Cut Designs complimentary to closed C-axis tourmalines

[chrono]

I don't want to bog down other threads but cannot help sharing this with everyone else here. I happened to be browsing for fun and this one caught my eye. I cannot believe in the notation that this tourmaline has a closed C-axis. The colour may not be the greatest but the cut design is fabulous, can be easily set in a standard pear setting and viola, no obvious dark ends. Well, all right, there are still small dark areas but your eye doesn't see it the same way than say, a traditional elongated cut.

For the lapidarists out there, what sort of cut is this? A type of concave faceting?

 

[LD]

Oh myyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy! That is a magnificent cut. I hate the colour though! I neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed one (but in another colour)!

 

[Karl_K]

It is a zircon ...
Design: King Stag Prototype
Design and Faceted by Jeffrey Hunt

http://customgemstonestudio.com/custom-gemstones/king-stag-sri-lanka-zircon/

 

[Karl_K]

Here is another in red
http://customgemstonestudio.com/custom-gemstones/king-stag-prototype/

 

[Karl_K]

Here is the cutters website:
http://jeffreyhunt.com/porfolio/#king-stag--sri-lanka-zircon

 

[chrono]

It is a zircon ...
Design: King Stag Prototype
Design and Faceted by Jeffrey Hunt
http://customgemstonestudio.com/custom-gemstones/king-stag-sri-lanka-zircon/

Ahhh...a zircon and not a tourmaline. Thanks for the correction of information, Karl.

 

[JewelFreak]

I think it's spectacular on all counts. The patterns brought out by that cut are stunning. I like the color, but I have a thing for copper-ish stones.

--- Laurie

 

[LD]

Thanks for the links Karl.

Strangely, I prefer the brown zircon of the two because you see the cutting better. The red is just too brown/dark for me but what a spectacular looking gem.

 

[Karl_K]

It is a zircon ...
Design: King Stag Prototype
Design and Faceted by Jeffrey Hunt
http://customgemstonestudio.com/custom-gemstones/king-stag-sri-lanka-zircon/

Ahhh...a zircon and not a tourmaline. Thanks for the correction of information, Karl.

Your welcome.

 

[chrono]

All this while, I thought he was only a professional photographer, not realizing he also designs and facets gemstones. I too prefer the brown zircon over the red in this case because it shows off the cut better. The red seems too dark which makes it more difficult to see the reflective patterns.

 

[minousbijoux]

threepeat on that.

 

[Arkteia]

Beautiful stones, and Jeffrey, I believe, has some cuts named after him.

 

[Jim Rentfrow]

You will be seeing a lot of new designs from Jeff in the future.

 

[chrono]

When a design is created by someone, does he / she automatically own a certain copyright to it? If others would like to cut something similar, will the designer sell the design specs to them?

 

[Jim Rentfrow]

That is one of the biggest questions, and most argued about, in the industry. Its almost a weekly post on the USFG email list. I know some companies do try to trademark their cut designs but they can be easily copied. I believe BTD patented the hearts and arrows cut on their colored stones but I am sure it wont be long until it is mass produced in the industry.

 

[chrono]

Jim,
Am I intepreting correctly that a lapidary can just look at the picture and reverse engineer the design in order to duplicate it? Of course, there will be trials and errors with this method but it is possible?

 

[Jim Rentfrow]

Yes and no, you will not have the correct angles but they can be guessed pretty easily. The stone will look similiar face up, but it might not have the same "pop". This is why a lot of stones cut in large cutting houses in a design will not look the same as when a precision cutter uses gem cad to get the angles and facet arrangement right.

 

[Karl_K]

Basic facet arrangement can only be covered by patents.
The gemcad files themselves and any artwork the designer creates are covered by copyright.
Some have tried to claim copyright over a line art drawing of the facet arrangement when they didn't create the drawing but it doesn't work.
You are allowed to create a drawing to describe something.
You can not however use someone's drawing of an item without permission under copyright.

 

[PrecisionGem]

Jim,
Am I intepreting correctly that a lapidary can just look at the picture and reverse engineer the design in order to duplicate it? Of course, there will be trials and errors with this method but it is possible?

I think it's extremely difficult to duplicate a design from a picture of a cut stone. Often, the finished stone will give the illusion of many many facets, when in actuality there are only a few. From a photo of the stone, you really can't see what's going on too well, especially from the pavilion. It becomes somewhat easier if you have a line drawing of the stone, but then you are still fishing around for the angles and index.

A few years ago I received a rather stern letter from the Royal Asscher company, insisting that I "immediately cease and desist" from cutting any stones similar to the Asscher shape. They claimed that I am cutting "counterfeit gems in a design similar to that protected by the Royal Asscher design".

 

[Richard M.]

That's fascinating Gene. Did Asscher claim to have a patent on the design? If so it would be in England and I'm not sure how that would play in U.S. courts.

I'd have to dig through my old G & G's to verify this but I think only one U.S. patent has ever been issued on a diamond facet design and it wasn't the Asscher. A patent would technically be almost impossible to enforce unless the "infringing" stone is absolutely identical to the one that's patented. Just changing angles from diamond R.I. to a colored stone's might create enough difference to render the patent protection (if any) moot. It would certainly make for an interesting court case.

