Old Cut Nuts... Have you switched from RB to Old Stone?

[Gypsy]

InnaR, I don't disagree with what you are saying. But your long tangential posts in random threads about this issue is making me feel schizophrenic, so could you please start your own thread on this issue instead of bringing it up in every AV line thread (and this one isn't even an AV line thread). I think you will be a lot happier, and I know the rest of us will be. Plus it will let Jon, or whoever address you directly in a constructive manner. And if you really think there are GOG shills on these boards, then just talk to the moderators as it is an issue for them to handle. Okay hon? Thanks!

 

[aljdewey]

Ima gonna try again.

All three cars below are Volkswagen Beetles. The white one on the left, called the Volkswagen Beetle, was produced from 1938-2003.

The silver one in the upper right, called the Volkswagen New Beetle, was produced from 1998-2011. It shared many common design similarities with the original VW Beetle: separate wings, vestigial running boards, sloping headlamps and large round tail lights, as well as a high rounded roofline.

The red one, called the Volkswagen Beetle, began production in 2012. The new model retains the front-engine, front-wheel drive layout of the first generation and retains the overall shape of the "original" Beetle, while featuring a lower profile and improving interior packaging with more room in the rear.

They are all made by Volkswagen. They all have a dome-shaped body style, and they all have variants of "Herbie lights". They all share some of the same features.

HOWEVER, only one of these photos makes me smile with memories of loudly singing "Jeremiah was a Bullfrog........!" with my cousins; A&W drive-ins; the Doors and CCR, and 7 girls from my high school crammed into one doing Chinese firedrills at the stoplights. Guess which one it is? The others, while similar, don't evoke nearly the same nostalgia. They are 'improved', better fuel efficiencies, better amenities, etc......but not "better" for nostalgia.

 

[CaratLover2]

InnaR, I don't disagree with what you are saying. But your long tangential posts in random threads about this issue is making me feel schizophrenic, so could you please start your own thread on this issue instead of bringing it up in every AV line thread (and this one isn't even an AV line thread). I think you will be a lot happier, and I know the rest of us will be. Plus it will let Jon, or whoever address you directly in a constructive manner. And if you really think there are GOG shills on these boards, then just talk to the moderators as it is an issue for them to handle. Okay hon? Thanks!

Great idea!

 

[Gypsy]

Ima gonna try again.

All three cars below are Volkswagen Beetles. The white one on the left, called the Volkswagen Beetle, was produced from 1938-2003.

The silver one in the upper right, called the Volkswagen New Beetle, was produced from 1998-2011. It shared many common design similarities with the original VW Beetle: separate wings, vestigial running boards, sloping headlamps and large round tail lights, as well as a high rounded roofline.

The red one, called the Volkswagen Beetle, began production in 2012. The new model retains the front-engine, front-wheel drive layout of the first generation and retains the overall shape of the "original" Beetle, while featuring a lower profile and improving interior packaging with more room in the rear.

They are all made by Volkswagen. They all have a dome-shaped body style, and they all have variants of "Herbie lights". They all share some of the same features.

HOWEVER, only one of these photos makes me smile with memories of loudly singing "Jeremiah was a Bullfrog........!" with my cousins; A&W drive-ins; the Doors and CCR, and 7 girls from my high school crammed into one doing Chinese firedrills at the stoplights. Guess which one it is? The others, while similar, don't evoke nearly the same nostalgia. They are 'improved', better fuel efficiencies, better amenities, etc......but not "better" for nostalgia.

It always comes back to cars on this board, doesn't it. Good post. Only thing I would add, is adding a new paint job and some recovered seats doesn't make the original bug a new 2012 VW. Which is why recuts and repolishes and whatnot are fine, IMO.

 

[TravelingGal]

Ima gonna try again.

All three cars below are Volkswagen Beetles. The white one on the left, called the Volkswagen Beetle, was produced from 1938-2003.

