WHY do people want whiter diamonds?

[diamondseeker2006]

Hey, Alj! My statement really wasn't directed at you so much as a collection of posts on the thread on the topic of newly cut OEC's. I don't think we are so much in disagreement as we are in different circumstances. I can appreciate getting to go to Ruth's Chris because they have MUCH better food than my local restaurants! But I hear ya on the really special restaurants, too! I can't easily access top cut quality antique stones (or even top quality round brilliants, for that matter) here! And doing an antique stone search long distance is not for me. I haven't seen a lot of great OEC's in person because they are hard to find. I've seen Bright Ice's and Forte Kitty's and they were gorgeous and I'd love to have them! Oh, and Yenny's oval ring is one of my favorites ever (and her 3 stone!)! I think her diamond is an antique Tiffany stone, in fact. So I love finely cut old OEC's and antique cushions, too, but I appreciate fine hand cut stones by masters like Yoram as well! Likewise, I may set my diamond in something like a Van Craeynest setting which is made now, but with the original design,dies, and tools created 100 years ago. But a craftsman of today will be doing the fine carving and handwork on the setting, and I will have a setting true to the time period of the diamond. In 100 years, it will be an antique, too, and I think it will be valued then for it's fine craftsmanship. Only my heirs will know for sure!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Little interesting update Julie, DS, Arkie ...

I brought up that 1.2ct G VS2 today. My nephew Matt told me he thought the slightly whiter face up appearance was due to the medium blue fluorescence which in fact it does have. Matt, my son, daughter, etc. have eyes like eagles and unless I have my reading glasses on I pale in comparison. I told him ok ... duly noted but if we are going to put any notes like that on our website we at least have to state *why* we say this and/or demonstrate why too ... otherwise it merely sounds like a sales pitch. In any case my curiosity did get the best of me and I grabbed the diamond to run a colorimeter test on it (I ran two) and this was the worst results of the two exams.

Ha! I was right! Maybe I need to take a look at it again. As you know, I really like diamonds that have the potential to jump a color grade!

 

[aljdewey]

Hey, Alj! My statement really wasn't directed at you so much as a collection of posts on the thread on the topic of newly cut OEC's. I don't think we are so much in disagreement as we are in different circumstances. I can appreciate getting to go to Ruth's Chris because they have MUCH better food than my local restaurants! But I hear ya on the really special restaurants, too! I can't easily access top cut quality antique stones (or even top quality round brilliants, for that matter) here! And doing an antique stone search long distance is not for me. I haven't seen a lot of great OEC's in person because they are hard to find. I've seen Bright Ice's and Forte Kitty's and they were gorgeous and I'd love to have them! Oh, and Yenny's oval ring is one of my favorites ever (and her 3 stone!)! I think her diamond is an antique Tiffany stone, in fact. So I love finely cut old OEC's and antique cushions, too, but I appreciate fine hand cut stones by masters like Yoram as well! Likewise, I may set my diamond in something like a Van Craeynest setting which is made now, but with the original design,dies, and tools created 100 years ago. But a craftsman of today will be doing the fine carving and handwork on the setting, and I will have a setting true to the time period of the diamond. In 100 years, it will be an antique, too, and I think it will be valued then for it's fine craftsmanship. Only my heirs will know for sure!

DS, I hear you, and I didn't think at all that your comments were directed "at" me. We have way too much great history together for me to worry about that! Like I said, I'm a Ruth's Chris fan too, and there are times when I'm craving one of the things they do so well. It's very unlikely that I'll go there and be disappointed with what I get since the adherence to standard is so strong, but it's also less likely I'll go in and be completely blown away by something way beyond what I expected either.

I do think difference circumstances come into play too, which is why I wanted to offer an alternate viewpoint. Dabbling in colored stones, and then coming to seriously love them, really challenged me to understand how to redefine priorities based on the material. In CS, cut isn't king - color is king, and learning to think differently was like trying to ride a new kind of bicycle. In a perfect world, it would be awesome if all CS material was top-cut as well, but much of it is cut much closer to the supply source where cut isn't the top priority. It challenged me to look at many dimensions to look for beauty, and that's what I'm trying to convey.

Some people will place the highest priority on 'performance' (in whatever they think that means to them); and others might find the more nuanced elements are more important to them. I just wanted to share that there is so much more to love about nicely cut OECs than just how old they are, that's all.

 

[Smith1942]

I know it's probably inconceivable around these parts, and perhaps even moreso coming from me (a former disciple of precision cut), but I emphatically feel that the 'charm' of OECs is about more than just their history/age.

While I can still appreciate the beauty that goes into a top-cut stone, I'm sorry to say that I find them boring overall now. They just feel formulaic and cookie cutter to me now - not horribly distinctive and not nearly as pleasing to my eye as the lovely facet arrangement of a nicely cut OEC. I tend to think of ideal MRBs now like paint-by-numbers paintings; follow the recipe and you'll get a reasonably predictable and repeatable result.

OECs, on the other hand, feel like freehand paintings where beauty lies directly in the heart of the quirkiness; it's exactly why they are beautiful and charming. They feel much more whimsical and unique to me than ideal stones do, and the proof is in trying to match two OECs for earrings. It's pretty easy to match two ideal-cut MRBs, but far more challenging to match two OECs.

I think that's why I'm not a fan of the imitation OEC-flavor stones being cut today; it's less about the lack of history and much more about the lack of quirk. The very nature of having more precision strips the essence of the charm from them for me.

I guess I've morphed into a 'color outside the lines' type in my old(er) age. Who knew?

