Sorting Out Step Cut Specs (say that 5x fast)

[the_mother_thing]

Lol I was thinking the exact same thing!

I can’t enjoy a meal with a plate full of what looks like bloody steak juice ... I just can’t.

My family likes to mess with me too, and make ‘moooooo’ noises when we have steak ... heathens!

 

[AV_]

I dislike corner breaks too. Of course, I expect brighteness & a different kind of play of light in these.

YF has a made a beautiful version of the model !

(or two)

(or three)

I understand the other taste. These, I love...

 

[the_mother_thing]

@AV_ did you mean to attach a link or pics to your post? I’m curious to see what you’re talking about that YF has cut. Or do you mean his antique Asschers/Octavias/etc.?

 

[Heathcat24]

The world would be a very boring place if we all liked the same thing!

I also like step cuts on the less lively side - I think I prefer a slightly larger table, where there’s not too much ‘doubling up’ from facets overlapping around the edges. To me, the calmer light return is what I find appealing in that cut, as well as the outline. Although, I also love antique style, tiny-tabled, high-crowned asschers or emerald cuts. Either end of the spectrum basically!

THIS!!! I thought I was the only one!

What an awesome place this is, where folks can share their preferences and ask questions and learn. I used to get so NERVOUS going into jewelry stores. I felt so out of place. But I had to take my ER in last weekend for prong repair. I wound up handing the sales associate my new ring and asking him to guess the color. (He had just been to a color grading class.)

I also asked to try on a 2 carat round solitaire, which my husband wasn't too thrilled about...

ETA: I'm a medium - medium well girl, too!

 

[AV_]

On the side,

@themotherthing Your OMC solitaire is what I think of as the opposite type of cut to a bright stepped!

Of course, the two belong together.

 

[AV_]

@AV_ did you mean to attach a link or pics to your post? I’m curious to see what you’re talking about that YF has cut.

The square with slightly clipped corners is the model I had in mind: WWW

It seems that the corners are only clipped over a narrow steps below and above the girdle, and do not issue obvious secondary reflections onto the other steps (although I expect these to have a substantial contribution to the overall brighteness nonetheless; this is a ray tracing question for another day...) All flash - little glitter (so I am hooked!).

The corner clipping looks finishes & elegant & I suspect anyone having to set these would smile at the detail too ,)

_

I am even more drawn to the other, even simpler step cuts in the picture - although I suspect even I would want more facets in a much larger diamond. YF has made a video of them with few kind words (honey for contrarians!).

 

[AV_]

ctd.

Digressing,

Can you see this? WWW

Then, this: WWW - a near-octagon of a step cut, with corner facets so BIG they seem to fit the bold flash/non-glittery type too.

Nb. - the size of these things! - all diamonds are the same size in pictures.

YF tells a good & long story of how the glittery look is constructed for the - other style of step cuts for which Gem Concepts is known; backwards, the argument tells how this flash look results (they remind lighthouse mirrors - IHMO, arrays of reflective steps one can step into...) Elsewhere he writes of how diamonds with little play of light are best seen from a distance, in motion... and this is what I expect of these too...

There are a few people who like the same things I do, but I am not meeting them often! (that is to say - not expecting to brand)

 

[the_mother_thing]

@AV_ I do like carre’ cut diamonds, but am not a big fan of them except perhaps as small accents. I think why I like that other Asscher I posted (where the windmills do not meet in the middle) is because it makes the area under the table appear ‘chunkier’ but still broadly faceted with a uniform appearance, if that makes sense.

I wish my mouth/fingers could better articulate what my eyes/brain seem to admire, sometimes.

 

[lissyflo]

All flash - little glitter

This pretty much summarises my perfect step-cut - I’m stealing that phrase! I adore Yoram’s asschers (Jimmianne’s asscher is one of the most beautiful stones I’ve ever seen pictures of), but I would choose one in that style in place of an MRB - I don’t think one would scratch a specific step-cut itch for me.