The silver one in the upper right, called the Volkswagen New Beetle, was produced from 1998-2011. It shared many common design similarities with the original VW Beetle: separate wings, vestigial running boards, sloping headlamps and large round tail lights, as well as a high rounded roofline.

The red one, called the Volkswagen Beetle, began production in 2012. The new model retains the front-engine, front-wheel drive layout of the first generation and retains the overall shape of the "original" Beetle, while featuring a lower profile and improving interior packaging with more room in the rear.

They are all made by Volkswagen. They all have a dome-shaped body style, and they all have variants of "Herbie lights". They all share some of the same features.

HOWEVER, only one of these photos makes me smile with memories of loudly singing "Jeremiah was a Bullfrog........!" with my cousins; A&W drive-ins; the Doors and CCR, and 7 girls from my high school crammed into one doing Chinese firedrills at the stoplights. Guess which one it is? The others, while similar, don't evoke nearly the same nostalgia. They are 'improved', better fuel efficiencies, better amenities, etc......but not "better" for nostalgia.

Hm...maybe it's because the old timers are getting...well, old. Oldies love nostalgia.

The one on the left might be a bitch to get on the road and upkeep though. But it sure has the potential to be fun!

 

[aljdewey]

Hm...maybe it's because the old timers are getting...well, old. Oldies love nostalgia.

The one on the left might be a bitch to get on the road and upkeep though. But it sure has the potential to be fun!

Absolutely right, and that's why the goal of the buyer is just SO important. If the buyer is looking for a reliable means of transportation, the silver or red cars should be much better candidates. If the buyer's priority is to buy a car that evokes the memories from youth and ride it around the block on weekends.....well, the one on the left is the only logical choice.

The devil is in the details. Both have assets and liabilities, and it's the buyer's preferences that determine which is the best pick for him.

*lounging back to smoke now and dig through my Doors records.* (who am I kidding? I haven't smoked in a bazillion years, and I sold my cheap-assed turntable ages ago. Fun to remember, though!)

 

[Dreamer_D]

One may not care for the look of them, but I don't think it's accurate to say that AVRs are not OECs. According to the grading lab, the certificate, and the cut criteria, they are OECs.

GIA is really bad at labeling cuts for what it is worth. They very often call true old cuts "Round Brilliants". And how can something be called an Old European Cut when it is newly cut? Anyways, I don't care about nomenclature, I just think GIA cannot be the deciding factor.

DS: That stone you love is a transitional and basically just a chunky modern round brilliant So for you an AVR would be perfect -- super precision, shorter LGF, tall crown. Having seen and lived with many different styels of old cuts, my heart lies with the older higher crowned bubbly cuts that look so decidedly different that modern RBs

 

[Laila619]

InnaR, there was another poster named Isabelle who accused posters of being shills for vendors. I'm not saying you're her, but I think you might be starting to sound like her. People might prefer certain vendors because they've had great experiences with them and that's okay. It doesn't make them shills.

 

[ariel144]

It is very interesting to me that none of you long time members in PS seem to ever refer to MRB whether they are H&A or whatever as "cookie cutter" diamonds. How many in the population own an AVR or an AVC????? They are extremely rare and they are anything but "cookie cutter". I don't understand why many of you keep bashing them and making snide digs here and there of these well cut stones because they are precision cut when you steer people in here to the more precision cut MRB H&A's time and time again.[/quote]


HAHAHA - Ariel, perhaps you should go back and read this thread from the beginning, becuase I think you've totally missed the point.

Mara is absolutely calling her MRB a 'cookie cutter' stone, and several others have chimed in similarly. I think you missed the entire essence of this......you seem to think this is only about an AVR or AVC, and that's just not so.

Mara is looking to sell her ideally-cut modern round brilliant because she doesn't appreciate the 'cookie cutter' uniformity of it anymore. She's fallen in love with the wonkiness of period-made Old Euro stones, and that's what speaks to her more now. That's the whole reason for this thread to begin with!

