ccuheartnurse|1412648681|3763415 said:Edited to add: I probably should read the thread Deb was referring to. LOL
lambskin|1412650215|3763425 said:But the Octavia...now that is progress!
Because MRBs are a dime a dozen. As I like to say over in CS, you can figure out the stats you want, go to a diamond site and odds are, you can find a stone, or MANY that fit your criteria. If you widen your requirements, even more diamonds come up. MRBs just aren't that rare. Even ideal cut MRBs are far more plentiful than antique cut stones, just in general.Marigold3|1412656262|3763455 said:I also am usually a lurker, but wanted to post a question. It seems that most posters agree that cut is king. Yet why are old cuts described as "wonky" yet having charm and personality accepted more than modern rounds which fall out of the acceptable HCA scores? I personally sense a bias on the forum that if an old cut has less than ideal light return (excluding modern old cuts like the august vintage line) it is ok, but posters generally say "don't buy" if it is a modern round with less than ideal light return.
You will not see the black star under most lighting condition..lambskin|1412650215|3763425 said:My love for vintage diamonds is sudden. I never really paid attention to old cuts until I found this forum. I am very traditional in my tastes and my recent fascination with older diamonds and new AVC diamonds frankly surprises me. I find the unique facet patterns beautiful-so different than the modern rounds. But an off color diamond is not desirable to me so if there is a hint of color, vintage or not, it is not for me. Also I hate,hate rose cuts. In a recent post I actually felt afraid to admit that I did not like the H&A cut. I just see a black star. Also, I am not a fan of the Crisscut diamonds-just too many facets despite the great light performance. But the Octavia...now that is progress! I do not know if it is marketing,hype, the economy, or supply( or all three) but If the diamond is pretty so be it.
Marigold3|1412656262|3763455 said:I also am usually a lurker, but wanted to post a question. It seems that most posters agree that cut is king. Yet why are old cuts described as "wonky" yet having charm and personality accepted more than modern rounds which fall out of the acceptable HCA scores? I personally sense a bias on the forum that if an old cut has less than ideal light return (excluding modern old cuts like the august vintage line) it is ok, but posters generally say "don't buy" if it is a modern round with less than ideal light return.
AGBF|1412687935|3763567 said:Because now light return is not important anymore. First it was crucial. Now it doesn't matter. Creamy diamonds with facets and charm are fine. That seems to be what I am hearing. I don't care what anyone likes, but I don't want to hear from the experts first that ideal diamonds don't leak light and then that they can leak light. Look back at the posting by ccuheartnurse.
Deb/AGBF
AGBF|1412687935|3763567 said:Marigold3|1412656262|3763455 said:I also am usually a lurker, but wanted to post a question. It seems that most posters agree that cut is king. Yet why are old cuts described as "wonky" yet having charm and personality accepted more than modern rounds which fall out of the acceptable HCA scores? I personally sense a bias on the forum that if an old cut has less than ideal light return (excluding modern old cuts like the august vintage line) it is ok, but posters generally say "don't buy" if it is a modern round with less than ideal light return.
Because now light return is not important anymore. First it was crucial. Now it doesn't matter. Creamy diamonds with facets and charm are fine. That seems to be what I am hearing. I don't care what anyone likes, but I don't want to hear from the experts first that ideal diamonds don't leak light and then that they can leak light. Look back at the posting by ccuheartnurse.
Deb/AGBF
AGBF|1412687935|3763567 said:Marigold3|1412656262|3763455 said:I also am usually a lurker, but wanted to post a question. It seems that most posters agree that cut is king. Yet why are old cuts described as "wonky" yet having charm and personality accepted more than modern rounds which fall out of the acceptable HCA scores? I personally sense a bias on the forum that if an old cut has less than ideal light return (excluding modern old cuts like the august vintage line) it is ok, but posters generally say "don't buy" if it is a modern round with less than ideal light return.
Because now light return is not important anymore. First it was crucial. Now it doesn't matter. Creamy diamonds with facets and charm are fine. That seems to be what I am hearing. I don't care what anyone likes, but I don't want to hear from the experts first that ideal diamonds don't leak light and then that they can leak light. Look back at the posting by ccuheartnurse.
Deb/AGBF
Karl_K|1412694944|3763623 said:I had Andrey edit my name in your post above, I don't like my full name on public boards, I am a little paranoid.
AGBF|1412602349|3762881 said:As you can tell from my choice of title for this thread, I am not impartial about the the sudden popularity of vintage diamonds. Dancing Fire started a thread recently asking why anyone would want a rose cut diamond since it didn't sparkle, but I am referring to all the so-called "vintage" cuts sweeping Pricescope with their popularity.
I just visited one website that discussed single cuts, rose cuts, Old Mine Cuts, and Old European Cuts, describing all the differences in the way the diamonds were cut. Then the site-predictably-called the round brilliant, the "modern round brilliant" as if it were only one of many equal round cuts, no better or worse than the Old Mine Cut or the Old European Cut- and not the only cut we have been calling the round brilliant for decades, the only round cut currently graded by GIA and AGS (i.e. the reputable diamond labs).
