC. There is no better. There is just different.

I completely agree with Gypsy.

Same here.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Same here...give me a round, an emerald cut, an AVR, an AVC, an excellent cut OEC, and throw in an asscher for fun!

(but anyone who has taken a look at AVC's especially knows they are not cookie cutter...they are very different in shape and personality from each other. AVR's are just well cut OEC's.)

 

[InnaR]

(but anyone who has taken a look at AVC's especially knows they are not cookie cutter...they are very different in shape and personality from each other. AVR's are just well cut OEC's.)

I would disagree with that. Jon, by no means I'm not trying to attack your cuts, but AVR is not a well cut OEC, and AVC is not a well cut OMC. They don't look like them, and they don't act like them.
They both are fancy modern cuts. Not as simple as H&A, but more like Princess of Hearts or Octavia.
I personally think that going after optimum light return actually took something away from the cut.
A market for them would probably consist from men and new buyers. Those who learned about four Cs and go after reports and numbers by the book. Those who have seen it all, will go after real old cuts, because they learned enough to trust their own eyes.

P.S. I was trying to say the same thing in Catia's post. Its important to tell people that they need to trust their eyes, and not the reports.

 

[vinjewels]

I do have to second, third or fourth Ericad. On paper (by EGL) my 2.41 stone was not a very well cut OEC. Look at the video of it though. It would even be suspect of being too shallow...[shrug] I don't feel slighted and I am a perfectionist.

 

[Kasey3]

(but anyone who has taken a look at AVC's especially knows they are not cookie cutter...they are very different in shape and personality from each other. AVR's are just well cut OEC's.)

I would disagree with that. Jon, by no means I'm not trying to attack your cuts, but AVR is not a well cut OEC, and AVC is not a well cut OMC. They don't look like them, and they don't act like them.
They both are fancy modern cuts. Not as simple as H&A, but more like Princess of Hearts or Octavia.
I personally think that going after optimum light return actually took something away from the cut.
A market for them would probably consist from men and new buyers. Those who learned about four Cs and go after reports and numbers by the book. Those who have seen it all, will go after real old cuts, because they learned enough to trust their own eyes.

P.S. I was trying to say the same thing in Catia's post. Its important to tell people that they need to trust their eyes, and not the reports.

It wasn't Jon that said this-read the name of the person who posted this statement! I have a question for you...have you seen an AVC or AVR in person with your own eyes? Or do you just want to bash the cut every chance you get?

Also as a side note we can all agree that diamonds are beautiful-we are all captivated by them and we all have our opinions and personal favorites. Mara specifically asked for opinions from people who once had a MRB and traded for an OEC and did they regret it-all other opinions are just that. I actually did, and I would like to share my thoughts-but I don't want a debate about which cut is better. They are both beautiful!

 

[yssie]

Kasey, Inna has owned stones from the AV line and has posted about her journey to the realization that precision-cut antique styles don't do it for her the way true antiques do. Given her personal experience with both, she is in an excellent position to provide educated opinions and commentary, as are you and anyone else who has spent quality time with both types.

A little restraint wouldn't go amiss.

 

[ericad]

I just believe that when a person shops for OEC's (old or new) they should familiarize themselves with the varying types of appearances that can be found within them and not just roll over and play dead just because a diamond is an OEC. That's all.

I think you're selling consumers a bit short here, Jonathan.

 

[Laila619]

I think AVCs and AVRs are just as beautiful as their true antique counterparts...just different flavors of diamonds. They're all lovely and they give buyers more options.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I have owned H&A Rbs, I have seen and enjoyed a 1.7ct AVC, and I have owned a bunch of true antique cuts -- OECs, transitionals, and one stone that was more of an OMC.

True old cuts are very different than precision modern cuts. It is not the case that modern iterations of chunky cuts are just well cut old cuts in my opinion. Changing the outline of a stone, its length width ration, does not make each stone unique because the facet patterns are very similar from stone to stone, as are the many other proportions that create a certain type of optic. True old cuts all have different facet patterns (taking into account all of the elements of cut and not only the number or placement of facets of course). Each is unique. There are broad classes or "types" and when you get familiar with them and own enough of them, you can get a feel for those different types and perhaps form an opinion about which class you prefer. But even THEN you can't predict with any real certainty that a stone you pick based on photos will look anything like another stone you own or had seen. There are too many factors (cut characteristics) varying randomly from stone to stone. That feature of old cuts -- the element of surprise, the uniqueness of each cut -- is really facinating and captivating to anyone who is a cut nut. It is a different type of pursuit than the pursuit of perfection that we seek in modern RBs. Collecting old cuts is the pursuit of novelty, and that is really engrossing and addictive to those of us who have been bitten.

