Since "cut diamonds" started in Europe...

[zhuzhu]

... Germany of the 1300''s. One could argue that cut diamonds are "invented" in Europe. I wonder if is would be fair to assume that the AVERAGE QUALITY of antique and older cuts (point cut, rosecut, OMC, OEC...ect)would be better/higher than those cut by Americans?

Is it reasonable to say that Belgian (Tolkowsky) should be given the credit for the brilliant modern round cut that is popular today, but it is the Americans who contribute to the continued improvement in their performance?

 

[denverappraiser]

In 1300, America was a VERY different place from Europe. In 1900 not so much so. Tools, craftsmen, and product flowed relatively freely between them, rather like they do now. There’s a terrific book here by Al Gilbertson on the history of modern diamond cutting that you may find interesting. He argues different version about where the credit belongs with regard to modern cutting but whether or not it was Americans with European influence or Europeans with American influence strikes me as an academic detail in the overall story.

ETA: My link doesn't seem to work. I'm not sure why.
http://www.amazon.com/American-Cut-First-100-Years/dp/0873110595/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275138229&sr=8-1

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[Jim Summa]

If I had only one book to recommend to people about diamonds it would be Al''s. Its a great read.

 

[oldminer]

I made a small URL for readers:


http://tinyurl.com/2bbeard

 

[John P]

Date: 5/29/2010 5:49:11 AM
Author:zhuzhu

... Germany of the 1300's. One could argue that cut diamonds are 'invented' in Europe. I wonder if is would be fair to assume that the AVERAGE QUALITY of antique and older cuts (point cut, rosecut, OMC, OEC...ect)would be better/higher than those cut by Americans?

Is it reasonable to say that Belgian (Tolkowsky) should be given the credit for the brilliant modern round cut that is popular today, but it is the Americans who contribute to the continued improvement in their performance?

Cool question. For your purposes it's fair to say that innovations took place in Europe. But where cut was "invented" depends on how you define a cut diamond: The scaife wasn't developed until 1475 and that could be considered the birth of modern diamond cutting (especially for the purpose of your post). And while the Nürnberg Guild surfaced in 1375, diamond splitting and shaping was taking place in Europe since the early 1300s, with Venice, Bruges, Antwerp and Paris considered cities of historical prominence.

Until the scaife diamond "cutting" was pretty much rubbing one diamond against another with the goal of smoothing out natural irregularities. That simple action took place long before Europeans did it. Pliny referred to diamonds as luxury items belonging to kings in 100, and that was centuries after Alexander brought them to Europe in 327 BCE. They were well-known in India prior to that and it's possible that the Silk Road brought them to rulers of the ancient world. If some court artisan figured out how to polish one against the other to make them smoother for his masters that would pass for elementary diamond cutting. So cut was "invented" in numerous places, depending on how you define it.

The scaife was key. Mechanical bruting and the rotary saw radically evolved diamond cutting near 1900 and advances in tooling, non-vibrating equipment, smoother/cooled bruting, laser-sawing, our ability to measure tiny objects and computer scanning/planning have continued to advance things. If Lodewyk could see us now...

Is it reasonable to say that Belgian (Tolkowsky) should be given the credit for the brilliant modern round cut that is popular today, but it is the Americans who contribute to the continued improvement in their performance?

Neil gave a good response. That book, for which several of us have given the thumbs-up, is terrific - highly recommended for any enthusiast interested in history. I penned a review in the PS Journal for anyone interested in a synopsis:

http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/53/1/American-Cut---The-First-100-Years%2c-by-Al-Gilbertson%2c-GG.aspx

 

[John P]

This thread brought to mind the statue of Lodewyk van Bercken in Antwerp, inventor of the scaife.

 

[zhuzhu]

Has any of you appraised enough diamonds of different cut origin to say "Europe (or US) cut diamonds are generally better performer than US (or Europe) cut diamonds"?

 

[John P]

Date: 5/29/2010 4:34:54 PM
Author: zhuzhu

Has any of you appraised enough diamonds of different cut origin to say 'Europe (or US) cut diamonds are generally better performer than US (or Europe) cut diamonds'?

Their value was in the rarity, which made a fashion statement. The hardness of diamond, the inability to saw or brute them efficiently and demand for yield-over-all precluded consistency in "performance" as we'd think of it now. They were not fashioned in a way that consistently returned light, nor were they expected to be.