 

[AV_]

I like that other Asscher I posted (where the windmills do not meet in the middle)

The JA 5 cts is this way. I think of this type as borrowing details from the caree; the larger the diamond, the more sense it makes to let the abriged corner facets play up - the model should tag size, IHMO.

 

[the_mother_thing]

I want both flash & glitter ... or maybe just lots of big color flashes that appear to be sort of ‘magnified glitter’.

 

[OoohShiny]

This pretty much summarises my perfect step-cut - I’m stealing that phrase! I adore Yoram’s asschers (Jimmianne’s asscher is one of the most beautiful stones I’ve ever seen pictures of), but I would choose one in that style in place of an MRB - I don’t think one would scratch a specific step-cut itch for me.

Are we saying here that 'all flash' is direct white light return from big facets, whereas 'all glitter' is referring more to pin-fire from smaller facet interactions and dispersion from virtual facets bouncing light around?

Are we therefore saying that we aren't necessarily looking for coloured fire in step-cuts??

 

[the_mother_thing]

Are we therefore saying that we aren't necessarily looking for coloured fire in step-cuts??

I am not saying that ... I LOVE colored fire ... be it stepcuts, MRBs, OECs, whatever ... I also like some white light return.

Maybe we need a glossary for these terms so we’re all on the same forum-page ... I probably mix up their usage/meaning a good bit.

 

[Karl_K]

Are we saying here that 'all flash' is direct white light return from big facets, whereas 'all glitter' is referring more to pin-fire from smaller facet interactions and dispersion from virtual facets bouncing light around?

Its the balance of big med and small virtual facets and how they work together.

https://www.pricescope.com/articles/virtual-facets-and-patterns-discussion-about-step-cuts

So you get the med, and large virtual facet flash from the center. they are the same virtual facets but they act very large rotated one way and medium the other way due to the shape of them.
Then you have a mix of medium,small and very small - pinfire under the crown facets. Notice how they are concentrated near where the windmills.

 

[Karl_K]

When rotated the direction of the pink arrow the virtual facets neat the green arrow act like medium facets but the twin virtual facet on the bottom by the red arrow acts like a very large.

 

[the_mother_thing]

When rotated the direction of the pink arrow the virtual facets neat the green arrow act like medium facets but the twin virtual facet on the bottom by the red arrow acts like a very large.

This is a SUPER helpful explanation & visual! Thank you, Karl!

 

[OoohShiny]

Ok, so now I am confused... lol

Its the balance of big med and small virtual facets and how they work together.

So you get the med, and large virtual facet flash from the center. they are the same virtual facets but they act very large rotated one way and medium the other way due to the shape of them.

I cannot get my head around why this is/would be the case!?!

May I be annoying and ask if you could spell out how that works??

Then you have a mix of medium,small and very small - pinfire under the crown facets. Notice how they are concentrated near where the windmills.

Am I right in thinking that making the table smaller and increasing the crown height would create bigger crown facets across a wider area, meaning the size of the reflections/virtual facets under the crown facets would increase from Small and Very Small in some places to Medium across the crown area, creating a more balanced look (i.e. medium flashes across the stone, rather than large in the middle and small round the edge) when also taking into consideration the reduction in size of both the pavilion facets and virtual facets that can be seen directly through the table (because the longer facets are now under the crown facets, which breaks them up a bit)??

 

[Karl_K]

Ok, so now I am confused... lol


I cannot get my head around why this is/would be the case!?!

May I be annoying and ask if you could spell out how that works??


Am I right in thinking that making the table smaller and increasing the crown height would create bigger crown facets across a wider area, meaning the size of the reflections/virtual facets under the crown facets would increase from Small and Very Small in some places to Medium across the crown area, creating a more balanced look (i.e. medium flashes across the stone, rather than large in the middle and small round the edge) when also taking into consideration the reduction in size of both the pavilion facets and virtual facets that can be seen directly through the table (because the longer facets are now under the crown facets, which breaks them up a bit)??