I am sure there are butt ugly OECs out there. I have seen photos of a while bunch. But I can honestly say of the more than a dozen OECs I have personally bought from ebay, all of them have been very attractive diamonds with appealing optics. They are not perfect, and for someone like me who is very discriminating about my diamonds, I have strong preferences about which stones I liked more than others and which styles of cut, but all were certainly beautiful enough! I have not had to return any because they were fugly. So clearly, old cuts are not by and larger ugly cuts.

Mara, I am not sure if your interest in old cuts is fueled by the same enjoyment of novetly and uniqueness, and the search for "the one" that fuels my own enjoyment. If it is, do you think you would be happy with just ONE old cut? I am not sure I would be. Food for thought.

 

[TravelingGal]

I am sure there are butt ugly OECs out there. I have seen photos of a while bunch. But I can honestly say of the more than a dozen OECs I have personally bought from ebay, all of them have been very attractive diamonds with appealing optics. They are not perfect, and for someone like me who is very discriminating about my diamonds, I have strong preferences about which stones I liked more than others and which styles of cut, but all were certainly beautiful enough! I have not had to return any because they were fugly. So clearly, old cuts are not by and larger ugly cuts.
.

We should start a Fugly Old Cut Thread (FOCT). Not the ones that are chipped or included, but faceting and optic wise, what is an fugly old cut stone. It'd be pretty educational....

 

[Dreamer_D]

I am sure there are butt ugly OECs out there. I have seen photos of a while bunch. But I can honestly say of the more than a dozen OECs I have personally bought from ebay, all of them have been very attractive diamonds with appealing optics. They are not perfect, and for someone like me who is very discriminating about my diamonds, I have strong preferences about which stones I liked more than others and which styles of cut, but all were certainly beautiful enough! I have not had to return any because they were fugly. So clearly, old cuts are not by and larger ugly cuts.
.

We should start a Fugly Old Cut Thread (FOCT). Not the ones that are chipped or included, but faceting and optic wise, what is an fugly old cut stone. It'd be pretty educational....

I have been thining for a while of starting an educational picturial thread with photos of all the stones I have owned and descroptions of my observations of the differences in optics you can see from the different styles of cut. It could include "red flags" too, the main ones beaing leakage and fish eye.

 

[yssie]

I am sure there are butt ugly OECs out there. I have seen photos of a while bunch. But I can honestly say of the more than a dozen OECs I have personally bought from ebay, all of them have been very attractive diamonds with appealing optics. They are not perfect, and for someone like me who is very discriminating about my diamonds, I have strong preferences about which stones I liked more than others and which styles of cut, but all were certainly beautiful enough! I have not had to return any because they were fugly. So clearly, old cuts are not by and larger ugly cuts.
.

We should start a Fugly Old Cut Thread (FOCT). Not the ones that are chipped or included, but faceting and optic wise, what is an fugly old cut stone. It'd be pretty educational....

I have been thining for a while of starting an educational picturial thread with photos of all the stones I have owned and descroptions of my observations of the differences in optics you can see from the different styles of cut. It could include "red flags" too, the main ones beaing leakage and fish eye.

 

[TravelingGal]

I am sure there are butt ugly OECs out there. I have seen photos of a while bunch. But I can honestly say of the more than a dozen OECs I have personally bought from ebay, all of them have been very attractive diamonds with appealing optics. They are not perfect, and for someone like me who is very discriminating about my diamonds, I have strong preferences about which stones I liked more than others and which styles of cut, but all were certainly beautiful enough! I have not had to return any because they were fugly. So clearly, old cuts are not by and larger ugly cuts.
.

We should start a Fugly Old Cut Thread (FOCT). Not the ones that are chipped or included, but faceting and optic wise, what is an fugly old cut stone. It'd be pretty educational....

I have been thining for a while of starting an educational picturial thread with photos of all the stones I have owned and descroptions of my observations of the differences in optics you can see from the different styles of cut. It could include "red flags" too, the main ones beaing leakage and fish eye.

+1

(I haven't plused one in a long time, but this was worthy!)

 

[GemFever]

I am sure there are butt ugly OECs out there. I have seen photos of a while bunch. But I can honestly say of the more than a dozen OECs I have personally bought from ebay, all of them have been very attractive diamonds with appealing optics. They are not perfect, and for someone like me who is very discriminating about my diamonds, I have strong preferences about which stones I liked more than others and which styles of cut, but all were certainly beautiful enough! I have not had to return any because they were fugly. So clearly, old cuts are not by and larger ugly cuts.
.