I can appreciate where you're coming from Alj. BTW good to see you around. As one who has once served the PS community you know as well as I do though that many people wanting to get engaged do not want to leave their hard earned dollars to chance and perhaps even a diamond that scores greater than a 10 in light performance for something their wife will look down upon for the rest of her life.

You see … when you first started participating on these boards Hearts & Arrows Ideal Cuts *were not the norm* as compared to most of the modern round brilliant cut diamonds being cut. You and I as well as the other old timers here witnessed the evolution of cut grading in America's two most conservative labs. Even today H&A are still not the norm but there are more AGS Ideal cuts and even GIA Ex's that aren't necessarily H&A which are virtually indistinguishable from H&A that we can say you've seen one … you've seen em all so to speak. That's why I get where you're coming from. It's also why I like to personally think outside of the box myself and feature as much variety of diamonds in ideal optics.

You see though … as DS expressed below, even though brands of other facet structures and optics like Star129, Leo, Solasfera, etc. may have predictable optics within that brand it is still not so "cookie cutter" when you look at the bigger picture of diamonds on the world market and outside of the tiny microcosm that is Pricescope because among consumers walking around today just in your home town … how many actually have a Solasfera on their hand? An AVR? A CrissCut? Etc? Those diamonds that you are tending to call cookie cutter are in fact genuinely rare in the grand scheme of things no? At least that is the perspective I am looking at it from as I believe others like DS are as well. We will also introduce consumers in our store to natural OEC's and gladly show lineups side by side of whatever it is they want to compare. No arm twisting. Many consumers when observing these lineups actually see the AVR as the one notably "different" from the others and in a positive way. Bottom line is that we listen to what the end consumer wants and fill that need. That is and always will be the most important thing in the service to others IMO. Once again good seeing you on the boards and hope this finds you well Alj.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

Where did I suggest at all that most guys getting engaged should lean toward OECs, or to put their dollars at risk? I'm not even advocating to sway preference to OECs, to be honest. I'm merely sharing a reason why I find OECs more appealing that isn't the suggested reason offered in an earlier post.

As someone who finds OECs more appealing than MRBs, I felt it would resonate to share why I prefer them, and it's not just because they are antique. Their appeal to my eye has little to do with age and more to do with what I personally find beautiful.

DS, I'll stay away from noting a specific brand of OEC repros, but I will say that brands are generally about consistency with minimal variance margins, which is the opposite of individual and unique. I had no idea that there were so many cookie-haters on PS, but since some of you seem slighted by the notion of cookie cutter, I'll try a different way.

If I were a fan of dining at a high-end chain steakhouse like Morton's or Ruth's Chris, there is no doubt the food would be excellent.....and also likely much more elite fare than average. But it is still predictable, and it should be. The whole point of branding--of going to a "name--is knowing what you can expect to get with minimal variance from the standard. Is there some minor difference from location to location? Sure. Greatly appreciable to most? Probably not. For me, that's what ideal stones are like....substantially interchangeable with very little (and maybe even imperceptible) difference.

Following that analogy, OECs are like dining at single location chef-run restaurants. Some are average, and some are blow-your-mind amazing. I'm individually more of a blow-your-mind amazing restaurant patron. Sure, the food is good at the upscale chains, but the wonder of discovering something yummy and different is missing. For me personally, I find the non-chains more appealing overall.

Let me also say that I don't expect everyone to share my preference, any more than I share yours. Preferences aren't right or wrong; they just are. DS's preference leans more toward precision, and mine leans away from precision. Neither is right or wrong.

I think consumer psychology is fascinating, especially the dislike expressed by many for chain restaurants. Some consumers seek a more differentiated experience, or product, and that is what we see with the Pricescope community and the liking for individual antique stones in a range of cuts and warmer colours, as opposed to colourless/near colourless ideal MRBs.

This study published by the University of Chicago Press sums it up. It's called "Consumers' Need for Uniqueness."

"Consumers acquire and display material possessions for the purpose of feeling differentiated from other people and thus are targeted with a variety of marketing stimuli that attempt to enhance self-perceptions of uniqueness...A person driven by independence motivation adheres to internal tastes when making consumer choices...In contrast...consumer goods can be the intended outcome of a person that is driven by the need to feel different from other people....This need arises when individuals feel a threat to their identity, as occurs when they perceive they are highly similar to others."

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1086/321947?uid=3739696&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103117804721

People like to have things which are unique, and different, and not "the norm". I'm a complete PS misfit because I adore super-icy super-ideal MRBs, love a good chain restaurant and adore Blue Nile. I would give myself in marriage to the founder of Blue Nile, that's how much I love it, since Charles Tiffany isn't available. (I have no idea who founded it, I'd like to add!) But I can appreciate that some people have more eclectic tastes. I got no problem being a cookie cutter! But it's very interesting when you can see consumer behavioural psychology in action and I think that all the non-standard pearls over in the pearl forum, and the array of different antique cuts in widely varying tones here, help satisfy a deep human need for uniqueness, for something really different/special, and we can see that liking for non-standard products expressed in a community like Pricescope. In the book community, publishers issue limited editions of works which are out of copyright, with special and unique bindings, and each copy is numbered. This is also a great way of meeting consumer needs for differentiation.

And then there are consumers like me who love mainstream things, if they're good - the fact that it's mainstream doesn't turn me off. I love the chain restaurants (good ones, obviously, like Legal Seafoods in the Boston area) and I am quite willing to forgo the street cred associated with choosing a highly differentiated product! Just as long as no one takes away my super-ideal D-colour cookie diamonds, I'm happy as Larry.

