Jubilee Stones.

[MaybeDayze]

Or rather the cost of them!
Should I really expect to Pay $8000 for a 1.02 G - VS1 Stone?

I know that the spread on the jubilee is quite good,
you can go a little smaller and not lose as much size as with other square fancies.
Is this true for the H&As Ideal square?
I'm looking for something unique - not the usual RB.

any suggestions in the cushion, square modified brillant cut dept?
Any suggestions on the grading range to look for that balances quality and value?
Does anyone know of any reputatable dealers in the boston area that deal in these kinds of stones?

 

[jennyann2]

i don''t know of anyone in the boston area but i would check out www.goodoldgold.com to see your options. they carry lots of the options you were mentioning like the jubilee and a square hearts & arrows. you can also learn a lot about diamonds in general on their tutorial.

 

[mdx]

What you are experiencing is the effects of branding.
I have often wandered about the wisdom of this approach.

Manufactures of new cuts persist in making statements like “the new ABC cut will be sold exclusively through high end stores etc etc.

History shows what usually happens is they come onto the market, make a lot of exclusivity noise sell a few stones on the peak of the hype then disappear in a year or two.

I reckon if they marketed through the whole market at market prices they will achieve better penetration albeit at a lower margin. Believe me MaybeDayze producing these Square ideals is no rocket science and most do have some sort of patent protection.

This is just my little pet beef so don’t take it too seriously. The designers are entitled to market their own products as they see fit.

For a price advantage perhaps you should be looking at the Square Ideal Cushion with H&A, Reasonably available and reasonably competitively priced.

Johan

 

[verticalhorizon]

I purchased the Jubilee when it first came out. I even recognize the picture you included in your post.

I actually agree with MDX's statements, but it's all a matter of value. If you place your priorities in something unique, the Jubilee will do you just fine. If your priorities are value is dollar signs, nothing beats the RB (when you know how to shop for it).

One of the key items when shopping for diamonds, is knowing the hot spots. In retail, often advertised 1/2ct, 3/4ct, 1ct, etc. diamands can have a variance of I think 0.05ct, plus or minus. Also, the price, when analyzed (search the boards, there are plenty) you will discover that the price jumps at certain sizes like the 1ct mark. Aim a little lower, say 0.9ct or better yet find a 0.87ct or something and you will likely find a better $/ct ratio because people get caught up in the whole carat numbers.

In reality you're really just quibbling over fractions of millimeters. Trust me I obsessed over it myself. Once set, or combined with side stones, no one will know the difference but you.

As you learn about dimensions, spread, and angles, your 0.87ct diamond will often look bigger than most people's retail purchased, poorly cut 1ct or larger rings.

Do your homework. You picked the right place to come to learn at the feet of the masters (not me). Go out into as many stores as you can and SEE the widest range of diamonds with your own eyes. Leave your checkbook at home and don't be pressured. Compare D's to F's to I's so when it comes time to buy it won't be a guessing game.

Have fun!

 

[valeria101]

How bad does "square radiant" sound ? It doesn't have harts and arrows, it may have decent spread (there even is a branded version out there) and pretty good brilliance if you look around enough.

The only online retailer of the "original radiant cut" I know of is Diamonds by Lauren (link)... the owner posts sometimes on this forum. Those stones are supposedly cut with good spread, you might want to check.

And finding a generic square radiant to diw for shouldn't be all that hard either, I think.

 

[MaybeDayze]

Thank you,
I appreciate all of your comments.

My priorities are in something unique. I don't want the unusual rb tiffany set ring. (BORING!)
I am interested in the Jubilee because of it's superior optics.
I was just amazed when I discovered how expensive they are.
I can understand that however, the jubilee being a premium branded patented stone.
It's just disappointing and frustrating.

I guess one of my real questions is -
Where in the grading scheme do you see (with the eye) a significant difference in the quality of the stone.
Does a VS1 clarity really look different from a VVS1 clarity,
or is it more a matter of the cut (the geometry of the stone.)
Is color more important than clarity? (I don't think so, but I don't know.)
Where do quality and value meet?
What is a good range to look for if you want a quality stone without breaking the bank?
I guess that's something I'm going to have to learn for myself, by going out and looking at stones.