A Parisian jeweler began applying metal to the back of glass gemstone imitations in the 1700s. The fakes were cheaper, more plentiful and looked more bright and colorful in the lighting of the day since their mirror-backings returned all light. Diamonds of the period were crude table cuts and rose cuts (the rose cuts continued into the 1800s). Those styles had fewer facets and did not sparkle like the fake gems. They were showpieces of rarity and their enchantment lies more in period charm than any scientific performance.

Brilliants did exist prior to that time. References to the brilliant style for crown jewels and diamonds of royal mints in England, France and Spain can be found up to two centuries prior to the landmark treatise by David Jeffries that put "performance cutting" on the map. Jeffries is believed to be the first to show a brilliant with 58 facets in 1750. He even outlined basic proportions (45 degrees for crown and pavilion w/ crown height half of pavilion depth). But though he and others pushed for performance standards they were not widely accepted... The old "rules" continued to put weight strictly ahead of other goals.

(excerpted from Al's book)

"When the work is finished the large stones are weighed singly, the small stones in lots, to see what the loss has been, and, according to the extent of this, the payment is greater or less. If a stone is found to be wanting in any of the lots, the workman has to pay a fine much greater than the value of the stone."

This was written in 1874 to describe the process in Coster's Diamond Cutting Works in Amsterdam, the largest in the world at that time...and this was a century after Jeffries' treatise!

Niche followers and enthusiasts wanted to produce diamonds based on Jeffries. In fact it was the brilliant style that American cutters adopted. When Henry Morse and Charles Field introduced mechanical bruting in Boston it revolutionized the process for producing round brilliants. Morse made a name for himself by speaking out against old methods of cutting. As demand for his diamonds grew his cutting style became known as "American Cut" and gained attention. Al reports that Isaac Herman was one of the first to follow this style. In 1871 Herman observed Morse's cutting and put together his own team in New York. Others followed suit, including Tiffany & Co, one of Morse's clients, who continued to buy from him even as they induced his workers to come work for them. In 1891 the Scientific American did a story on Tiffany & Co. and "Scientific Cutting" became the buzz. As the terms "American Cut" and "Scientific Cut" gained momentum, advertisements for square diamonds were replaced by round. The Europeans resisted the new style of cutting because the corners and so much of the top was lost in the process, but their cushion cuts were becoming blasé and some Antwerp firms began cutting based on Morse.

In 1899 the rotary saw was developed, allowing two diamonds to be produced from one piece of octahedron. The wider supply, since diamonds had been discovered in Africa, and the added saw-ability made the American cutting style even more plausible. Between 1885 and 1902 the number of workers in US cutting factories had grown over 300 percent (still insignificant compared to the number in Europe). In 1903 a New York jeweler named Wallis Cattelle was one of the first to back up the optical benefits of the American Cuts with ray-tracing, reinforcing the scientific superiority and noting that European cutters were gradually having to conform to it more and more... What followed was an interesting battle of styles and buzzwords and abuses in advertising - much like "ideal" today. The inability to clearly measure proportions clouded the issue and led to rampant mis-advertising. This reached its height in 1915-1918. The term "American Cut" was diluted by shops setting up in America but not actually cutting to ranges Morse and his followers established. Other ad campaigns trumpeted "best proportions," "perfect cut," "top blue white," and "very fine quality" diamonds offered "below wholesale" (sound familiar?) that were nowhere near the quality of true American Cut specimens.

The JCK organized a movement to remove ads with the word "perfect" and ran a campaign of articles to educate jewelers. Dr. Herbert Whitlock, curator of Minerals and Gems at the New York State Museum (eventually the Smithsonian collection) was asked to assist. He provided ray-tracing examples of different cuts and was the first gemological authority to name the new style "American Cut" in writing. Frank Wade, who was to become a member of GIA's Student Advisory Board and one of the academic leaders Robert Shipley hired to advance the gemology movement, was also a leader in the crusade. From 1915-1930 Wade pioneered a series of scientific articles that distinguished him in the trade. Marcel Tolkowky's 1919 book was timed perfectly for his purposes. Wade equated the "American Cut" with Tolkowsky's calculations and was one of the first influential people to call his measurements "ideal." By the 1930s the efforts of Wade and Shipley gave Tolkowsky's book great prominence in the minds of many - and it did have an influence on cutting: Where Morse's diamonds had tables near 40% Wade thought Tolkowsky was right and advocated the "ideal" 53 and 54% tables he cited...logical given advances in electric lighting, which influenced how diamonds were being cut and sold.