I see what Rhino means when he says that what may seem like cookie cutter diamonds within the PS community are in fact quite rare back in the real world. Most people don't have super-ideal diamonds that are also high on the colour scale. On PS they seem cookie cutter, sure. But anyway, I just want the maximum sparkle, baby! Having viewed thousands and thousands of antique diamonds in the jewellery quarter over many years, they don't seem to sparkle like my ice cookies. That's why it was particularly interesting to me when Rhino said in this thread that people don't very often choose the old cuts when placed next to an MRB. It's a long, dense thread but I think that's what he said. So, it seems to me that PS is a highly differentiated community, which I think is fascinating from a consumer psychology perspective. I don't have really strong differentiation needs, so that's why I still love my cookie diamonds - however, I still observe the unique trends on PS with great interest, even if I don't take part in them.

 

[WinkHPD]

Wink, I just have to say that THIS is how I finally understood what you meant by "crispness". That it isn't so much the presence or absence of the artifact itself, more how sudden the shift from one artifact to another is - so a "crisp" shift in behaviour between two adjacent facets should be a step-function, not a smoothed curve. I don't think I really understood until I started buying OECs and was able to see some examples of "non-crispness" greatly exaggerated... and it must be one of those things that once you see, you can't unsee!
Seeing this explicitly stated like this does make a lot of sense.

Yssie, I am so glad this helped. Especially for a prolific and knowledgeable poster like yourself. I felt the same way when Paul shared it with me.

Have a great weekend.

Wink

 

[aljdewey]

Smith, I can't speak for anyone else, but for me personally, I don't "dislike" for chain restaurants at all - in fact, I mentioned to DS above that when I'm craving something that Ruth's Chris does really well, I'm delighted to go there. They just aren't my preference - kinda like ice cream. I like both chocolate and vanilla, but I definitely prefer vanilla (vanilla bean, actually). I also LOVE rum raisin.

Honestly, the reason that I prefer single-shop restaurants has nothing at all to do with feeling differentiated from others or some illusion of feeling unique; it's more because I crave variety. I don't want to have my choices limited to only that which the mainstream likes; I want to be able to have a wider choice of options.

My dad has a ridiculously limited palette; he's a real meat-and-potatoes guy, and corn is his favorite vegetable. Doesn't eat fish (other than haddock, which he's had to learn to like since heart issues). No shellfish. No lamb. No veal. Nothing like quinoa or couscous; no brussel sprouts or leeks. I think you see where I'm going with this - when my choices were mostly limited to what we had at home for dinner, there was not a ton of variety and I had no idea that I'd like some of the things we didn't eat at home so much!

When I go out to eat now, I generally prefer to try things that I haven't had before or that I don't often make at home myself. On a recent vacation, I tried elk. When I went to New Orleans, I tried alligator. In Houston, I tried turtle soup. I like the ability to try different things and be wowed by them. I had no idea that I'd like bison until hub and I found a bison joint about 30 min away. It's fantastic, and it would be so awesome for my dad to try because it's much leaner than beef. But Dad doesn't do variety, so no go.

I get easily bored. I like variety. One of my favorite things about going to NYC is having a great Cuban meal one night, a fabulous Vietnamese dish the next, and a top-shelf steak dinner the next.

 

[Smith1942]

Smith, I can't speak for anyone else, but for me personally, I don't "dislike" for chain restaurants at all - in fact, I mentioned to DS above that when I'm craving something that Ruth's Chris does really well, I'm delighted to go there. They just aren't my preference - kinda like ice cream. I like both chocolate and vanilla, but I definitely prefer vanilla (vanilla bean, actually). I also LOVE rum raisin.

Honestly, the reason that I prefer single-shop restaurants has nothing at all to do with feeling differentiated from others or some illusion of feeling unique; it's more because I crave variety. I don't want to have my choices limited to only that which the mainstream likes; I want to be able to have a wider choice of options.

My dad has a ridiculously limited palette; he's a real meat-and-potatoes guy, and corn is his favorite vegetable. Doesn't eat fish (other than haddock, which he's had to learn to like since heart issues). No shellfish. No lamb. No veal. Nothing like quinoa or couscous; no brussel sprouts or leeks. I think you see where I'm going with this - when my choices were mostly limited to what we had at home for dinner, there was not a ton of variety and I had no idea that I'd like some of the things we didn't eat at home so much!

When I go out to eat now, I generally prefer to try things that I haven't had before or that I don't often make at home myself. On a recent vacation, I tried elk. When I went to New Orleans, I tried alligator. In Houston, I tried turtle soup. I like the ability to try different things and be wowed by them. I had no idea that I'd like bison until hub and I found a bison joint about 30 min away. It's fantastic, and it would be so awesome for my dad to try because it's much leaner than beef. But Dad doesn't do variety, so no go.

I get easily bored. I like variety. One of my favorite things about going to NYC is having a great Cuban meal one night, a fabulous Vietnamese dish the next, and a top-shelf steak dinner the next.

That's very interesting about a liking for variety. Have you heard of the Myers Briggs personality type indicator? I'm a J, which means I don't like surprises, and having lots of different things to choose from is very unsettling and confusing to me, and quite stressful. On the other hand, P types love it when things are open-ended, spontaneous, etc and find having new experiences to be stimulating and not stressful.

If I find a meal that I like at a restaurant, I have it over and over. Basically, when I change, I don't enjoy it as much as the thing that I know I enjoy, and therefore the variety hasn't really served me well.