Are these stupid newbie questions?

Good Old Gold is a wonder resource it's been very helpful.
I guess it's just a matter of going out and looking, and discovering what my priorities are.
I don't think you can learn about diamonds without going out and looking at them.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 1/26/2005 11:30:15 AM
Author: MaybeDayze

Where do quality and value meet?

That''s a pretty hard question

Here''s GIA''s opinion (table cited from GIA cut study in the Pricescope Diamond Journal) - hope it helps a bit.

It seems pretty hard to get a unique diamond - there''s just so many of them! Perhaps an unusual shape would qualify... and there are some without a brand attached.

 

[jennyann2]

i agree you have to go look at some stones to know where your comfort range is. for what it''s worth i think the best value is in an ideal cut, G or H in color, VS2-SI1 in clarity and if money is a concern i would definitely go for something unbranded. it may take a little more education on your part but i think it would be worth it.

 

[Rhino]

Hi MayBeYesterday,

Perhaps I can help answer some of your questions. My response will be between yours.

Date: 1/26/2005 11:30:15 AM
Author: MaybeYesterday
Thank you,
I appreciate all of your comments.

My priorities are in something unique. I don't want the unusual rb tiffany set ring. (BORING!)
I am interested in the Jubilee because of it's superior optics.
I was just amazed when I discovered how expensive they are.
I can understand that however, the jubilee being a premium branded patented stone.
It's just disappointing and frustrating.

I know where you're coming from MBY. There are a few things that you should know or be aware of concerning the "why's" as to the pricing of super ideal squares.

1. These new generation squares are being cut from Octahedral rough. Octohedral rough is the same rough that is used to cut round brilliants from. Generally fancy shapes are cut with other types of rough which, after being cut will compliment that respective shape. I would also add that the fancy cut market consists of diamonds being cut for weight retention with no particular attention to optical properties. Trying to locate superior optics in fancies is a crap shoot with over 90% of them having optics that are ... well ... less than desireable. I know this because I actively look for them. This fact concludes....
2. You are comparing diamonds cut for weight to diamonds cut for beauty. There *should* be a price difference as there is an obvious difference in optical appearance, yes and to the laymens eyes.
3. You are also comparing these with Internet pricing. Yes these are being offered via the net and it is natural to compare prices (who doesn't?) but when you look at the grand scheme of things ... what are their competition? The only other square being offered on the market (not necessarily via the net) that has optics that are *almost* comparable is the HoF Dream (a Hearts only square modified). Have you had a chance to compare the prices of the Sq H&A & Jubilee to the Dream? On the retail front this is an interesting comparison and many of our clients who have purchased H&A squares from us have. Every person who has purchased one has no regrets.

I guess one of my real questions is -
Where in the grading scheme do you see (with the eye) a significant difference in the quality of the stone.
Does a VS1 clarity really look different from a VVS1 clarity,

No. Clarity characteristics address issues of rarity more than it does beauty. Unless you're getting an Imperfect stone, many clarities look the same to the unaided human eye.

or is it more a matter of the cut (the geometry of the stone.)

Now you're on target. Cut impacts the face up appearance more than any other factor. More than clarity and certainly more than color. It's why we beat it to death in our tutorial.

Is color more important than clarity? (I don't think so, but I don't know.)

Most would say so. You don't need any special scopes or viewers to *see* superior color. Just as you can see superior optics with the unaided human eye so can you see the differences between the higher colors and the lower ones. There are many colors however that look very similar when observed in the face up position. 2 factors help neautralize color. One is fluorescence, the other is cut.

Where do quality and value meet?
What is a good range to look for if you want a quality stone without breaking the bank?
I guess that's something I'm going to have to learn for myself, by going out and looking at stones.

Are these stupid newbie questions?

No question is stupid. Only the one that is not asked is. A good range to look for MaybeYesterday would be ... D-I colors (even J in some circumstances), VS1-SI1 in clarity (however if a VVS is within your budget range don't rule that out either if the cut is excellent). You'd be amazed how an I-J color diamond with superior optics looks. Yesterday we put one next to another square (non H&A) that was an F color and each time the client kept going back to the lower color. NOT because it was a lower color but the optics of that I color blew the F color out of the water. Food for thought.