Tolkowsky was also the first to write that lower halves needed to have a specific relationship to the rest of the diamond. As Robert Shipley developed GIA's coursework in the 1930s he included a survey of cutting styles. By this time the Germans were involved in cutting and, like others in Europe, they did not like the loss of weight on the crown. Shipley's work, centered on Tolkowksy, was in large part defending against the German concepts. In 1938 the FTC banned use of the word "perfect.” “Scientific cut" fell away because it represented proportions with smaller tables, no longer in use. The terms "ideal" and "American Cut" continued As GIA's influence grew in the 1930s and 40s an ever-increasing number of jewelers began to recognize the importance of cut quality. Richard Liddicoat worked on cut at the same time he was developing the color and clarity grading system. He introduced a proportions-scope and a grading system using terms like "American Cut" which had deductions for proportions outside a certain range. In fact, the present day Rapaport list is based on the style of the chart Liddicoat developed for color, clarity and cut. In 1953 the GIA diamond grading courses were introduced. With a GIA education a jeweler could make intelligent decisions about buying so these courses caught on like wildfire. Graduates were provided tools to measure cut but often needed help with color and clarity; which were more subjective. This is where the first GIA grading reports came from. Diamonds sent in were graded for color and clarity but not cut, since the students had those tools already...oops.

Can we say things have changed much? We've certainly known how to beautify diamonds by improving their cut for decades, but it took GIA's enforcement of a cut grade in 2006 to meaningfully shift the industry to better cut standards for round brilliants. And it's not a flawless system.

I'm not sure this answers your basic question, but it may illustrate that no simple answer exists. I'd say that influences for advancing performance in the USA and Europe have bounced back and forth over the last century and a half. Moving into this century we should add 1980s Japan to the list of places where cut evolution has been studied and influenced.

Attribution to David Jeffries and Al Gilbertson for much of the content here - I strongly encourage anyone interested to get Al's book.
http://www.amazon.com/American-Cut-First-100-Years/dp/0873110595

 

[John P]

From the Jeffries treatise (1750): Believed to be the first drawing of a 58 facet round brilliant. The facets on the square are the ones labeled because that''s what most were cutting.

 

[John P]

Jeffries treatise: Showing how to retain most of an octahedron; this was already known and in-practice. Remember that the point of the crystal had to be ground down to create the table facet, since no diamond saw would exist for another 100 years.

 

[missydebby]

Jon, I was wondering if you could point me in the right direction to learn more about the history of the Jews in the diamond business. My family is Jewish and came over from Russia/Poland in the mid 1800''s. We lost all of our history due to the pogroms and WW2. Now I have some Dutch relatives (from my husband''s side) that live in Antwerp. I was there and of course I saw all my long lost brethren, so to speak, in the diamond center, near where my sister-in-law live. I say lost long brethren, cause long long ago, we must''ve also been Orthodox, though we totally Americanized once here. Anyway, I was always curious as to why there was such a cultural influence to be in the diamond trading and cutting business, but was unable to search correctly on the Googles to find it. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks, D

 

[zhuzhu]

Date: 5/30/2010 12:51:23 PM
Author: John Pollard
....

Can we say things have changed much? We''ve certainly known how to beautify diamonds by improving their cut for decades, but it took GIA''s enforcement of a cut grade in 2006 to meaningfully shift the industry to better cut standards for round brilliants. And it''s not a flawless system.


http://www.amazon.com/American-Cut-First-100-Years/dp/0873110595

Thank you John and to all whom have replied!

If GIA''s 2006 cut grade meaningfully shifted the industry to better cut standard, then is it safe to assume post-2006 American-cut diamonds should generally "perform" better simply because GIA standards are applied much less so in Europe compared to they are in US?

 

[John P]

Date: 5/30/2010 3:39:21 PM
Author: missydebby

Jon, I was wondering if you could point me in the right direction to learn more about the history of the Jews in the diamond business. My family is Jewish and came over from Russia/Poland in the mid 1800's. We lost all of our history due to the pogroms and WW2. Now I have some Dutch relatives (from my husband's side) that live in Antwerp. I was there and of course I saw all my long lost brethren, so to speak, in the diamond center, near where my sister-in-law live. I say lost long brethren, cause long long ago, we must've also been Orthodox, though we totally Americanized once here. Anyway, I was always curious as to why there was such a cultural influence to be in the diamond trading and cutting business, but was unable to search correctly on the Googles to find it. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks, D

Others may be better-equipped to answer, but I can outline the broad strokes. When diamonds first came to the Ottoman Empire from India Jewish traders had control of the incoming supply; by caravan and then via sea routes to Portugal and the Netherlands.