We should start a Fugly Old Cut Thread (FOCT). Not the ones that are chipped or included, but faceting and optic wise, what is an fugly old cut stone. It'd be pretty educational....

I have been thining for a while of starting an educational picturial thread with photos of all the stones I have owned and descroptions of my observations of the differences in optics you can see from the different styles of cut. It could include "red flags" too, the main ones beaing leakage and fish eye.

+1

(this is my first +1 post!)

 

[Dreamer_D]

I am sure there are butt ugly OECs out there. I have seen photos of a while bunch. But I can honestly say of the more than a dozen OECs I have personally bought from ebay, all of them have been very attractive diamonds with appealing optics. They are not perfect, and for someone like me who is very discriminating about my diamonds, I have strong preferences about which stones I liked more than others and which styles of cut, but all were certainly beautiful enough! I have not had to return any because they were fugly. So clearly, old cuts are not by and larger ugly cuts.
.

We should start a Fugly Old Cut Thread (FOCT). Not the ones that are chipped or included, but faceting and optic wise, what is an fugly old cut stone. It'd be pretty educational....

I have been thining for a while of starting an educational picturial thread with photos of all the stones I have owned and descroptions of my observations of the differences in optics you can see from the different styles of cut. It could include "red flags" too, the main ones beaing leakage and fish eye.

But maybe I should learn the spell and edit my posts instead.

 

[TravelingGal]

I am sure there are butt ugly OECs out there. I have seen photos of a while bunch. But I can honestly say of the more than a dozen OECs I have personally bought from ebay, all of them have been very attractive diamonds with appealing optics. They are not perfect, and for someone like me who is very discriminating about my diamonds, I have strong preferences about which stones I liked more than others and which styles of cut, but all were certainly beautiful enough! I have not had to return any because they were fugly. So clearly, old cuts are not by and larger ugly cuts.
.

We should start a Fugly Old Cut Thread (FOCT). Not the ones that are chipped or included, but faceting and optic wise, what is an fugly old cut stone. It'd be pretty educational....

I have been thining for a while of starting an educational picturial thread with photos of all the stones I have owned and descroptions of my observations of the differences in optics you can see from the different styles of cut. It could include "red flags" too, the main ones beaing leakage and fish eye.

But maybe I should learn the spell and edit my posts instead.

That's OK. I figured the kids were in bed and you were drinking. How else does one end up with a ton of diamonds from ebay? Hehehe. Kidding.

And I'd like to be thining too.......

 

[Dreamer_D]

I am sure there are butt ugly OECs out there. I have seen photos of a while bunch. But I can honestly say of the more than a dozen OECs I have personally bought from ebay, all of them have been very attractive diamonds with appealing optics. They are not perfect, and for someone like me who is very discriminating about my diamonds, I have strong preferences about which stones I liked more than others and which styles of cut, but all were certainly beautiful enough! I have not had to return any because they were fugly. So clearly, old cuts are not by and larger ugly cuts.
.

We should start a Fugly Old Cut Thread (FOCT). Not the ones that are chipped or included, but faceting and optic wise, what is an fugly old cut stone. It'd be pretty educational....

I have been thining for a while of starting an educational picturial thread with photos of all the stones I have owned and descroptions of my observations of the differences in optics you can see from the different styles of cut. It could include "red flags" too, the main ones beaing leakage and fish eye.

But maybe I should learn the spell and edit my posts instead.

That's OK. I figured the kids were in bed and you were drinking. How else does one end up with a ton of diamonds from ebay? Hehehe. Kidding.

And I'd like to be thining too.......

I would love to be drinking right now. AH that would be awesome. But I am still nursing and apparently booze is bad for babies??? Alas there is no excuse but poor typing skills and impatience. You don't get 20k plus posts in 5 years by proof reading doncha know.

Yes, the ebay old cuts keep forcing me to adopt them. I keep culling the herd. But somehow more seem to find there way into my home. Three left this week but two more are coming in

 

[yssie]

I am sure there are butt ugly OECs out there. I have seen photos of a while bunch. But I can honestly say of the more than a dozen OECs I have personally bought from ebay, all of them have been very attractive diamonds with appealing optics. They are not perfect, and for someone like me who is very discriminating about my diamonds, I have strong preferences about which stones I liked more than others and which styles of cut, but all were certainly beautiful enough! I have not had to return any because they were fugly. So clearly, old cuts are not by and larger ugly cuts.
.