I've tried a variety of exotic food, but only because I was obliged to do so by foreign hosts, I wouldn't have tried it otherwise. The only thing I liked was reindeer. That is very interesting about bison being lean, I had no idea. Might have to try and get me a bison. Not because I want the variety, you understand - I just want to cut the fat. So I can have a cookie-cutter slim figure, ROFL!!!

Or maybe I'm just getting old, and set in my ways! I am sure that an openness to variety helps keep people young.

It's a good thing I don't want a variety of diamonds, because I'd go bankrupt!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Well, on the restaurant topic, when I travel, I almost never go to a chain if I can help it, because I remember my visits to the cities by the restaurants I ate at, believe it or not! I had buffalo in Denver at a restaurant in a hundred year old building! (But the steak at Ruth's Chris was still better! ) At home I am more like Smith, I have my favorites and we repeat them over and over!

You know I get what you're saying, Alj! I agree with you for the most part, but my unfortunate preference for good cut and color and clarity hinders my colored stone acquisitions as well!!!! I guess it's good since I don't have unlimited money, anyway!

We really have incredible access to a variety of everything in the age of the internet. It is mind-boggling, really!

 

[aljdewey]

Smith, I do know the Myers Briggs test and can say that I'm a dyed-in-the-wool J. That's why I'm a firm believer that nature is only part of the equation and that nurture plays pretty heavily into the mix, too.

I have disliked given foods for years, but kept trying them over and over again because I did discover that my tastes do change. I think what drives me to continue trying things I didn't previously like is the desire for variety and an acknowledgement that perhaps my palette just wasn't yet developed enough to appreciate a given food. I grew up where lobster is THE cash crop, and yet I did not like it. Tried it over and over throughout the years and finally did develop a taste for it around 35. Now, lobster (salad) rolls are among my favorite summer treats.

 

[JulieN]

Very interesting. I find that the first time I have something really good, that is it. I can order the same dish from the same restaurant a month later or years later, and it will never be as good as I feel it to be the first time. Is it possible I tend towards P?

 

[Smith1942]

Very interesting. I find that the first time I have something really good, that is it. I can order the same dish from the same restaurant a month later or years later, and it will never be as good as I feel it to be the first time. Is it possible I tend towards P?

Nothing as good as the first time? Nope, sorry, that's not a P thing. It means you're a thrill-seeker, probably destined to end up at the Hotel California. Sorry, baby. Meetcha at the bar in Key Largo 20 years from now?

 

[Smith1942]

Smith, I do know the Myers Briggs test and can say that I'm a dyed-in-the-wool J. That's why I'm a firm believer that nature is only part of the equation and that nurture plays pretty heavily into the mix, too.

I have disliked given foods for years, but kept trying them over and over again because I did discover that my tastes do change. I think what drives me to continue trying things I didn't previously like is the desire for variety and an acknowledgement that perhaps my palette just wasn't yet developed enough to appreciate a given food. I grew up where lobster is THE cash crop, and yet I did not like it. Tried it over and over throughout the years and finally did develop a taste for it around 35. Now, lobster (salad) rolls are among my favorite summer treats.

This is all ost interssant. Sadly I've just had a six-hour dinner at my local pub and am in no sdtate. Can baerly type straight. Until tomorrow....

 

[JulieN]

Nothing as good as the first time? Nope, sorry, that's not a P thing. It means you're a thrill-seeker, probably destined to end up at the Hotel California. Sorry, baby. Meetcha at the bar in Key Largo 20 years from now?

Just realized that love has never been as good as the first time for me, either. Hotel California, indeed.

 

[ericad]

These analogies are great! When I think "cookie-cutter" I don't think of it as meaning common or regular, because as we know, top-tier (by current standards) MRB's or reproduction old-style cuts are rare in the real world, off of PS. I think of it as meaning predictable and repeatable, just as Alj described using her restaurant analogy.

Imagine trying to find an OEC or OMC (antique) pair to use as side stones in a ring. VERY DIFFICULT, right? Now imagine trying to find an AVC or AVR pair for use as side stones. Relatively easy due to the consistency and similarity in cut between stones. It's not a value judgment - but the fact remains that some people want authentic antiques for the rarity and uniqueness they offer, while others want the reproduction, with the accompanying bells and whistles that come with it. And then, even within the antique lovers group, there's an astounding variety in personal preferences. Some love rose cuts, or wonky OMC's, while others are seeking the tightest cut OEC or Tranny they can find.

When I think of old cuts versus new, I think of that episode of Friends about the Pottery Barn Apothecary table, lol. I'm definitely a Phoebe in every way - give me the irreplaceable, one of a kind old table with the patina'd hardware and wear and tear of a century of use any day of the week. But there are plenty of Ross's and Rachels in the world too, and they prefer the modern table, with slick drawer glides and remote control caddy on the side. One isn't better than the other. There's no right or wrong.

I generally find that a buyer who wants an old cut won't like a newly cut reproduction, and a buyer who wants precision will never be satisfied with a genuine antique. I've never disparaged the reproduction cuts, because it's not my place to make a value judgment about what someone else loves, even if it's not my personal cup of tea. We have our niche, and other vendors have theirs, and as long as we are all turning out happy and satisfied customers, while treating each other and consumers with respect, then all's good.

 

[Smith1942]

Nothing as good as the first time? Nope, sorry, that's not a P thing. It means you're a thrill-seeker, probably destined to end up at the Hotel California. Sorry, baby. Meetcha at the bar in Key Largo 20 years from now?