Karl K.'s comments accord with my personal understanding of the matter. Most people are greatly confused by the differences between patents, copyrights and trademarks.

Richard M. (Rick Martin)

 

[Karl_K]

I'd have to dig through my old G & G's to verify this but I think only one U.S. patent has ever been issued on a diamond facet design and it wasn't the Asscher.

There are hundreds if not thousands.
One of the first was the original asscher in the early 1900s long since expired.
The problem with them is that in the 50s millions of designs were published and if someone wanted to spend the money pretty much any of them since then could be thrown out on prior art.
Some patents:
http://www.google.com/patents/USD453007?printsec=abstract&dq=diamond+cut+asscher&ei=kUa6UOWdCOO5ygGlloBw#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents/USD503651?printsec=abstract&dq=diamond+cut+asscher&ei=kUa6UOWdCOO5ygGlloBw#v=onepage&q=diamond%20cut%20asscher&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents?id=SVU3AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false



Jon at gog is trying to get a "looks like" cut patent that may be a game changer in a bad way if it is granted.
http://www.google.com/patents/US20110302960

 

[PrecisionGem]

That's fascinating Gene. Did Asscher claim to have a patent on the design? If so it would be in England and I'm not sure how that would play in U.S. courts.

I'd have to dig through my old G & G's to verify this but I think only one U.S. patent has ever been issued on a diamond facet design and it wasn't the Asscher. A patent would technically be almost impossible to enforce unless the "infringing" stone is absolutely identical to the one that's patented. Just changing angles from diamond R.I. to a colored stone's might create enough difference to render the patent protection (if any) moot. It would certainly make for an interesting court case.

Karl K.'s comments accord with my personal understanding of the matter. Most people are greatly confused by the differences between patents, copyrights and trademarks.

Richard M. (Rick Martin)

Here's part of what the wrote to me:

"As you are surely aware Royal Asscher is a famous brand in the diamond jewellery industry, having produced and sold various products under the Royal Asscher trademark for over 150 years.
The Royal Asscher mark is the subject of various incontestable United States trademark registrations, including Us Reg No 2,048,313, No 2,469,632 and No 3,423,209. There can be no serious question that the Royal Asscher trademark is famous and distinctive. Royal Asscher is the exclusive United States licensee of United States Design patent No. D453,007, which covers the design of the Royal Asscher Cut."

 

[Richard M.]

Karl and Gene:
I confused “patent” with “copyright” trying to recall details of an article I read nearly 10 years ago. A piece in the Fall 2003 G & G (which I just excavated from a huge pile of magazines) described what was “believed to be” the first copyright registration covering a gemstone design: the Elara Square Cut-Cornered Brilliant Diamond. Others may have been issued since. A part of my brain knew there were patented diamonds but the other part chose to ignore its signals for some reason.

The more I dig into this the more confusing it becomes. Apparently a design patent only offers protection for 14 years and an act of Congress is required to renew or extend it. If that’s the case I doubt the Asscher still has patent protection. But if the name is trademarked there could be a problem using it for anything but an official Asscher product. It seems to me a colored stone cut could be described as being in “the Asscher style,” or a “step-cut similar to a Royal Asscher.” Consult your local intellectual property attorney.

Just how copyright protection works in the case of a gem cut is another case for an attorney specializing in this stuff. Here’s an interesting link: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1512.html

Richard M. (Rick Martin)

 

[chrono]

It looks like from the email / mail Gene received, the asscher name is also trademarked? If so, will the family contest all the big name diamond vendors for calling their square step cut diamonds asschers?

 

[Karl_K]

It looks like from the email / mail Gene received, the asscher name is also trademarked? If so, will the family contest all the big name diamond vendors for calling their square step cut diamonds asschers?

The asscher trademark was not kept up and defended over the years since the 1900s so it is now generic.
"Royal Asscher" on the other hand is an active trademark.

 

[PrecisionGem]

In any rate, I no longer cut "asschers", but will from time to time do an 8 sided step cut that is square, with the 4 corners cut shorter than the sides.

 

[Richard M.]

In any rate, I no longer cut "asschers", but will from time to time do an 8 sided step cut that is square, with the 4 corners cut shorter than the sides.

 

[chrono]

Gene,
Love your comment about what you cut. Isn't what you cut closer to the "generic" asscher or closer to the Royal Asscher? I am still a bit confused between the two. What makes one different from the other? I knew the answer to this question umpteen years ago and can benefit from a refresher.

 

[Karl_K]

Gene,
I am still a bit confused between the two. What makes one different from the other? I knew the answer to this question umpteen years ago and can benefit from a refresher.

RA 5 pavilion steps 3 crown steps
original asscher and many generics 3 pavilion steps and 3 crown steps.

Here is the RA patent:
http://www.google.com/patents/USD453007?printsec=abstract&dq=diamond+cut+asscher&ei=kUa6UOWdCOO5ygGlloBw#v=onepage&q&f=false

If someone wanted to it could be invalidated on prior art because 5 pavilion steps was cut for many decades before the RA. But the money spent isn't worth it.

 

[PrecisionGem]

I think the royal ASScher has 5 steps on the pavilion, where the original had 4. Since its a design that is not a true meetpoint type design, there is a lot of latitude on how it's cut, and everyone does it a little differently.