We should start a Fugly Old Cut Thread (FOCT). Not the ones that are chipped or included, but faceting and optic wise, what is an fugly old cut stone. It'd be pretty educational....

I have been thining for a while of starting an educational picturial thread with photos of all the stones I have owned and descroptions of my observations of the differences in optics you can see from the different styles of cut. It could include "red flags" too, the main ones beaing leakage and fish eye.

But maybe I should learn the spell and edit my posts instead.

That's OK. I figured the kids were in bed and you were drinking. How else does one end up with a ton of diamonds from ebay? Hehehe. Kidding.

And I'd like to be thining too.......

Dreamer got enough ebay bucks to get the next one free yet?

 

[Gypsy]

I am sure there are butt ugly OECs out there. I have seen photos of a while bunch. But I can honestly say of the more than a dozen OECs I have personally bought from ebay, all of them have been very attractive diamonds with appealing optics. They are not perfect, and for someone like me who is very discriminating about my diamonds, I have strong preferences about which stones I liked more than others and which styles of cut, but all were certainly beautiful enough! I have not had to return any because they were fugly. So clearly, old cuts are not by and larger ugly cuts.
.

We should start a Fugly Old Cut Thread (FOCT). Not the ones that are chipped or included, but faceting and optic wise, what is an fugly old cut stone. It'd be pretty educational....

I have been thining for a while of starting an educational picturial thread with photos of all the stones I have owned and descroptions of my observations of the differences in optics you can see from the different styles of cut. It could include "red flags" too, the main ones beaing leakage and fish eye.

I mentioned in one of your posts that you should do an old cut article Dreamer.

 

[HeartingDiamonds]

True old cuts are very different than precision modern cuts. It is not the case that modern iterations of chunky cuts are just well cut old cuts in my opinion. Changing the outline of a stone, its length width ration, does not make each stone unique because the facet patterns are very similar from stone to stone, as are the many other proportions that create a certain type of optic. True old cuts all have different facet patterns (taking into account all of the elements of cut and not only the number or placement of facets of course). Each is unique. There are broad classes or "types" and when you get familiar with them and own enough of them, you can get a feel for those different types and perhaps form an opinion about which class you prefer. But even THEN you can't predict with any real certainty that a stone you pick based on photos will look anything like another stone you own or had seen. There are too many factors (cut characteristics) varying randomly from stone to stone. That feature of old cuts -- the element of surprise, the uniqueness of each cut -- is really facinating and captivating to anyone who is a cut nut. It is a different type of pursuit than the pursuit of perfection that we seek in modern RBs. Collecting old cuts is the pursuit of novelty, and that is really engrossing and addictive to those of us who have been bitten.

I am sure there are butt ugly OECs out there. I have seen photos of a while bunch. But I can honestly say of the more than a dozen OECs I have personally bought from ebay, all of them have been very attractive diamonds with appealing optics. They are not perfect, and for someone like me who is very discriminating about my diamonds, I have strong preferences about which stones I liked more than others and which styles of cut, but all were certainly beautiful enough! I have not had to return any because they were fugly. So clearly, old cuts are not by and larger ugly cuts.

Home run with this one, Dreamer! As many stones as I have seen, examined, worn, louped, photographed and lusted after, NO TWO have ever, ever been alike. Even stones of the same color and clarity face up differently, behave differently, "light up" differently. And I thank my lucky stars every day because of this

 

[Kasey3]

Kasey, Inna has owned stones from the AV line and has posted about her journey to the realization that precision-cut antique styles don't do it for her the way true antiques do. Given her personal experience with both, she is in an excellent position to provide educated opinions and commentary, as are you and anyone else who has spent quality time with both types.

A little restraint wouldn't go amiss.

Thank you for your advice Yssie-but I did not say anything that requires restraint.I have never said anything on PS that I regret or have to apologize for.

 

[Circe]

(but anyone who has taken a look at AVC's especially knows they are not cookie cutter...they are very different in shape and personality from each other. AVR's are just well cut OEC's.)

I would disagree with that. Jon, by no means I'm not trying to attack your cuts, but AVR is not a well cut OEC, and AVC is not a well cut OMC. They don't look like them, and they don't act like them.
They both are fancy modern cuts. Not as simple as H&A, but more like Princess of Hearts or Octavia.
I personally think that going after optimum light return actually took something away from the cut.
A market for them would probably consist from men and new buyers. Those who learned about four Cs and go after reports and numbers by the book. Those who have seen it all, will go after real old cuts, because they learned enough to trust their own eyes.