Just realized that love has never been as good as the first time for me, either. Hotel California, indeed.

Ah, you never forget your first love! So sweet.

 

[Smith1942]

These analogies are great! When I think "cookie-cutter" I don't think of it as meaning common or regular, because as we know, top-tier (by current standards) MRB's or reproduction old-style cuts are rare in the real world, off of PS. I think of it as meaning predictable and repeatable, just as Alj described using her restaurant analogy.

Imagine trying to find an OEC or OMC (antique) pair to use as side stones in a ring. VERY DIFFICULT, right? Now imagine trying to find an AVC or AVR pair for use as side stones. Relatively easy due to the consistency and similarity in cut between stones. It's not a value judgment - but the fact remains that some people want authentic antiques for the rarity and uniqueness they offer, while others want the reproduction, with the accompanying bells and whistles that come with it.

When I think of old cuts versus new, I think of that episode of Friends about the Pottery Barn Apothecary table, lol. I'm definitely a Phoebe in every way - give me the irreplaceable, one of a kind old table with the patina'd hardware and wear and tear of a century of use any day of the week. But there are plenty of Ross's and Rachels in the world too, and they prefer the modern table, with slick drawer glides and remote control caddy on the side. One isn't better than the other. There's no right or wrong.

I generally find that a buyer who wants an old cut won't like a newly cut reproduction, and a buyer who wants precision will never be satisfied with a genuine antique. I've never disparaged the reproduction cuts, because it's not my place to make a value judgment about what someone else loves, even if it's not my personal cup of tea. We have our niche, and other vendors have theirs, and as long as we are all turning out happy and satisfied customers, while treating each other and consumers with respect, then all's good.

YES - I love that episode too! I'm Rachel - love Pottery Barn! I wouldn't want the old table because it looks beat-up and hard-up to me. I've lived in a few old houses and although it sounds great, it's not. No matter how much you scrub them, they never look clean, because they've got the dirt of ages rubbed into every nook and cranny, and it doesn't look charming, it just looks ew. Then I moved to a new-build flat and it was so clean, so warm, so light - maybe it was a cookie cutter flat, but I was so happy to be somewhere that looked clean and had clean lines. And don't get me started on the vintage clothing movement.

Rhino and I were talking earlier up the thread about industries which try to pass off something ordinary as something extraordinary, and the vintage clothing trend must be the best example. I'm not talking about masterpieces that hang in museums, or about original Dior New Look dresses. That kind of thing IS special. I'm talking about the "vintage" clothing shops near me that basically sell the kind of clothes which, 20-30 years ago, you'd find for 10p at a church jumble sale. Now, because of this vintage clothing movement, they're priced many times that and made out to be something special, when really they're just someone else's worn, torn, smelly old clothes complete with pit stains. I have no idea why anybody would buy someone else's old clothes for much more money than you could get nice new ones. Quite apart from anything else, it could be unhygienic.

At least antique diamonds are still gorgeous and still look as good as the day they were cut, (assuming no one's really knocked them about.)

But clothing? And furniture can easily have woodworm. I once went to a flea market to try to score some bargains. I opened this bedside cabinet and inside was a chamber pot - complete with strong whiff of urine! I never, ever went to a flea market again. Ikea is my flea market!

I think that wherever you go, there is often a prevailing attitude that if something is old, that must be a good thing, and I definitely don't think that. I worked with a girl who said she could never, ever live in a new house. The idea was anathema to her. I guess she'll spend a lot of spare money and leisure time patching it up throughout her lifetime, then! And, we have some family friends who recently bought a venerable old house in a picturesque village........and promptly knocked it down. It was called Long Trees and they even cut the trees down to make way for the new house! My dad was like, "Oh, I guess you'll have to call it Short Trees from now on!" Everyone's upset about the loss of this house, but I think it was a good thing. The old house was completely inefficient and would have cost more to fix up than building a new house. The new house is extremely eco-efficient and uses a minimum of energy, whereas the old house gobbled fuel.

So, I really like new things where the new is an improvement on the old. I don't fit in back in my home country, where the old is worshipped, as are all things traditional, no matter how bizarre (and having a royal family is completely bizarre in this day and age.)

Still, Erica, I'll say one thing for the "royal" family. They have some truly amazing antique diamonds! You would love the new Jewel House at the Tower of London, if you haven't already seen the diamonds. When the Revolution comes, you can do a Tiffany and buy some of them to sell!

 

[ericad]

My favorite place on earth is Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. A piece of my soul dies every time I see an old gargoyle that has fallen off the side to crumbles on the ground. There are some that would love to tear it down and build something shiny and new in its place. Thank Goddess the French have been working to restore and preserve it.

Channeling my inner Kenny - we all vary. There's room in the world for everyone.

 

[Smith1942]

Yeah, I'd knock that old pile of stones down. Make room for a nice new highway!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I spent 8 weeks in France once-upon-a-time and would be horrified for any historic building to be torn down! I would be horrified for any fairly decent OEC to be recut, too. POOR cuts of any age benefit from some rehab, in my opinion. I had a family rb recut because it was just too poorly cut compared to my other stones but nice material at H VS. Similarly, I hope they keep Notre Dame in very good condition rather than letting it fall apart!

I agree with Erica that there is something for everyone and we all have preferences regarding every material thing in life. That is good or we'd all be bored! I do have a different viewpoint on one thing, though. I think finding AVR pairs is even harder than OEC pairs because there are so few of them, and they generally do not purposely cut matched pairs since they are cutting whatever the rough dictates. I have looked for a pair of AVR's for years and have never found a matched pair in the size and color range I wanted. Maybe someday!