Peace,

 

[verticalhorizon]

Right on Jon!

If you want to see a knee jerk reaction to closing your wallet, check out the prices of the Hof Dream or the Tiffany Lucida. I like that some people call House of Fire, Wallet on Fire.

Someone mentioned the square Radiant. There ARE other alternatives, each with their own pro's and con's. You won't know what catches your fancy until you look at them all. Also note, that their internal characteristics become MORE noticible the larger the rock gets. You'll know the difference, but at a casual glance seldom do people note the difference between a radiant, princess, or branded square. (Unless they've also done their homework.)

As far as alternatives go, there are the Regent, Queen of Hearts, Dream, Radiants, some really great new Princesses (but they cost too), and the extremely close cousin to the Jubilee made by that chinese company... I forget the name. GOG sells that too. Funny thing is though, when you look at the Dreams and the Lucidas that are within your price range, I think you'll be shocked to notice how ho-hum they are, even with the fancy-in-store lighting. I think this is b/c those stores reserve the best roughs for their larger stones. I mean who wouldn't. But they are also not particularly interested in cut quality for the more mass-market stones, at least that's how I felt about Tiffanys sometimes. I felt like they didn't care enough to produce/buy great quality affordable diamonds, b/c they KNEW people would buy just for the namesake. And that's wrong. They should hold ALL of their product up to the same standard if people are shelling out the cashishe.

That's just my opinion though. Cary Horowitz seems to understand that there's a demand for high quality, well balanced stones or all weights, so sure... those prices are gonna be a bit higher than the discount stones. You do get what you pay for... just make sure you're paying for what you want.

 

[MaybeDayze]

The Prices for the HOF Dream made me want to throw up!
There''s a definite a knee jerk reaction.
Wallet on Fire Indeed.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 1/27/2005 1:41:41 PM
Author: MaybeDayze
The Prices for the HOF Dream made me want to throw up!

There seems to be some truth about Jubilee being larger for the weight than other squares...

At least taking what a search for top brilliant contenders about 8k bring up off the bat:

1.36 cts princess matches for size and price a 1 carat Jubilee (the 1.02 D VS1 from GOG, couldn''t find the G color example there).

1.36cts, G.VS2, 6mm square... 8k (link) Is the 1 carat Jubilee bigger than this ?

Granted, there are spreadier princess cuts, but... matching cut quality is another mettle: if there''s better on display around it didn''t show up on my search.

One 1.5 cts princess appears a tad larger (very little, really 6.2mm versus 6) - F/Si1, blow 8k. For half a carat more it should! (link)

Among the shapes at Good Old Gold, radiants seem to fit the desired price bracket - but there''s no square rad on display. perhaps something in the back drawer may help

Worth asking if anything.

Just IMO, as usual...

 

[mdx]

Date: 1/27/2005 2:17:27 PM
Author: valeria101

Date: 1/27/2005 1:41:41 PM
Author: MaybeDayze
The Prices for the HOF Dream made me want to throw up!

There seems to be some truth about Jubilee being larger for the weight than other squares...

At least taking what a search for top brilliant contenders about 8k bring up off the bat:

1.36 cts princess matches for size and price a 1 carat Jubilee (the 1.02 D VS1 from GOG, couldn''t find the G color example there).

1.36cts, G.VS2, 6mm square... 8k (link) Is the 1 carat Jubilee bigger than this ?

Granted, there are spreadier princess cuts, but... matching cut quality is another mettle: if there''s better on display around it didn''t show up on my search.

One 1.5 cts princess appears a tad larger (very little, really 6.2mm versus 6) - F/Si1, blow 8k. For half a carat more it should! (link)

Among the shapes at Good Old Gold, radiants seem to fit the desired price bracket - but there''s no square rad on display. perhaps something in the back drawer may help

Worth asking if anything.

Just IMO, as usual...

Hi Ana

Here is another interesting twist to the tale. Most of these square cuts are cut from Octahedrons (4 piont).and usually give a better weight recovery than a round stone from the same rough.

