Shallow/low depths for fancy cuts

[LALove]

I swear I read a ton of posts on low depth % - not all negative either - on the old site but I can't find any now.
I'm specifically looking for info on low depth % for fancy shapes.

I'd be super grateful to anyone who can search better than I and link them here.

TIA!!!

 

[LALove]

It'd also be super helpful to see pics of any fancy cuts with depth %s on the lower end

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi La- what shape stone?

 

[LALove]

A cushion.

I found one I may like but Mark w/ ERD said no way jose cuz of the depth (posted in RT under thread "thoughts on this cushion" - 2nd stat set).

I just have this idea- and it may be TOTALLY incorrect- that just because a fancy cut diamond's #s don't look great on paper doesn't mean the stone won't be amazing to me. But maybe with such a low depth it won't look good....

 

[Rockdiamond]

LA- if you read a lot of my posts you'll find we're in agreement.
I'm writing from a basis of experience- we sometimes buy 10 cushions in a day.
Don't make the mistake of looking at the wrong ball.
Look at all the stones with an objective eye.
What matters is how the stone looks.
We've had some amazing cushions in the low 50's depth

 

[LALove]

Actually I think I've seen some of your fancies on your site that were TDF!!!!! and they were shallow. That's how I came up with my opinion on paper doesn't always = beauty

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Actually I think I've seen some of your fancies on your site that were TDF!!!!! and they were shallow. That's how I came up with my opinion on paper doesn't always = beauty

Beauty is in the eye of beholder. If you think glassy looking with big windows that allow you to see into or through the diamond is beautiful then more power to you. You can save a bundle if you do! Just make sure you look at the really shallow ones with a flood of light so they are as sparkly as possible!

http://www.vimeo.com/13234387 (Here is a video of some very shallow spready cushions versus others that we most often reccomend on here by the "numbers")

You'll notice the name of the supplier/designer of the spready cushions wasn't mentioned but you can take an educated guess if you recognize the look.

 

[LALove]

Thanks for linking the video. Good comparison on cuchion cuts. I LOVE the first one- very romantic and just gorgeous. My perfect cushion.

The 2nd isn't Daussi is it? I don't love it as much as the chunky cushion but still find it pretty. I think the last 2 are Daussi which I personally don't prefer the look of but not just for the shallowness - the cut isn't pleasing to my eye. Same as crisscut stones- it's just my personal taste.

And I've seen a few shallowER cut fancy diamonds that still look great and don't look like glass.. Some people prefer actual vintage stones which weren't cut to today's specs and think they're gorgeous.. I agree that it is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Guys,
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/vivid-yellow.139321/
This is the thread where Dori shows the 54.9% depth cushion.
Here's a photo of it.


Shallow Fancies can indeed be very beautiful.
I love chunky stones too- but I also love the sparkle of a stone which has the "crushed ice" look- and many times such stones look quite a bit larger than other stones cut for chunkiness

 

[diagem]

This is an OMC I cut a while back...
It measured 47% TD and was one gorgeous Gem..., it possessed a brown tinge which added mystique to its already unique appearance.

Please do take into consideration the image is just a frame of its potential face up properties.

 

[diagem]

The title said 'fancy cuts' so I am adding a non-cushion .

Here is an even shallower Old-Mine Pear (<45%TD)...
I guess its all in the cut

 

[LALove]

RD & DiaGem- GORGEOUS stones!!! I'd LOVE to own either or better yet- BOTH!!

 

[coati]

This is an OMC I cut a while back...
It measured 47% TD and was one gorgeous Gem..., it possessed a brown tinge which added mystique to its already unique appearance.

Please do take into consideration the image is just a frame of its potential face up properties.

Gorgeous examples that break the mold! Last week I handled an Old European Cut (Early American Cut?) with a 50% depth that was absolutely and unequivocally stunning. Wish I had a pic to post.

 

[CharmyPoo]

Erika .. if you do get a photo .. I am dying to see it!

 

[coati]

Charmy-I'll see what I can do.

 

[clgwli]

Oh wow all the stones here are just gorgeous looking!!! After years of looking and trying to decide which shape I loved best, I have realized that numbers don't mean a whole lot with many fancy shapes.