 

[Smith1942]

I agree that a re-cut can be a wonderful thing for stones that are really poorly cut in the first place. It can give them a wonderful new lease of life, and sometimes you don't even have to lose that much weight. That's definitely my kind of recycling!

And people shouldn't vary! They've got no business varying!

 

[Smith1942]

I spent 8 weeks in France once-upon-a-time and would be horrified for any historic building to be torn down! I would be horrified for any fairly decent OEC to be recut, too. POOR cuts of any age benefit from some rehab, in my opinion. I had a family rb recut because it was just too poorly cut compared to my other stones but nice material at H VS. Similarly, I hope they keep Notre Dame in very good condition rather than letting it fall apart!

I agree with Erica that there is something for everyone and we all have preferences regarding every material thing in life. That is good or we'd all be bored! I do have a different viewpoint on one thing, though. I think finding AVR pairs is even harder than OEC pairs because there are so few of them, and they generally do not purposely cut matched pairs since they are cutting whatever the rough dictates. I have looked for a pair of AVR's for years and have never found a matched pair in the size and color range I wanted. Maybe someday!

But this is good - it means that you have a quest!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I spent 8 weeks in France once-upon-a-time and would be horrified for any historic building to be torn down! I would be horrified for any fairly decent OEC to be recut, too. POOR cuts of any age benefit from some rehab, in my opinion. I had a family rb recut because it was just too poorly cut compared to my other stones but nice material at H VS. Similarly, I hope they keep Notre Dame in very good condition rather than letting it fall apart!

I agree with Erica that there is something for everyone and we all have preferences regarding every material thing in life. That is good or we'd all be bored! I do have a different viewpoint on one thing, though. I think finding AVR pairs is even harder than OEC pairs because there are so few of them, and they generally do not purposely cut matched pairs since they are cutting whatever the rough dictates. I have looked for a pair of AVR's for years and have never found a matched pair in the size and color range I wanted. Maybe someday!

But this is good - it means that you have a quest!

Yes, I am afraid there is a list...and endless quest!!!!

 

[Rhino]

These analogies are great! When I think "cookie-cutter" I don't think of it as meaning common or regular, because as we know, top-tier (by current standards) MRB's or reproduction old-style cuts are rare in the real world, off of PS. I think of it as meaning predictable and repeatable, just as Alj described using her restaurant analogy.

Imagine trying to find an OEC or OMC (antique) pair to use as side stones in a ring. VERY DIFFICULT, right? Now imagine trying to find an AVC or AVR pair for use as side stones. Relatively easy due to the consistency and similarity in cut between stones. It's not a value judgment - but the fact remains that some people want authentic antiques for the rarity and uniqueness they offer, while others want the reproduction, with the accompanying bells and whistles that come with it. And then, even within the antique lovers group, there's an astounding variety in personal preferences. Some love rose cuts, or wonky OMC's, while others are seeking the tightest cut OEC or Tranny they can find.

When I think of old cuts versus new, I think of that episode of Friends about the Pottery Barn Apothecary table, lol. I'm definitely a Phoebe in every way - give me the irreplaceable, one of a kind old table with the patina'd hardware and wear and tear of a century of use any day of the week. But there are plenty of Ross's and Rachels in the world too, and they prefer the modern table, with slick drawer glides and remote control caddy on the side. One isn't better than the other. There's no right or wrong.

I generally find that a buyer who wants an old cut won't like a newly cut reproduction, and a buyer who wants precision will never be satisfied with a genuine antique. I've never disparaged the reproduction cuts, because it's not my place to make a value judgment about what someone else loves, even if it's not my personal cup of tea. We have our niche, and other vendors have theirs, and as long as we are all turning out happy and satisfied customers, while treating each other and consumers with respect, then all's good.

Amen to this and then there are those who actually like both. I would fall in this camp because I'm not necessarily an either/or kinda guy. The only differences we really have perhaps is where we draw the line in OEC's, if that is even the case.

Interestingly last night I was helping a client in the store that reminded me of this conversation and the point I was trying to drive home in my initial response to this conversation.

A young man came in last night to have a pair of earrings appraised that he had just purchased in the city from “an inside connection”. No refund policy of course. He had also expressed to us that he would shortly be in the market for an engagement ring and would be looking for round brilliant cuts, GIA Ex, 1.5xct, G VS2 and has learned *all he possibly could about diamonds* before this purchase. He told us that at the places he was shopping he was noticing notable price differences as well as differences in “brilliance” between the diamonds he was looking at in the many places he had visited so far.

After confirming he had enough time for a short presentation we showed him a popular online site (perhaps in line with a “chain store” analogy) and performed a very narrow query which pulled up no less than 44 results with values varying by a little over 5k from the least expensive to the most!

We then proceeded with our presentation on cut so he could better understand. We showed him rounds that covered the scale from GIA Good up to Hearts & Arrows as well as including some of the “Premiums” we feature that are visually indistinguishable from H&A as well and laid out the options before him.

His personal conclusion was that he loved most the cookie cutter Hearts & Arrows, even with its slightly more expensive price because of its beauty, precision, rarity and uniqueness in cutting.

You see … I don’t disagree with anything stated in these posts. I am not even offended by the use of the term “cookie cutter” and I agree that a brand should have predictable results. In my personal opinion the worst brands are those you’d have to cherry pick among for their optics and I know quite a few that are like this. If a “brand” is going to be a brand based on cut, then its optics should not be radically different from one diamond to the next.