The offshoot of the AVC/AVR discussion happened when someone suggested one could just get an AVR/AVC instead of a period-made antique stone and inferred that it would be essentially the same thing. Some of us have said that it's not the same thing, because while BEAUTIFUL, AVC/AVRs are made with an eye toward 'correcting' perceived optics faults in period-original stones, and some of us feel those very variances are the essence of what makes period-original stones charming.

As much as you seem to want to make this about AVC/AVR, that's not what the original impetus of the thread was at all. It was Mara saying "I've fallen out of love with my clinical-looking ideally cut modern round brilliant and fallen into love with wonky, period-original OECs."

Thanks for clarifying Gypsy. I wasn't implying that you or anyone else steered people to MRB if they were looking for another cut but that IF they were looking for MRB you would steer them to the better cut and performing MRB...so if someone is looking at an EGL graded OMB, or OEC it seems that one might steer them to a precision cut AGS/GIA graded OEC/OMB which also has been further tested for light performance and is a proven performer...instead of the hit and miss method of trying to find a well cut OEC or OMB.

And I wasn't trying to make this about AVR's but commenting on how critical and negative some of the comments have been, which seemed unwarranted to me.

But looking for antique old cuts is an apples to oranges analogy here and I understand that fact and also the many reasons why the antique stones are cherished and preferred by many, and I plan to start collecting them as well.

Some of these chunky cut OEC's and OMB's are newly cut stones and not true antiques. So if one buys a loose stone then how do you prove it is an antique stone? Just wondering. Like some of the stones on OWD. I've seen the same stones they have listed on their site on other site searches as well. And there are a lot of OMB's and OEC's on Polygon. But I rather doubt that they are all antique stones. Some of their OEC''s are wonky and some are precisely round.

So the one who posted that she had her antique OEC recut...does that make it a modern cut OEC now? Personally if I found a good price on an old large cut OEC that did not perform well I would also have it recut for performance. As we all know that All diamonds are "old" and took years to form...some were just found and cut long ago and some found more recently and cut recently....LOL! So in my mind if one recuts an antique OEC to make it a better performing OEC it would no longer be an "antique" cut stone. Just food for thought, when looking for an old cut stone. To each his own and I'm right there with Mara.... lusting after an antique OEC, but if I tried several times and couldn't find a well performing large antique OEC I certainly would buy a large AVR or AVC from GOG.

Ariel, it seems the message is misfiring on many, many levels because the devil is in the details, but I'm game to try again.

1. First detail - I'm not gypsy, I"m aljdewey....but yes, in this thread, we did both agree that we perceive RBs as cookie cutter like, and we both prefer idiosyncratic beauty we find in period-original older stones to the precision of their reproduction counterparts.

2. Steering a RB shopper to a better performing RB makes sense because RBs are about performance. Most old-cut lovers will tell you that old cuts aren't about precision or performance; their appeal comes from facet arrangement that works in part because it isn't precision or performance focused. That's the charm, so it doesn't make sense to suggest stones that stray even further away from that essence.

3. It shouldn't be construed as negative when someone says "I don't personally prefer that". If I say "I don't really like tea", that doesn't mean tea sucks or that you shouldn't love tea; all it means is "I don't care for it." I really wish that distinction was more readily accepted in these types of conversations. Nothing is bad just because I don't like it or because you don't like it. It's just *not preferred by some*.

4. If you're the type who would love and enjoy an AVR as much as a period-produced stone, then by all means, get one. Nothing at all wrong with that, but for some, it wouldn't scratch their given itches......and there's nothing wrong with that either.

aljdewey,
I don't appreciate your condescending tone but thanks for taking the time to help me out here.....your number 2. sounds strange to me. Who wants a dull non-performing diamond when they are investing thousands of $$$??? oh but the facets look great!!! oh, really?? "Performance is not their focus?" Hmmm....

