antique step cuts?

[slg47]

I am in love with kelpie's new (old) stone...it is just gorgeous

picture of kelpie's gorgeous diamond


a few questions...

are stones like this being cut anymore? if so...who is doing this?

where would one find a stone like this?

 

[CharmyPoo]

This is an atom in the hay stack diamond

 

[slg47]

This is an atom in the hay stack diamond

charmy that's what I was thinking...why don't people cut them like this anymore...it is so gorgeous

 

[NOYFB]

I will be watching this thread. Kelpie's find was phenomenal!!!!

 

[kelpie]

I think the octavia is as close as you'll come optics-wise in a modern stone. But gah, the fatty shape and open culet is extra special, let me tell you. So lucky to have tripped over that, and at 60% of internet retail prices for 1.60 H VS1 stones it was seriously the proverbial "atom in a haystack" even though I wasn't looking for it. I would adjust search filters to tables between 40 and 60 and see what you get. Mine is 54%. Tinier table the better, IMO!

ETA- also, even though it's an emerald by ratio, the facet pattern is classified as asscher because the windmills come together into a culet instead of a keel. Thus I would look on James Allen at their "squares" too. Sometimes their search engine gives unpredictable results but I love that it shows pics, that really helps weed them out.

 

[kelpie]

As I feared, James Allens's search engine is totally whack and broken. I noticed this a few weeks ago and lodged a complaint but it's still all whack. It appears to be be returning the depth on the lab report as the table size. It would work if you could switch them, but it looks like it just returns depth twice. I get this 72% table stone when I searched for tables under 60% and it's the only result.
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/J-VS1-Good-Cut-Asscher-Diamond-1384044.asp

 

[yennyfire]

I just had to post again to say that I am in love with your stone!

 

[kelpie]

I just had to post again to say that I am in love with your stone!

Thank you! I have to confess you totally have me drinking the antique oval koolaid. I just bought a wee little one when I totally shouldn't have.

 

[kelpie]

Here are two stones that could potentially have a similar look.
http://www.solomonbrothers.com/Diamond_49Y78846
http://www.solomonbrothers.com/Diamond_3Y3F47Y5

 

[slg47]

kelpie thanks for posting those. I hope you weren't offended by this post...I am really curious as to why these are not being made anymore. sadly I am not in the market...but maybe someday!!

also do you have pictures of your antique oval?

 

[Karl_K]

Cost of rough is why they aren't being cut today.
I have looked into cutting some and the high cost of rough combined with the precision needed to do them right makes them pretty much unprofitable.
The same rough could be cut into a cushion that is much heavier.
Which is also the reason Octavia is in short supply.
Yoram, separates out rough for it out of all the parcels he gets and when he has a enough to make a production run he does so.
It can take months to get the rough for 3-6 stones.

 

[slg47]

Cost of rough is why they aren't being cut today.
I have looked into cutting some and the high cost of rough combined with the precision needed to do them right makes them pretty much unprofitable.
The same rough could be cut into a cushion that is much heavier.
Which is also the reason Octavia is in short supply.
Yoram, separates out rough for it out of all the parcels he gets and when he has a enough to make a production run he does so.
It can take months to get the rough for 3-6 stones.

Karl thanks for your expert input. That is too bad...

 

[Upgradable]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/PLATINUM-1-65-CT-ANTIQUE-EMERALD-CUT-DIAMOND-RING-OLD-/380396506678?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5891660e36

Found this whilst cruising ebay.

 

[kelpie]

kelpie thanks for posting those. I hope you weren't offended by this post...I am really curious as to why these are not being made anymore. sadly I am not in the market...but maybe someday!!

also do you have pictures of your antique oval?

I'm not offended at all. I would LOVE to see more diamonds like this on PS, and antique fancies of all kinds. I forgot, it's the invention of the table saw that they aren't being cut with these meaty crowns so much anymore unless the top of the crystal won't yield another stone. It's just not economical most of the time for the cutter to lose out on getting a smaller second stone from above the table. Here is the mine cut oval, it's .62. Just bought it from another PSer so I don't have it yet, but I want to make it a pendant.