The point I was attempting to make is that what one considers “boring” is that there is a rather large segment of society who think the exact opposite and perhaps if you suggested to them their diamonds are in fact boring may solicit the types of responses as DS and myself initially did because to us and many others their beauty, precision, rarity and uniqueness we love and enjoy in these diamonds daily are anything but boring.

I just say let’s celebrate these diversities of opinion, not force or put down others for their preferences and the fact that none of us are limited in our choices. That’s all.

Kindest regards,
Jonathan

 

[bgray]

psychology. prestige. aesthetics. i dont think that there is really one reason. if one is looking for a stone and must "compromise" on color and clarity to stay within budget to get to the desired size then that implies that lower color and clarity are inferior. most people are looking for a certain size (carats)in the desired shape based on budget as the driving force. you never hear i want a D flawless stone I dont care what size it is. is there anyone that wouldnt take a D over a J if there was no price difference or budgetary constraints, all other things being equal?

 

[PetraGems]

90-95% diamonds don't qualify as gem quality stones. The other 5% are gems stones and their prices are determined by their 4 Cs. Color as being one. In white diamonds (not colored stones), color is an important factor. The whiter (the prettier), the more expensive. It is doesn't affect the light performance. It is a matter of preference. People tend to like whiter stones. If the criteria was to be 'the more yellowish, the better', people would be collecting yellow stones. I personally think white stones are much prettier than tinted ones.... I'd comfortably go for an SI2 D-G vs K-l-M Flawless!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

psychology. prestige. aesthetics. i dont think that there is really one reason. if one is looking for a stone and must "compromise" on color and clarity to stay within budget to get to the desired size then that implies that lower color and clarity are inferior. most people are looking for a certain size (carats)in the desired shape based on budget as the driving force. you never hear i want a D flawless stone I dont care what size it is. is there anyone that wouldnt take a D over a J if there was no price difference or budgetary constraints, all other things being equal?

Totally agree that the driving force for lower colors is price. If there were twin stones of G color and M color, I do believe the vast majority would choose the G. But when the choice is a 1 ct D-G versus a 2 ct K-l-M, some people will go to the low color because they prioritize size over color. I have a limit on color and clarity and go for the largest I can get within those limits. I could have a 3 ct stone just by going down a color and clarity grade, but I won't.

 

[aljdewey]

Jon, I agree that people's tastes do vary.

That's why I was exceptionally careful to say that MRBs are boring to me, and not "MRBs are boring." I was careful to say they don't appeal to me, and not "they aren't appealing".

The fact that I like something or don't care for something is a singular opinion, not a put-down of others' preferences, and I was incredibly careful to make that distinction. It's a shame that you still missed it, but I'm glad most people got what I meant.

 

[yssie]

psychology. prestige. aesthetics. i dont think that there is really one reason. if one is looking for a stone and must "compromise" on color and clarity to stay within budget to get to the desired size then that implies that lower color and clarity are inferior. most people are looking for a certain size (carats)in the desired shape based on budget as the driving force. you never hear i want a D flawless stone I dont care what size it is. is there anyone that wouldnt take a D over a J if there was no price difference or budgetary constraints, all other things being equal?

Well... yes, there are people who would do exactly that.
I would.
Circe would.
Certainly the majority would agree that most settle for lower colours than they'd ideally prefer due to monetary constraints, but "most" is most certainly not "all". Some of us just genuinely prefer lower colours for aesthetic reasons, believe it or not!
Cue Kenny - people vary!

 

[Circe]

...

YES - I love that episode too! I'm Rachel - love Pottery Barn! I wouldn't want the old table because it looks beat-up and hard-up to me. I've lived in a few old houses and although it sounds great, it's not. No matter how much you scrub them, they never look clean, because they've got the dirt of ages rubbed into every nook and cranny, and it doesn't look charming, it just looks ew. Then I moved to a new-build flat and it was so clean, so warm, so light - maybe it was a cookie cutter flat, but I was so happy to be somewhere that looked clean and had clean lines. And don't get me started on the vintage clothing movement.

Rhino and I were talking earlier up the thread about industries which try to pass off something ordinary as something extraordinary, and the vintage clothing trend must be the best example. I'm not talking about masterpieces that hang in museums, or about original Dior New Look dresses. That kind of thing IS special. I'm talking about the "vintage" clothing shops near me that basically sell the kind of clothes which, 20-30 years ago, you'd find for 10p at a church jumble sale. Now, because of this vintage clothing movement, they're priced many times that and made out to be something special, when really they're just someone else's worn, torn, smelly old clothes complete with pit stains. I have no idea why anybody would buy someone else's old clothes for much more money than you could get nice new ones. Quite apart from anything else, it could be unhygienic.

At least antique diamonds are still gorgeous and still look as good as the day they were cut, (assuming no one's really knocked them about.)

But clothing? And furniture can easily have woodworm. I once went to a flea market to try to score some bargains. I opened this bedside cabinet and inside was a chamber pot - complete with strong whiff of urine! I never, ever went to a flea market again. Ikea is my flea market!