P.S. I was trying to say the same thing in Catia's post. Its important to tell people that they need to trust their eyes, and not the reports.

It wasn't Jon that said this-read the name of the person who posted this statement! I have a question for you...have you seen an AVC or AVR in person with your own eyes? Or do you just want to bash the cut every chance you get?

Also as a side note we can all agree that diamonds are beautiful-we are all captivated by them and we all have our opinions and personal favorites. Mara specifically asked for opinions from people who once had a MRB and traded for an OEC and did they regret it-all other opinions are just that. I actually did, and I would like to share my thoughts-but I don't want a debate about which cut is better. They are both beautiful!

And she wasn't addressing him. It's the difference between "I would disagree with that, Jon. By no means I'm not trying to attack your cuts ...." and, "I would disagree with that. Jon, by no means I'm not trying to attack your cuts ...." - the former would address Jon throughout, and the latter addresses DS before redirecting the argument to him. Inna wrote the latter.

+1 to Inna, so long as that's the flavor of the day - and that's not "bashing" the AV line, just making an observation about it. They're not old cuts. They're fancy modern cuts in the style of old cuts. That's entirely factually accurate.

 

[vinjewels]

(but anyone who has taken a look at AVC's especially knows they are not cookie cutter...they are very different in shape and personality from each other. AVR's are just well cut OEC's.)

I would disagree with that.

Jon, by no means I'm not trying to attack your cuts, but AVR is not a well cut OEC, and AVC is not a well cut OMC. They don't look like them, and they don't act like them.
They both are fancy modern cuts. Not as simple as H&A, but more like Princess of Hearts or Octavia.
I personally think that going after optimum light return actually took something away from the cut.
A market for them would probably consist from men and new buyers. Those who learned about four Cs and go after reports and numbers by the book. Those who have seen it all, will go after real old cuts, because they learned enough to trust their own eyes.

P.S. I was trying to say the same thing in Catia's post. Its important to tell people that they need to trust their eyes, and not the reports.

It wasn't Jon that said this-read the name of the person who posted this statement! I have a question for you...have you seen an AVC or AVR in person with your own eyes? Or do you just want to bash the cut every chance you get?

Also as a side note we can all agree that diamonds are beautiful-we are all captivated by them and we all have our opinions and personal favorites. Mara specifically asked for opinions from people who once had a MRB and traded for an OEC and did they regret it-all other opinions are just that. I actually did, and I would like to share my thoughts-but I don't want a debate about which cut is better. They are both beautiful!

I had to re-read it too Kasey. I gave her the benefit of the doubt that her little pinky finger forgot to hit the return button. She didn't say, "I disagree with the above, Jon." It read, "I disagree with the above. Jon..." It reads a bit different to me that way.

 

[Circe]

And getting back to the topic at hand ....

I haven't switched, but I'm wearing both simultaneously, my 1.5 MRB on one hand and my 2.5 transitional on the other. It makes me feel almost disloyal to say it, but I tend to look at the hand with the transitional more these days. If we were to take sentiment out of the mix completely, and if I'd sacrificed the RB to get a bigger old cut, I don't think I'd regret it: the bigger facets agree with my eyes and provide a pleasing effect, and I love how old cuts simultaneously face up very white yet display different personalities in different lighting environments. It's like they intensify what I already love about warm stones (both are J color).

But sentiment IS in the mix for me.

And I'm chronically cheap.

So, in general, unless I can sell at a profit, I resist selling. Mara, can you realize what you paid back in the day? I'd bet yes, given how prices have climbed (and if the clarity inflation thing is true, I'd recert - you might find you have even more value on your hands then you think). Does that mean you'll be able to sell a future old cut at enough of a profit to afford the same thing down the line, should your heart desire?

... depends on how good a deal you find. Volunteering to help!

 

[Mike R]

I think saying that any old cuts are poorly cut is really unfair and shouldn't happen, poorly cut compared to what?
They should not be compared to precision cut stones, beauty comes in many different forms that can't be measured in scientific ways like Erica said.

To me personally true old cut stones have a personality that is lost when the look is restrained to fit within the precision mold, it's the unique quirks of antique diamonds as well as their history that I find beautiful.
The two styles are just so different that to me it's like trying to compare an old master oil portrait to a modern well done (artistic) photo portrait, both can be beautiful and people appreciate them in a very different way.