Old cuts and recuts: When does the old become new?

[Dreamer_D]

I have been thinking about this issue recently, and in particular I have been thinking about how this issue could affect consumers.

At what level of recutting or repolishing does a stone cease to be a true antique? Faceting the girdle only? Altering the symmetry? Refaceting the crown or pavilion?

This issue matters to consumers because I do think that there is money to be made by vendors by recutting old stones into better looking "old style cuts" because the diamond will be more marketable because it looks better. And there is also money to be made by vendors who might gloss over the extent of a recut because true old cuts are in vogue and carry a mystique and romance that can be marketed in a way that new cut stones cannot.

At what point does a vendor need to disclose the repolishing or recutting that has been done? How can we tell anyway? I am concerned that there is a grey area for vendors because they may think, "It was an old cut, I repolished the girdle and refaceted it, so it’s still old right?" And indeed many consumers will not care about such things. But for those consumers who want a true antique this matters a lot.

More generally this could affect consumers because we might a) evaluate the cut quality of a diamond differently if we know it is a modern recut as compared to a true antique, and b) we might pay less for a modern recut than for a true antique (or more if the cut was really great.. it is complex). But, in general, if recutting is not disclosed then a consumer is missing key information to make their decision and evaluate value.

This is an issue that has been going on in the industry for a long time. This article in JCK from 2001 talks about the issue for old cut cushions:

http://www.jckonline.com/article/287062-New_Old_Miners.php

And modern cutters can cut really great looking "OECs" too! The August Vintage Round is one example that is looking more and more authentic as the cut is improved and tweaked. Here is another classic-style "OEC" that sure looks like a true old cut to me, but it's NEW!

http://www.diamondsbylauren.com/index.php/jewelry/loose-colorless-diamond-306ct-j-vs1-old-european-cut-gia-remarkable-stone-r4961

Of course, in both of these examples the vendors disclose that their diamonds are newly cut. But if DiamondSeekers new AVR or the DBL stone in the link above were presented to me without that disclosure, I would assume they were very well-cut antiques without giving it much thought.

So if this matters to you, ask your vendor: has there has been any repolishing done, and if so, to what areas of the diamond and for what purpose? Also ask if any of the faceting was recut or altered from its original patterning. And then… hope they are honest.

So let's discuss this important issue for old cut lovers.

(Note: Let's try to discuss this as a general market issue for consumers without feeling the need to accuse, or defend, vendors).

 

[GemFever]

So many thoughts, some of them conflicting... For me personally, polishing the girdle and doing whatever is necessary to fix up chips would be fine. When I buy an old diamond, I buy it to wear it and to give it new life. So if it needs some polishing in order to be set into a prong setting safely, that's mind-clean for me. It's still old.

Now, when it comes to fixing up an old stone in order to improve performance... a bit tricky here. Technically, no, it's no-longer a true vintage antique to me. However, chances are, I won't buy a true vintage antique if it doesn't perform very, very well. So what are all the fish-eyed old stones to do? I wouldn't hold it against a vendor if he/she fixed it up, but disclosed what was done and why.

What attracts me to OECs personally is the way they look. The history is great, it's a nice bonus. But in the end, I just love the cut, the flower, the kozibe, the petals of the crown facets. So, in the end, if I saw a great looking diamond with OEC faceting that would *fit my budget,* I wouldn't say no just because it wasn't a guaranteed antique. I set my OECs into modern-ish settings anyway.

However, when it comes to a complete piece of jewelry, that's another matter. For a truly vintage piece of jewelry, i think the whole package matters, and that's when you pay premium for the true vintage. In my opinion, of course

 

[cabbitstarr]

This is a very interesting question. With truly antique cuts it's not uncommon to see surface "graining" under the loupe due to the older polishing materials and equipment not being as effective in creating a perfectly smooth facet surface.

I wonder if that might help identify newly cut facets on an antique diamond?

 

[kathley]

So if this matters to you, ask your vendor: has there has been any repolishing done, and if so, to what areas of the diamond and for what purpose? Also ask if any of the faceting was recut or altered from its original patterning. And then… hope they are honest.

Since I have seen some new Old Cuts look strikingly similar to the true antique OEC's, this question has been raised in my mind as well. Another dimension would be "what if" the vendor believes they have aquired an antique OEC to be sold, when indeed it is a new OEC? The task of trying to discern Antique vs. "New reproductions" has been seen in other areas as well. Sometimes with no clear way of depicting which is which easily. For those, as myself who have a passion for obtaining a true antique diamond, understandably will find this scenario to be disturbing at best.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I am kind of surprised to hear that the DBL stone is newly cut because it has good for symmetry and very thin on part of the girdle. It is a beautiful stone but I would think a newly cut one should have better symmetry and girdle than that for that kind of price.