I think that wherever you go, there is often a prevailing attitude that if something is old, that must be a good thing, and I definitely don't think that. I worked with a girl who said she could never, ever live in a new house. The idea was anathema to her. I guess she'll spend a lot of spare money and leisure time patching it up throughout her lifetime, then! And, we have some family friends who recently bought a venerable old house in a picturesque village........and promptly knocked it down. It was called Long Trees and they even cut the trees down to make way for the new house! My dad was like, "Oh, I guess you'll have to call it Short Trees from now on!" Everyone's upset about the loss of this house, but I think it was a good thing. The old house was completely inefficient and would have cost more to fix up than building a new house. The new house is extremely eco-efficient and uses a minimum of energy, whereas the old house gobbled fuel.

So, I really like new things where the new is an improvement on the old. I don't fit in back in my home country, where the old is worshipped, as are all things traditional, no matter how bizarre (and having a royal family is completely bizarre in this day and age.)

Still, Erica, I'll say one thing for the "royal" family. They have some truly amazing antique diamonds! You would love the new Jewel House at the Tower of London, if you haven't already seen the diamonds. When the Revolution comes, you can do a Tiffany and buy some of them to sell!

Smith, I love ya, but I disagree with each and every word and syllable of this, categorically and unrepentantly! I love vintage, because quite simply, craftsmanship was better. I think part of that is that human labor was much cheaper, and part of it was that people took a great deal more pride in their work (and the interrelationship between the two fascinates me), but the bottom line is that run-of-the-mill glove stretchers were made with more care than most of the stuff I see at frikkin' Tiffany's!

The same goes for dwellings: I'd rather have a place with 20 foot ceilings and a parquet floor, even if it's a bit battered, than all the clean white tile in the world; I can make cosmetic fixes if the details don't please me, but there isn't much to do about the underlying assumptions of modern architecture. Space is more important than proximity! Everybody needs a separate bathroom! The TV room is the center of the house, to the point that separate kitchens are apparently loosing favor! But, uh, soundproofing is an unjustifiable expense, ceilings are a uniform 8' high, and a trade-off of multiple hours commuting is made to seem like a fair trade for a postage-stamped sized lawn. No, thanks!

And don't get me started on clothing. I still remember the misery that was tracking down an interview suit, the year I was on the market. That was the year Pantone sold us Peter Pan green, formal shorts were "in," and every damn time I thought I'd found something decent, it turned out to have a twist. Like the Prada suit that looked like it had a pleated skirt ... surprise! It's all strips of fabric split up the thigh! Ugh. It's been 7 years, and you still can't find lined pants for love or money. But my beautiful seamstress-sewn red wool dress from Paris, cut on the bias and bought for 5 euros? Or my lovely 1950s Ben Zuckerman velvet coat with its Saks label and it's Czech glass buttons like jewels, which cost me $30 but looks like a million? I'll take that over every chain store in the mall, thanks.

I think what it comes down to is that there's crap of every variety - isn't it Sturgeon's Law that 99% of everything is crap? But some of it's old, and some of it's new ... hard to generalize across the board. People with poor taste and/or luck will totally get the crappy polyester top with the pit stains whether they buy it at Portobello Road or Bloomingdales: some old uses will make you wonder if they were built on an old burial ground, and some new ones will make you wish you could bury the developer in the concrete foundation.

And as for jewelry ... I'm pretty equal opportunity in just liking ALL THE PRETTY. I love the developments in modern faceting and technology that make beauty so broadly available. But I violently dislike about 90% of the metalwork I see - either it's clunky, or it's careless, or it's covered in so much pave that it looks like shagreen. The only modern jewelers I can think of off the top of my head whom I'd shell out for are Singlestone, Van Craeynest (though after IE_Princess's experience, I have my doubts about the new incarnation), Alex Sepkus, Mike Robinson, and a handful of behind-the-scenes guys I know on 47th St. Otherwise? Given that the paste costume stuff of days gone by makes most of the modern pieces at Van Cleef or Bulgari look ... well, cheap, I'll stick to the pieces orphaned by the passage of the years!

I do wonder how much background goes into it, too. As a first-gen immigrant, I have no heirlooms. None. Nada. Zilch. All my domiciles before grad school were constructed in the 1970s onwards, and they sucked - low ceilings, small windows, cheap materials ... blech. And as my parents came from a culture that loathes used things, everything I had was either, a) new and cheap, or, b) new, and guilt-inducingly expensive. You couldn't win! So I guess it's no small wonder that I'm attracted to the opposite pole of things .....

 

[Circe]

psychology. prestige. aesthetics. i dont think that there is really one reason. if one is looking for a stone and must "compromise" on color and clarity to stay within budget to get to the desired size then that implies that lower color and clarity are inferior. most people are looking for a certain size (carats)in the desired shape based on budget as the driving force. you never hear i want a D flawless stone I dont care what size it is. is there anyone that wouldnt take a D over a J if there was no price difference or budgetary constraints, all other things being equal?

Well... yes, there are people who would do exactly that.
I would.
Circe would.
Certainly the majority would agree that most settle for lower colours than they'd ideally prefer due to monetary constraints, but "most" is most certainly not "all". Some of us just genuinely prefer lower colours for aesthetic reasons, believe it or not!
Cue Kenny - people vary!

Heh - Yssie, I'm honored to be included in your company. And you have me dead to rights.

I really, genuinely, honestly do not like colorless diamonds. It took me about 7 years of buying all up and down the color scale to feel really secure about that. But having had a J, an E, an H, and a couple of uncerted warmer stones at the lower end of things ... yep! I really prefer my diamonds somewhere between J and M, just like I tend to prefer melting shades of amethyst and cerulean and viridian over straightforward primary blues and reds and greens. Something about having a color modifier seems to give a depth my eyes appreciate in almost every medium.