A huge factor in all of this was that the fashioning of gemstones and diamonds was one of the few trades Jews were permitted to participate in by the medieval European guilds - along with money lending. In either case they dealt with diamonds and became expert in appraising, repairing and selling them. Diamonds were also a logical commodity for people who lived in fear of expulsion for centuries, since they were easily transportable and redeemable for money anywhere in Europe.

Antwerp and Lisbon were home to many of the first Jewish polishers but when the Spanish and Portuguese expulsions took place they were forced to relocate from Lisbon, and eventually Antwerp, to Amsterdam. That city became a major cutting center as wealthy Jewish traders financed the Dutch East India Company and organized their own trade with India. Eventually Amsterdam replaced Lisbon as the port of entry in Europe for Indian diamonds. By the late 1700s much of Amsterdam's Jewish population was working in the diamond trade.

When Belgium became independent and recognized Judaism in 1831 Antwerp regained prominence as a cutting and trading center. Around the time your family moved to the US in the mid-1800s there was a steady influx of eastern European Jews coming into Belgium... Antwerp's Jewish community grew from 8000 to 50,000 people between 1880-1940, so it is not surprising that you have relatives there and you may indeed have some diamond dust in your blood.

 

[missydebby]

Jon, that''s so awesome. Thanks so much. Funny, I just bought (used for 5 bucks) this book: Diamond Stories: Enduring Change on 47th Street

Synopsis From Publishers Weekly
New York''s diamond business is an insular world. Yet thanks to introductions from relatives in the business, anthropologist Shield (Uneasy Endings: Daily Life in an American Nursing Home) gained access to the industry''s inner sanctum: West 47th Street in Manhattan. Once there, she interviewed diamond dealers, brokers and manufacturers the majority of them Orthodox and Hasidic Jews and then merged her findings with anthropological observations to illuminate the history and culture of New York City''s diamond industry.

Well, I do have some diamond dust sorta in me, but not from my Jewish side but now from my husband''s family. His sister (who looks exactly like me - paging Dr. Freud) is a goldsmith and works for Wouters & Hendrix in Antwerp.

Again, thanks for your answer. You''re the best

 

[John P]

Date: 5/30/2010 4:50:54 PM
Author: zhuzhu

Thank you John and to all whom have replied!

If GIA's 2006 cut grade meaningfully shifted the industry to better cut standard, then is it safe to assume post-2006 American-cut diamonds should generally 'perform' better simply because GIA standards are applied much less so in Europe compared to they are in US?

I'd say it is safe to assume round brilliant diamonds sent to GIA perform better as a whole post-2006. This is logical since they are held to a cut standard now where before they were not.

Where a diamond is polished makes little difference globally these days. Mass-manufacturers know all of the systems and will send a diamond where it will receive the most favorable grades for the target-market. A factory with clients in the USA may send a dozen diamonds it knows will get GIA EX to Carlsbad, and a dozen poorer cuts to EGL-Israel. That factory could be located in Antwerp, Mumbai, Tel-Aviv or NY.

Also important to keep in mind: Color and clarity are subjective and may command a higher premium than cut. A diamond graded (soft lab) I-SI1 will turn faster in many markets than the same diamond graded GIA K-I1, regardless of cut quality. Borderline cases, especially, may be sent to X destination with far less concern for cut quality than getting improved grades in those categories.

 

[John P]

Date: 6/1/2010 10:24:04 AM
Author: missydebby
Jon, that's so awesome. Thanks so much. Funny, I just bought (used for 5 bucks) this book: Diamond Stories: Enduring Change on 47th Street

Synopsis From Publishers Weekly
New York's diamond business is an insular world. Yet thanks to introductions from relatives in the business, anthropologist Shield (Uneasy Endings: Daily Life in an American Nursing Home) gained access to the industry's inner sanctum: West 47th Street in Manhattan. Once there, she interviewed diamond dealers, brokers and manufacturers the majority of them Orthodox and Hasidic Jews and then merged her findings with anthropological observations to illuminate the history and culture of New York City's diamond industry.

Well, I do have some diamond dust sorta in me, but not from my Jewish side but now from my husband's family. His sister (who looks exactly like me - paging Dr. Freud) is a goldsmith and works for Wouters & Hendrix in Antwerp.

Again, thanks for your answer. You're the best

My pleasure. Please add anything you think of interest. I'm in Antwerp more than NY - appreciate you sharing the title.