Johan

 

[MaybeDayze]

Does anyone know why Queen of Hearts isn't more popular?
Is it just because it has a flatter crown, and larger table than the regent? (A style preference?)
Does this effect the light return/fire? And thus the QoH is not as firey as it's sibling?
Perhaps the QoH isn't more popular because of the advent of the Jubilee?
Does the Jubilee have better light return than the QoH?
Is there a big price difference between the two, jubilee and QoH?
Why does GOG only stock QoH on a needs basis? Just not as popular?

I feel less confident trying to find a square radiant, than I do about fancies from GOG.
From what I've read Radiants tend to be horrible light leaking messes.
Perhaps it's a better value though, finding a well cut unbranded radiant.
Does this look like a good table for evaluating Radiants?

Emerald & Radiant Diamonds - AGA 2002

Does any know where I can find some good photographs of the radiant cut, particularly squares?
Also, a breakdown on the cut, the facets - crown pavillion etc?

 

[MaybeDayze]

What do you mean by weight recovery?
Less of the rough is cut away?
More of the the stone remains after cutting these squares than with a round?

 

[Rhino]

Good input VH and good to cya around!

MaybeYesterday... I hear ya about the prices of the Dream. Let me share something with ya though. Back before there was a Jubilee or any Square H&A diamond I was seriously looking into carrying the HoF brand just to be able to carry the Dream. Back a couple of years ago it was the only modified square on the market that had optics comparable to the best rounds. When I saw it at the show, yes the price of it made me squeel but there was no other square stone on the market that could hold a flame to it and consumers who were able to see and compare it BOUGHT. That was all I needed to know. However I never pursued the line cause I would also have to carry the HoF rounds and then it would be a tough sell especially when the goods I had, for the most part had >= finer optical precision and >= light return. I can't show a client an unbranded H&A round for 30%-50% less with superior optics... we'd never sell the branded stone. Patience paid off however and now we have been able to acquire the 2 Square H&A's you see featured on our site.

Ana... you pulled up a very interesting comparison. 2 points to be noted.

That 1.36ct princess cut has dimensions of 6.11 x 6.00mm and the 1.02ct Jubilee has dimensions of 6.00 x 5.99. Basically there is only a .1mm difference between the 2 making that 1.02ct look just as big! The other factor or comparison that would be interesting to see is that 1.36ct & the 1.02ct on the scale for rounds and not squares. That would also be a very revealing comparison regarding the optics of each compared to the other.

mdx... are you implying that there is more waste when cutting a princess or radiant?

Peace,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 1/27/2005 3:13:34 PM
Author: MaybeYesterday
Does anyone know why Queen of Hearts isn't more popular?
Is it just because it has a flatter crown, and larger table than the regent? (A style preference?)
Does this effect the light return/fire? And thus the QoH is not as firey as it's sibling?
Perhaps the QoH isn't more popular because of the advent of the Jubilee?

There are a number of reasons actually. The advent of the Jubilee is the primary one though since both are basically the same shape except the Jubilee has stronger optics.

Is there a big price difference between the two, jubilee and QoH?
Why does GOG only stock QoH on a needs basis? Just not as popular?

Yep. I stock what sells (or at least I try to).

I feel less confident trying to find a square radiant, than I do about fancies from GOG.
From what I've read Radiants tend to be horrible light leaking messes.
Perhaps it's a better value though, finding a well cut unbranded radiant.

The only way to answer this question accurately is to compare and see one of our stones next to a square radiant for yourself. If you do not see an obvious difference you can return ours for a full refund and you have a month to do it.

Does this look like a good table for evaluating Radiants?

Emerald & Radiant Diamonds - AGA 2002

Does any know where I can find some good photographs of the radiant cut, particularly squares?
Also, a breakdown on the cut, the facets - crown pavillion etc?

Those charts are now 2 years old and will become obsolete once AGS and GIA come out with their grading scales (which for fancies may not be for a very long time). You can see more current charts right on Dave's site which is www.gemappraisers.com. The AGA charts are a good basic guideline and will definitely steer you into a structurally sound stone however the AGA scales are not primarly based on optical properties. If you enjoy the services we offer before the sale MBY we can, if you like help you find a square radiant but don't hold your breath for optical results like what you see on the H&A squares. They are completely different looking diamonds from a radiant. BTW... please don't take my comments as being derogatory towards radiants ... there are people who prefer the look of the radiant.