The material is extremely old no matter when it was cut.

 

[diamondloveaffair]

having that kind of variations in girdle thickness is usually a decision that was made and not a matter whether the latest technology was implemented during the cutting process.

It's simple, roughs are always manipulated to make the most money out of the material when it was cut.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

having that kind of variations in girdle thickness is usually a decision that was made and not a matter whether the latest technology was implemented during the cutting process.

It's simple, roughs are always manipulated to make the most money out of the material when it was cut.

Although I would not say that is the case when super-ideal cut stones and stones like AVR's are being cut. The cut is made primary and sacrifices to cut quality are not made to increase size. That is one reason there is a price premium for them.

 

[Draco]

It is an interesting topic but your questions cannot be answered by consumers and not by most jewellers either.
If any refurbishing or repolishing is done it would likely be done at the cutting house level, and before submitting to the grading labs. Then the stone would pass through one or more hands before it even makes it to to the retail jeweller. It is much easier to identify a true antique by the setting, if loose or in a new setting it is almost impossible to prove a stone is an antique.

In my experience the market as a whole doesn't put a premium on whether a diamond is antique or not. While calling something an antique may make it easier to sell to some niche markets, the general market values cut quality in diamonds as seen on a grading report much more than provenance.

 

[TC1987]

If anything, I believe that reworking or enhancing the cut on an antique diamond will just eliminate that discounted price that antiques used to sell at vs. the modern H&A RBs. I remember back in 2003-2004 reading caveats like "discount 20% for OEC." (Just to pull a number out of the air.) Kiss that benefit goodby, I guess. I don't think a less-than-complete disclosure is a crisis, unless one absolutely wants an original antique that hasn't been changed in any way. I've seen a few before and after pictures of antique diamonds that Erica of JBEG bought in the past, before she started her business. And they all looked prettier repolished than as-purchased.

 

[Draco]

having that kind of variations in girdle thickness is usually a decision that was made and not a matter whether the latest technology was implemented during the cutting process.

It's simple, roughs are always manipulated to make the most money out of the material when it was cut.

Although I would not say that is the case when super-ideal cut stones and stones like AVR's are being cut. The cut is made primary and sacrifices to cut quality are not made to increase size. That is one reason there is a price premium for them.

The statement likely still holds true for those brands as well. I am not sure their true production costs and markups as they are not disclosed but it may match or exceed(given time value of money) what could be made cutting them into GIA XXX instead.
One must add most money AND quickest saleability. Those brands exist because their is a market for them and they sell to those who would prefer them over a generic MRB.

 

[justginger]

Very interesting question, Dreamer. I've also thought about it, as I know my cushion has been 'touched up' (the girdle is partially faceted and has been inscribed).

For me, the first appeal is the look of the stone, the faceting pattern itself. Like GemFever said, that is my primary concern. I love the the additional history as well, but it is not what initially draws me to antique cuts. Theoretically, if I really wanted something only for its antiquity, not its beauty, I'd be looking for Roman coins mounted in gold or something like that. Although that sounds cool, too.

I like the best of both worlds. I would consider my ideal stone to have been originally old cut, and then received minor bits and pieces (faceting out chips, repolishing) to make it look its best. I would consider recutting of the crown or pavilion to be too much work for my tastes. At that point I would actually value the stone less, not more. I value the cut perfection of a newly cut stone, branded or not, less than the thrill of finding a truly old cut that has been amped up to its best and looks a million bucks.

 

[missy]

I agree with gemfever. If changes such as polishing and fixing chips need to be done on an antique stone that's OK with me. I would still consider it an antique. However obviously an AVR/AVC etc is not an antique nor would I consider it one. I prefer the best of both worlds- a true antique stone with a beautiful faceting pattern and great cut. It's sort of like an antique car or antique furniture for me. I wouldn't want a modern reproduction. While they are gorgeous and probably more durable etc I just love the charm and romance of the antique. We have true antique furniture in our home (from my grandparents mainly) and I just love it. It adds a certain je ne sais quoi. The authenticity of the piece holds a special meaning to me. However, I would not sacrifice a gorgeous stone for it. Meaning any antique, just for the sake of being an antique, would not do.

Having said this, I know it is a personal decision and the modern stones, cut like antiques hold a special appeal for many. Hence the marketability of these cuts. They are certainly beautiful and you get the best cut possible which trumps the authenticity of the true antique for many. And there is nothing wrong with that at all. It's an individual preference to be sure. They're all beautiful- true antique cuts, modern cut stones cut to look like antiques, true modern cuts etc. It's all about what makes your heart sing. There's plenty variety to go around!