In the video I didn't like the 2nd one at all. The last three I don't know who made them but I thought they had a cool look to them.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

This is an OMC I cut a while back...
It measured 47% TD and was one gorgeous Gem..., it possessed a brown tinge which added mystique to its already unique appearance.

Please do take into consideration the image is just a frame of its potential face up properties.

Interesting stone, what was the crown height on that one? Looks like more than one third of the stone is the crown! Thats pretty unusual wouldn't you say for such a shallow stone?

 

[diagem]

This is an OMC I cut a while back...
It measured 47% TD and was one gorgeous Gem..., it possessed a brown tinge which added mystique to its already unique appearance.

Please do take into consideration the image is just a frame of its potential face up properties.

Interesting stone, what was the crown height on that one? Looks like more than one third of the stone is the crown! Thats pretty unusual wouldn't you say for such a shallow stone?

I never physically measured the CH..., It was the stone which lead me to this extreme CH (not the other way around as it usually goes).

Sure its pretty unusual, not too many cutters I know are willing to think out of the box and play with the valuable material itself.
When you explore on the material itself..., you discover how flexible Diamonds can be sometimes...

 

[stone-cold11]

DiaGem, can you show the profile shot of the old mine pear?

Thanks.

 

[yssie]

Awesome looking stones

Ditto, would love profiles of the last DiaGem

 

[diagem]

Sorry..., never got a pure profile shot of that one...

 

[oldminer]

I have long ago lost track of the thin or thick diamonds that I have bought. Many of these I considered to be beautiful myself and I recognized early on that my own ideas of beauty did not reflect the much broader range of beauty that other people obviously have.
In selecting a shallow diamond you are giving up some characteristics present in a regular depth stones for those only found in less deep diamonds. It could be considered a good trade off by some experts or consumers. It is really and truly a subjective decision.

There have been many discussions about light leakage or wateryness commonly more visible in shallow depth diamonds. However, the plus is the far greater visible surface area making the stone look very large for its weight. Such a stone may be highly suitable for a pendant or as part of a necklace since it is not going to stand so far from the skin because it is more slender in depth. Some people really do prefer less punch and brilliance and would rather have the more watery, clear and calm look of a shallow stone. No one should say this is a wrong choice, but you should know that making this choice is an important part of getting a diamond that makes you happiest.

Many of the oldest cut diamonds came from river bed deposits and were more like slivers of shallow diamond than cubic crystals which are most commonly mined. These led to thinner cut diamonds as a natural consequence of their initial shape as rough.

If you want what the trade terms "Ideal" or "Excellent" by a modern standard, then shallow diamonds are not a consideration, but if you are willing to be independent and find your own way through this maze, then you very well might select a diamond based on your own preferences with next to nothing to do with the modern marketing of ideal cut stones.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Great post David Atlas- very interesting about the river bed rough!

snip....
If you want what the trade terms "Ideal" or "Excellent" by a modern standard, then shallow diamonds are not a consideration, snip.....

This part does cause me to question which type of "Ideal" or Excellent" you are talking about.
Since there are no GIA standards for fancy cut diamonds, anyone calling their fancy shapes "Excellent" cut is abusing the terminology.
We could say that stones graded 0 cut grade by AGSL are "Ideal" - but fancy shapes graded by AGSL are so rare as to be practically impossible to find, outside of AGSL princess cuts- which themselves are very rare. Yet many many sellers call their stones "Ideal" with no AGSL report.

The point is very important as the abuse of these terms is prevalent on some of the largest diamond selling sites- which is very misleading to consumers.
We may be able to say that the stones Diagem posted are really well cut ( I don't want to abuse the "EX" or "Ideal" terms- or comment on the cut without personally examining them- but we do know Diagem cuts some amazing stones)

In terms of the cushion I posted, it's cut as well as ANY fancy colored cushion I've seen. No matter the depth. If there were true cut grades for cushions, that one would get the highest grade IMO.

 

[oldminer]

The problem that I see is that the "Grading" of "CUT QUALITY" has to be based on a set of repeatably measurable characteristics. Marketing people have combined scientific measuring abilities to pronounce certain configurations of rounds and some fancy shapes as "ideal". There is no doubt that these are attractive stones, BUT who is to say that the consumer has to rely upon this as anything more than a guideline set up in hopes of promoting a sale of that particular product. There are many fancy shape diamonds which do not have the performance of Ideally Cut round diamonds, but have great beauty. Some fancy shaped diamonds do not fit well into the mould of a fixed "ideal" configuration yet do look very lovely.