 

[Cluless]

If anyone has any spare change to get themselves this one lol




Imagine this one at your next dinner party. Weighing in at 3.85 carats this is not your average cute little diamond. This is the biggest emerald cut diamond I have seen in a while. The stone measures 9.50mm x 7.50mm x 5.60mm. With emerald cuts clarity is extremely important due the step cut design of the facets. Even a VS2 or SI1 clarity can sometimes reveal small inclusions visible to the naked eye. This diamond is a solid VS1 clarity so it’s absolutely eye clean. Now for the colour call, it was graded against our GIA master L diamond and determined to be very similar. Yes it does have a slight yellow tint but it looks fantastic. Did I mention it weighs almost 4.00 carats. One of the interesting things about this diamond is it’s moderate fluorescence. It glows a slightly blue colour when exposed to ultraviolet light. Since there is a strong component of UV in regular old daylight and in typical office lighting the diamond actually looks more white than it’s colour grade suggests due to the complimentary colour of the blue fluorescence. It’s very difficult to determine pricing on such a diamond with the rare combination of qualities that this stone exhibits. I think it would be virtually impossible to replace this one with something similar. A search of our data base www.billleboeufjewellers.com/discover-a-diamond/ suggests this diamond’s replacement value is approaching something around $30000.00. This one is estate priced at $20000.00. One more thing did I mention it’s almost 4.00 carats

 

[yennyfire]

I just had to post again to say that I am in love with your stone!

Thank you! I have to confess you totally have me drinking the antique oval koolaid. I just bought a wee little one when I totally shouldn't have.

Well, it's going to be totally your fault if I end up with an antique emerald like yours (luckily, I think your stone may be rarer than mine, so it will be a moot point!)....btw, that oval is delish!

 

[Amys Bling]

I just had to post again to say that I am in love with your stone!

Agreed!!!

 

[winternight]

I'm curious, how do you determine quality with stones like this. Looking at the photos it looks obvious, but are there hard number? This talk of table size, etc, has me intrigued. And what is it about OEC oval cuts?

 

[yennyfire]

With OECs, there are some guidelines that you can follow in terms of numbers, but there isn't a hard and fast rule as there is with modern RBs. I think most would say that you want a fairly small table and a high crown (I don't remember the % off the top of my head and don't want to guess). As for ovals and stones like kelpie's new (old) stunning emerald, I don't know that you can use numbers to judge them. When I saw my oval, I checked online to compare modern ovals against it to make sure I wasn't paying for a 2.83 stone that faced up like a 2.0 stone (though even if it had, I would have bought it, just would have offered less!)....other than that, I do think you have to rely on what appeals to your eye.

However, I would caution newbies (and I count myself as one) about buying any antique stone without a return policy and the chance to take it to a private appraiser to make sure that you're paying a fair price.

 

[winternight]

With OECs, there are some guidelines that you can follow in terms of numbers, but there isn't a hard and fast rule as there is with modern RBs. I think most would say that you want a fairly small table and a high crown (I don't remember the % off the top of my head and don't want to guess). As for ovals and stones like kelpie's new (old) stunning emerald, I don't know that you can use numbers to judge them. When I saw my oval, I checked online to compare modern ovals against it to make sure I wasn't paying for a 2.83 stone that faced up like a 2.0 stone (though even if it had, I would have bought it, just would have offered less!)....other than that, I do think you have to rely on what appeals to your eye.

However, I would caution newbies (and I count myself as one) about buying any antique stone without a return policy and the chance to take it to a private appraiser to make sure that you're paying a fair price.

Thanks. Your oval is stunning!! It is a special gem indeed.

 

[jewellover13]

Hi Kelpie,

First time poster and an asscher lover. Do you mind sharing specs of your lovely asscher, in particular the l/w ratio? Thanks!

 

[Rockdiamond]

Stones like that are being cut nowadays- but they're rare.
We've seen a few recently cut ones over the past few years.
I love looking through boxes of step cut diamonds- the stats are on the front of the paper, but you never know what they're going to look like till you open the paper.
Stones with depths in the 40-low50% depths are candidates for this type of look.

 

[Lula]

Stones like that are being cut nowadays- but they're rare.
We've seen a few recently cut ones over the past few years.
I love looking through boxes of step cut diamonds- the stats are on the front of the paper, but you never know what they're going to look like till you open the paper.
Stones with depths in the 40-low50% depths are candidates for this type of look.

Hi, David,
I'm curious about how your comment about depth. High-40s-low50s seems really shallow.
I have questions for the step-cut experts -- David, Karl, Jonathan --
How does depth affect appearance in an emerald cut? For example, wouldn't such a shallow stone be prone to windowing?
Would an antique-looking cut with a low-40s-high-50s depth have a small table (e.g., 45 - 54%)? Or would the table percentage be larger than the depth?
Thanks!

 

[Mayk]

I just had to post again to say that I am in love with your stone!

Agreed!!!

+++2... that stone is hands down one of my favorites.. it's just perfect in every way!!!

 

[susimoo]

I just had to post again to say that I am in love with your stone!

Agreed!!!