"Most old-cut lovers will tell you that old cuts aren't about precision or performance; their appeal comes from facet arrangement that works in part because it isn't precision or performance focused."

So maybe my brain is "mis-firing" again or maybe my goals in purchasing an old cut diamond are different from "MOST OLD CUT LOVERS" but sorry that sounds just plain strange to me. Oh as long as it is an antique stone and has the faceting i'm looking for and a good price I don't care if it doesn't perform so well. Ok, I guess I'm just not like most old cut lovers then, but if I'm spending thousands on a stone it better perform well or I've just been had like 95% of all consumers out there...old or new cut.

If a not so well performing old cut is what is satisfactory to you and facet arrangement is your focus in an old cut, then yes, that is your right to choose that type of antique stone. But it seems out of the norm for PSr's in here who try to help people find the best performing stones, regardless of the specific type of cut, on their budget and taste to settle for less than great performance when you don't have to. But that seems to be what you are implying by stating that "performance is not their focus" when purchasing an antique stone, but their main focus is "faceting arrangement". As you know, so many things go into making a beautiful diamond. I'm not really sure your #2 is accurate. And I would rather believe that "most old cut lovers" want a great performing old stone as so many have testified in these threads that they have found an old cut that also performs exceptionally well. You might get lucky on ebay but then again you might waste a lot of time and money trying to find "the stone".

i know that some people will not care for all diamond types but some PSr's seem to get digs into Jon at GOG every chance they get for some strange reason that I can't comprehend because he offers all types of diamonds for all tastes, including "genuine" antique stones that are great performers and to each his own. If you don't think that goes on in these threads then that is your opinion. But then again maybe my mind is mis-firing again and maybe I am imagining things. But the more I'm in these threads on old cuts the more I see it, even from another vendor, although in an indirect way.
I guess my statement was too general, and was misunderstood by many. But it has been a culmination of this happening in several other threads that made me address it here.
I felt that was going on in this thread and that was what I was making a general comment about...not about the fact that some don't care for an AVC or an AVR cut stone, and they certainly won't satisfy the craving for a genuine antique cut stone if that is your heart's desire. But calling them "cookie cutter" , which has a negative connotation, because they are precision cut, although they are rare high performing stones was a dig IMO based on my definition of cookie cutter. IMO a well cut antique stone is cut over many many hours of meticulous work and cut for precision and performance as well, although with different tools and in a different lighting. And like today, some cutters take extra time to cut stones ideal and some don't. Some things just don't change. Maybe it wasn't meant as a dig, but to me it came across that way and that is why I stated comparing AVR's to antique OEC's is like comparing apples to oranges...they are just different in so many ways, but each has their advantage. IMO, the same general faceting structure that antique lovers crave in an OEC is found in all AVR's, the difference being there are faceting idiosyncrasies in the antiques that make them what they are, as Mara stated ....each one is unique and as you state the 'essence' is different, because each one is different. It would be interesting to get the AVRs cutter's perspective on that comment as well. Stone cutting is an art even now.

I didn't need #'s 1,3,and 4, but I did ask a couple of questions that you didn't bother addressing.

 

[Kasey3]

(but anyone who has taken a look at AVC's especially knows they are not cookie cutter...they are very different in shape and personality from each other. AVR's are just well cut OEC's.)

I would disagree with that. Jon, by no means I'm not trying to attack your cuts, but AVR is not a well cut OEC, and AVC is not a well cut OMC. They don't look like them, and they don't act like them.
They both are fancy modern cuts. Not as simple as H&A, but more like Princess of Hearts or Octavia.
I personally think that going after optimum light return actually took something away from the cut.
A market for them would probably consist from men and new buyers. Those who learned about four Cs and go after reports and numbers by the book. Those who have seen it all, will go after real old cuts, because they learned enough to trust their own eyes.

P.S. I was trying to say the same thing in Catia's post. Its important to tell people that they need to trust their eyes, and not the reports.