Once a consumer understands the marketing, the rhetoric and the facts, they have a great deal more freedom to buy what they like themselves than what may be presented to them as a limited set of stones with very arbitrary cut choices. A wide range is a positive thing. For consumers who want to rely more on industry guidance, the choices will be safer, but more limited. This does not mean you will do badly in choosing, but only that you will choose from a smaller pool of stones. You might like the efficiency, so there is no one solution which fits everyone.

The opposite problem afflicts sellers who always sell every diamond as "Fine Cut" no matter how well or badly it has been cut. These guys scream "foul" when caught and claim every diamond is beautiful and well cut. Well, it just isn't so. There are plenty of ugly fancy shaped diamonds with poor cutting style and limited beauty floating around waiting for a fresh victim. Learn about "CUT" before you decide and then spend wisely after you have thoroughly shopped.

 

[Rockdiamond]

David- a large part of the problem, from where I sit is that people can not learn the most important things about cut on the web.
There's a lot of good info online- but the most important aspects of cut grading have to be learned with actual diamonds, and leared first hand.

Where the web really can help to "self correct" the sellers abusing this terminology is what we're doing here- reminding readers that cut grades issued by sellers themselves are NOT industry standard- and in fact can be very misleading.

If we posted this every day, it would still not be enough- but reminding folks whenever we can is a good start.

 

[oldminer]

I do believe we are slowly making an impact against a widely abused practice. Both sellers of marketed Ideal cut diamonds and sellers who choose to offer a wider range of cuts need to join hands in educating consumers to shop well and successfully for a diamond which meets their needs, requirements and their expectations. Shoppers must learn what a cut grade category means, what it tells you and what it does not tell you. Using the simplest of learning skills, looking with your own eyes and an open mind, can be a very good teacher.

 

[CharmyPoo]

The 2nd isn't Daussi is it? I don't love it as much as the chunky cushion but still find it pretty. I think the last 2 are Daussi which I personally don't prefer the look of but not just for the shallowness - the cut isn't pleasing to my eye. Same as crisscut stones- it's just my personal taste.

If you saw the video, then you would have read what I thought of the Daussi diamond. I won't repeat it here since we do have Daussi diamond owners on this board.

 

[rosetta]

I read your comments charmy and couldn't agree more.

 

[ariel144]

Bump!

Interesting thread on shallow fancies. Who would have thought they could have such beautiful faceting like the 47% depth cushion and 43% depth pear DiaGem/Yoram posted. both with that chunky faceting. The fancy vivid yellow is amazing as well.

Here is a shallow cushion that the recipient loved. The specs are on pg 3. 56% depth, but large table. Love the setting for sure. Lots of pics. Her fiance stated it was the best performing than any of the cushions he looked at...hmmm?
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/engaged-cushion-cut-w-vera-wang-setting.38061/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/engaged-cushion-cut-w-vera-wang-setting.38061/[/URL]

Found this thread after finding this antique cushion on JA. 16.6% crown and 52.8% depth 55% table but a honker
of a cushion 11mm x 10. Graded by AGS last year...wonder of Yoram cut this beauty?

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/cushion-cut/4.24-carat-i-color-si1-clarity-sku-363621

I was just very surprised at how nice the faceting appears on this 4.24c and no hint of fish eye for such a shallow stone. Will it really look like glass? Or simply look like some rose cut stones? Everyone seems to go gah-gah over Jeniffer Anniston's huge rose cut ring. Rose cuts are super shallow.

I've always wondered how pear and ovals and trilliants seem to get away with those shallow cuts. I have 2 half carat trilliants that are shallow and face up 7mm and yet the faceting is nice and they definitely don't look like glass. The really shallow OEC's seem to always produce fish eye.

 

[therainbowradish]

I have a 3.15 carat antique marquise (17.7 x 7.53 so it is a spread cut) with 50.3% depth, 65% table and it is lovely! Perhaps it is from riverbed rough as David said. Charles Carmona estimated it as being cut around 1920. It is Y color and really sparkles and glows, with no bowtie. (Setting by David Klass)