Must I remind all of you of the past decade in which we all ogled the Firescope, the Holloway Cut Advisor, the Brilliancescope, and every other possible device known to mankind in order to discern how to measure light return? The things about which men buying engagement rings obsessed were fire, brilliance, and how to keep even one iota of light from being lost from the sparkle of the diamond they chose! And now none of that matters? After the millions of dollars spent on learning how best to measure light return and cut for ideal light return? Are you kidding me? Now everyone wants a yellow diamond that could have been cut 100 years ago?
Karl called it. It's all about the rise in diamonds prices. Due to the rise in diamond prices, people cannot afford large, high color, well cut diamonds, but they still want large diamonds. So the industry is selling them large, low color diamonds in an affordable form. And telling them that these diamonds are actually better! Yes, better!
And no one is shouting that the emperor has no clothes!
Gypsy is right. If you like naked emperors, go watch one parade in the street. That is your right. But you should know that the diamond industry spent tons of money perfecting the best cut for light return. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry now has its own branded ideal cut diamond. So why, other than to boost diamond sales and accrue more wealth, would diamond merchants suddenly start pushing diamonds with no light return? You should, at least, know that their sudden interest in vintage cut runs counter to everything they have touted in the past ten years or more!
Deb/AGBF
Karl_K|1412694944|3763623 said:Deb, cut research evolves we know a lot more about diamond cut now and how it interacts with human vision and have a long way to go before we have a solid understanding of it.
One of the things that has been evolving is an understanding of the 2 eyed view of diamonds.
IS and ASET evaluate the one eye view of diamonds which is not how most people view diamonds.
It has also been found that the 8* style painted diamonds the impact on scintillation far outweigh the any positive effects of a solid red IS image.
Deb your not stupid at all your one of the smartest people I know.AGBF|1412696997|3763646 said:Karl_K|1412694944|3763623 said:I had Andrey edit my name in your post above, I don't like my full name on public boards, I am a little paranoid.
Thank you for taking care of this, Karl. I am so sorry! I never even noticed that you didn't use your full name on the Internet! I would have assumed, had it ever come to that point, that being in the trade and being a designer, that you would use your full name and want it known. However, it never came even close to point of assumption ("making an a** out of u and me" and all that). I had seen you go from Storm to KarlK and was sure you were using the full name.
You know how stupid I can be. Please accept my apologies.
Deb
Laila619|1412703480|3763715 said:This will sound blunt, but why does it matter to you if some people like and want to buy vintage diamonds?
diamondseeker2006|1412691934|3763599 said:Deb, I think I am not understanding. Jonathan at Good Old Gold sells newly cut antique style stones WITH ideal light performance. He has an idealscope image, etc. for every stone. He also sells some true antique stones and provides idealscope or ASET for those. He specializes in well cut stones and believes in complete disclosure. Victor Canera is also selling ideal cut old style cuts. Those are the only two PS regulars that are having old style stones cut to ideal light performance.
The places most PSers are buying antique stones are ebay, Old World Diamonds, Jewels by Grace, and Love Affair Diamonds. None of those ever specialized in selling ideal cut stones or mrb's, although you may find a few on consignment at the latter two.
So I am not really seeing that any vendors have changed their focus. Can you clarify? I thought you meant that PS members have changed focus. I will agree with that. As I said before, some people here have gorgeous antique stones that were well cut. I don't buy into the wonky thing at all because you can find outstanding antique cut stones such as the one I posted from RandG and ForteKitty's etc. (there are many but I would leave someone out and that is why I am not attempting to name them all!). But I think there are a lot of stones that end up on Pre-loved because people bought a less than great one and end up dissatisfied (and some of those remain for sale for a long time). As FK has said, she found her holy grail diamond and will never sell it because she'd never find a better one (not to mention it was an incredible deal!). If I ever run across a stone like hers, you'd better believe I'll buy it if the price is right. But I will never sacrifice cut quality because fine antique stones are out there! (Oh, and Yenny's oval OMC was originally in a Tiffany ring. It is a gorgeous stone, too!)
cflutist|1412653821|3763446 said:I don't know much about vintage cuts, but what I'm wondering is it the allure of the faceting pattern and/or a combination of that AND the fact many are "warmer" colors allowing one to buy a larger diamond? If it is the faceting pattern that they love, has anyone bought a vintage cut graded say D-VVS2 that was cut from type IIa rough?
AGBF|1412708106|3763761 said:Laila619|1412703480|3763715 said:This will sound blunt, but why does it matter to you if some people like and want to buy vintage diamonds?
Actually, it doesn't sound blunt. It sounds hostile.
Deb/AGBF
Laila619|1412713094|3763818 said:AGBF|1412708106|3763761 said:Laila619|1412703480|3763715 said:This will sound blunt, but why does it matter to you if some people like and want to buy vintage diamonds?
Actually, it doesn't sound blunt. It sounds hostile.
Sorry you feel that way. It's an honest question since you started the topic. And you did imply that people are blind to the emperor not wearing any clothes, etc.
There are a lot of beautiful antique diamonds with lovely light return. They are by no means inferior diamonds.