+++2... that stone is hands down one of my favorites.. it's just perfect in every way!!!

Me three!! It makes me go weak at the knees!!!

 

[SB621]

Kelpie if you still have my email address and happen to find a great antique step cut email me. My BF has been looking for one for months and I try to help her but this is not my area of expertise!!

 

[Rockdiamond]

Stones like that are being cut nowadays- but they're rare.
We've seen a few recently cut ones over the past few years.
I love looking through boxes of step cut diamonds- the stats are on the front of the paper, but you never know what they're going to look like till you open the paper.
Stones with depths in the 40-low50% depths are candidates for this type of look.

Hi, David,
I'm curious about how your comment about depth. High-40s-low50s seems really shallow.
I have questions for the step-cut experts -- David, Karl, Jonathan --
How does depth affect appearance in an emerald cut? For example, wouldn't such a shallow stone be prone to windowing?
Would an antique-looking cut with a low-40s-high-50s depth have a small table (e.g., 45 - 54%)? Or would the table percentage be larger than the depth?
Thanks!

HI Lula,
About shallow step cuts- I have not found that shallow stones are inherently more prone to windowing.
If we're looking at stones with open culets, remember that aspect can cut a bit off the depth without changing pavilion angle.
I never try to calculate difference between table and depth- the relationship between the two is far less important that other aspects of cut.
In general a smaller table is associated with older cuts.

 

[Karl_K]

Hi, David,
I'm curious about how your comment about depth. High-40s-low50s seems really shallow.
I have questions for the step-cut experts -- David, Karl, Jonathan --
How does depth affect appearance in an emerald cut? For example, wouldn't such a shallow stone be prone to windowing?
Would an antique-looking cut with a low-40s-high-50s depth have a small table (e.g., 45 - 54%)? Or would the table percentage be larger than the depth?
Thanks!

yes no maybe so... its really complicated.
The thing is shallow step cuts are a needle in the haystack then to find one well cut is a needle in a 1000 acre hay field.
In general a small table with a high crown will not be well balanced out by a shallowish pavilion.
That does not mean they cant be very pretty but put them next to a stone cut for light return and they can look a bit dull.

 

[Lula]

Stones like that are being cut nowadays- but they're rare.
We've seen a few recently cut ones over the past few years.
I love looking through boxes of step cut diamonds- the stats are on the front of the paper, but you never know what they're going to look like till you open the paper.
Stones with depths in the 40-low50% depths are candidates for this type of look.

Hi, David,
I'm curious about how your comment about depth. High-40s-low50s seems really shallow.
I have questions for the step-cut experts -- David, Karl, Jonathan --
How does depth affect appearance in an emerald cut? For example, wouldn't such a shallow stone be prone to windowing?
Would an antique-looking cut with a low-40s-high-50s depth have a small table (e.g., 45 - 54%)? Or would the table percentage be larger than the depth?
Thanks!

HI Lula,
About shallow step cuts- I have not found that shallow stones are inherently more prone to windowing.
If we're looking at stones with open culets, remember that aspect can cut a bit off the depth without changing pavilion angle.
I never try to calculate difference between table and depth- the relationship between the two is far less important that other aspects of cut.
In general a smaller table is associated with older cuts.

Thanks so much for your response. I did not know that the presence of a culet would not change the pavilion angle. I'd like to know more about why cutters decide to cut a culet on a particular EC -- to save rough? To prevent chipping? Also, the EC's with culets that I've seen listed, for example, on JA, also have a notation on the GIA report as to the size of the cult, i.e., small, medium (and, I assume, large, but I haven't seen any EC's with large culets, on JA's site anyway).

 

[Lula]

Hi, David,
I'm curious about how your comment about depth. High-40s-low50s seems really shallow.
I have questions for the step-cut experts -- David, Karl, Jonathan --
How does depth affect appearance in an emerald cut? For example, wouldn't such a shallow stone be prone to windowing?
Would an antique-looking cut with a low-40s-high-50s depth have a small table (e.g., 45 - 54%)? Or would the table percentage be larger than the depth?
Thanks!

yes no maybe so... its really complicated.
The thing is shallow step cuts are a needle in the haystack then to find one well cut is a needle in a 1000 acre hay field.
In general a small table with a high crown will not be well balanced out by a shallowish pavilion.
That does not mean they cant be very pretty but put them next to a stone cut for light return and they can look a bit dull.

Hmm, interesting. I would guessed the opposite -- that a shallow EC with a small table and high crown would face up large for its carat weight and be bright and flashy.

Yes, EC's are complicated. That's an understatement But when I see a good one, it takes my breath away.
Thanks for your comments, Karl.