Smaller table changes the balance towards more med and small virtual facets - more flashes.
Higher crown changes the balance somewhat but the biggest change is the rate of the flashes.
Higher crown flashes faster.

Its the shape, they are large(long) one way and medium the other.
Its more exaggerated in an EC.
The virtual facets are very large the way of the red arrow, the virtual facet is medium between the green arrows.
This is why flipping an EC end over end tells you little because it acts like a very large facet and it has a totally different look when rotated across the med direction,

 

[the_mother_thing]

Another quick ? ... if an assher/sq emerald/cut cornered square step cut has P5 vs. P4 or P3, wouldn’t that make it a Royal Asscher or are there ‘generic’ Asschers cut with 5 pavilion steps as well?

 

[AV_]

GIA calls them 'step cut' instead of Emerald cut... Somewhat uncommon.

 

[the_mother_thing]

GIA calls them 'step cut' instead of Emerald cut... Somewhat uncommon.

So by virtue of it having 5 pavilion rows vs. 4 or 3, that does not make it a Royal Asscher (brand-wise), correct?

I thought I read somewhere on here once that only Royal Asschers had 5P, that it was part of the patented cut or something, but I may be mistaken.

 

[AV_]

I do not know precisely what the patent might say, or how enforceable it is...

 

[the_mother_thing]

@Matthews1127 I just read in another thread that you are a RA guru ... thoughts on my question above?

 

[Karl_K]

3c/5p is the RA patent.
If someone really wanted to fight it. It would not likely hold up.
Its just about expired it it hasn't already anyway.

 

[Matthews1127]

3c/5p is the RA patent.
If someone really wanted to fight it. It would not likely hold up.
Its just about expired it it hasn't already anyway.

This is my understanding. Considering the year this cut was patented, I’d say this is accurate.
I have, personally, not come across any “generic” Asschers that had 5P, 3C facets quite like that of the Patented Royal Asschers, but to find them IRL is not common....
So, my experience, I’m certain, is quite limited.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Thoughts? I don’t know how many facets a RA is supposed to have. I count 65 on this one.

 

[Karl_K]

ra = 1 table + (3x8 ) crown + 8 girdle + (5x8 ) pavilion with an optional culet.

 

[Karl_K]

This is my understanding. Considering the year this cut was patented, I’d say this is accurate.
I have, personally, not come across any “generic” Asschers that had 5P, 3C facets quite like that of the Patented Royal Asschers, but to find them IRL is not common....
So, my experience, I’m certain, is quite limited.

There is no advantage to cutting 3c/5p for the cutter and they have higher cutting costs so there is little incentive to cut them without the branding.

 

[the_mother_thing]

ra = 1 table + (3x8 ) crown + 8 girdle + (5x8 ) pavilion with an optional culet.

Ahhh, I counted the table but I did not count the girdle on that wire diagram.

So counting the girdle, this one would appear to have 73 facets. But there is no reference to an inscription on the diamond, per the GIA report.

Pic:

 

[OoohShiny]

Smaller table changes the balance towards more med and small virtual facets - more flashes.
Higher crown changes the balance somewhat but the biggest change is the rate of the flashes.
Higher crown flashes faster.

Its the shape, they are large(long) one way and medium the other.
Its more exaggerated in an EC.
The virtual facets are very large the way of the red arrow, the virtual facet is medium between the green arrows.
This is why flipping an EC end over end tells you little because it acts like a very large facet and it has a totally different look when rotated across the med direction,

Hi Karl,

Sorry for the slow reply on this - I was hoping it was going to sink into my subconscious and make sense, but it still hasn't done so lol

I guess I am just confused because in the image, the red arrow and the green arrows appear to be showing exactly the same facet on opposite sides of the stone, so how can one be a large virtual facet and the other be a medium??!?