[In answer to your other post]

What do you mean by weight recovery?
Less of the rough is cut away?
More of the the stone remains after cutting these squares than with a round?

Actually MORE of the rough is cut away to get stones like what we are discussing. An accurate statement would be "Less of the stone remains after cutting H&A". The primary thinking with most cutting factories MDY is to get the heaviest stone possible from the rough. Most consumers do not ask the kind of questions that are brought up on these boards so when John Q. goes out there to look at diamonds, most of them are diamonds that are cut for weigth ... not beauty; especially since the general buying public are ignorant regarding issues of cut. Most of the people here have been unplugged from the Matrix though. What's interesting is that many of the factories who have decided to cut ideals CUT IDEALS FOR WEIGHT RETENTION TOO! The regs here know what I'm talking about. The new cut grading schemes will do away with that though since the definition of Ideal will be changing in the coming months.

Peace,

 

[MaybeDayze]

Thank you Jon!
I don''t mean to monopolize your time.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 1/27/2005 2:32:43 PM
Author: mdx


Hi Ana

Here is another interesting twist to the tale. Most of these square cuts are cut from Octahedrons (4 piont).and usually give a better weight recovery than a round stone from the same rough.

Johan

Higher value added product, no ?

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 1/26/2005 12:31:18 PM
Author: Rhino
Hi MayBeDayze,

1. These new generation squares are being cut from Octahedral rough. Octohedral rough is the same rough that is used to cut round brilliants from. Generally fancy shapes are cut with other types of rough which, after being cut will compliment that respective shape. I would also add that the fancy cut market consists of diamonds being cut for weight retention with no particular attention to optical properties. Trying to locate superior optics in fancies is a crap shoot with over 90% of them having optics that are ... well ... less than desireable. I know this because I actively look for them. This fact concludes....
,

Hi Jonathan,

Just pointing out what is probably a typo from your side. Jubilees and rounds are indeed cut from the same shape of rough, but that should be dodecahedral and not octahedral. Octahedral is perfect for princesses.

As far as pricing goes, with fancy shapes cut for beauty, there will be enormous price differences, compared to the majority, which is cut for weight. You will see the same phenomenon with the upcoming AGS-0-princess-cuts.

Live long,

 

[mdx]

Date: 1/27/2005 4:16:32 PM
Author: Rhino
Good input VH and good to cya around!

MaybeDaze... I hear ya about the prices of the Dream. Let me share something with ya though. Back before there was a Jubilee or any Square H&A diamond I was seriously looking into carrying the HoF brand just to be able to carry the Dream. Back a couple of years ago it was the only modified square on the market that had optics comparable to the best rounds. When I saw it at the show, yes the price of it made me squeel but there was no other square stone on the market that could hold a flame to it and consumers who were able to see and compare it BOUGHT. That was all I needed to know. However I never pursued the line cause I would also have to carry the HoF rounds and the it would be a tough sell especially when the goods I had, for the most part had >= finer optical precision and >= light return. I can''t show a client an unbranded H&A round for 30%-50% less with superior optics... we''d never sell the branded stone. Patience paid off however and now we have been able to acquire the 2 Square H&A''s you see featured on our site.

Ana... you pulled up a very interesting comparison. 2 points to be noted.

That 1.36ct princess cut has dimensions of 6.11 x 6.00mm and the 1.02ct Jubilee has dimensions of 6.00 x 5.99. Basically there is only a .1mm difference between the 2 making that 1.02ct look just as big! The other factor or comparison that would be interesting to see is that 1.36ct & the 1.02ct on the scale for rounds and not squares. That would also be a very revealing comparison regarding the optics of each compared to the other.

mdx... are you implying that there is more waste when cutting a princess or radiant?

Peace,

Hi Rhino
Sorry perhaps my posting was not too clear. What I’m saying is in most cases cutting squares like the regent and jubilee from the primary forms dodecahedron and octahedron usually results in better recovery than cutting rounds. so notionally you have a lower material cost. The extra weight comes from the corners.
We have a square H&A design we are working on and are pretty optimistic in terms of recovery. Manufacturing cost is higher though because at this stage the shape is laser pre formed.
Johan