It wasn't Jon that said this-read the name of the person who posted this statement! I have a question for you...have you seen an AVC or AVR in person with your own eyes? Or do you just want to bash the cut every chance you get?

Also as a side note we can all agree that diamonds are beautiful-we are all captivated by them and we all have our opinions and personal favorites. Mara specifically asked for opinions from people who once had a MRB and traded for an OEC and did they regret it-all other opinions are just that. I actually did, and I would like to share my thoughts-but I don't want a debate about which cut is better. They are both beautiful!

And she wasn't addressing him. It's the difference between "I would disagree with that, Jon. By no means I'm not trying to attack your cuts ...." and, "I would disagree with that. Jon, by no means I'm not trying to attack your cuts ...." - the former would address Jon throughout, and the latter addresses DS before redirecting the argument to him. Inna wrote the latter.

+1 to Inna, so long as that's the flavor of the day - and that's not "bashing" the AV line, just making an observation about it. They're not old cuts. They're fancy modern cuts in the style of old cuts. That's entirely factually accurate.

Thank you so much Circe for the "lesson"-I don't know how I have made it this far in life without it-and the bashing comment did not refer to this thread alone.

 

[Kasey3]

Mara-it really sounds to me as if your heart now lies with the OEC-and that you won't regret the swich. I have upgraded several times myself and each time I have small regrets-but over time it goes away because the new diamond is gorgeous (aren't they all?) and I know it was a well thought out decision. The OEC you have your eye on (can we have a small hint?) will be a once in a lifetime opportunity as they are all unique-and I am confident that you could replace your MRB with one equally beautiful if you had any regrets.I hope you soon have the stone of your dreams on your hand and that you post a TON of pictures! Good luck.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

One may not care for the look of them, but I don't think it's accurate to say that AVRs are not OECs. According to the grading lab, the certificate, and the cut criteria, they are OECs.

GIA is really bad at labeling cuts for what it is worth. They very often call true old cuts "Round Brilliants". And how can something be called an Old European Cut when it is newly cut? Anyways, I don't care about nomenclature, I just think GIA cannot be the deciding factor.

DS: That stone you love is a transitional and basically just a chunky modern round brilliant So for you an AVR would be perfect -- super precision, shorter LGF, tall crown. Having seen and lived with many different styels of old cuts, my heart lies with the older higher crowned bubbly cuts that look so decidedly different that modern RBs

Dreamer, I would love a well cut OEC as well. I just didn't have any examples of larger stones with an excellent face up view saved in my pictures. The best example I can tell you is that I greatly prefer some OEC's on JBEG over others. I'd choose the best cut ones. But even then, you often can't set them in a prong setting unless you deal with the very thin girdle. Thankfully we know how to access cutting and polishing! But I think transitional owners are going to argue that their stones are old cuts since they are! I had a beautiful small one but sold the ring.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Hm...maybe it's because the old timers are getting...well, old. Oldies love nostalgia.

The one on the left might be a bitch to get on the road and upkeep though. But it sure has the potential to be fun!

Absolutely right, and that's why the goal of the buyer is just SO important. If the buyer is looking for a reliable means of transportation, the silver or red cars should be much better candidates. If the buyer's priority is to buy a car that evokes the memories from youth and ride it around the block on weekends.....well, the one on the left is the only logical choice.

The devil is in the details. Both have assets and liabilities, and it's the buyer's preferences that determine which is the best pick for him.

*lounging back to smoke now and dig through my Doors records.* (who am I kidding? I haven't smoked in a bazillion years, and I sold my cheap-assed turntable ages ago. Fun to remember, though!)

I love the car analogy because it reminds me SO much of my husband. He has a 1968 Porsche, but it is certainly not his everyday car. He also has another car and a truck!

I, on the other hand, have one car. So I am thinking I should apply this strategy to rings have at least two or three e-rings, don't ya think???

 

[Circe]

"Most old-cut lovers will tell you that old cuts aren't about precision or performance; their appeal comes from facet arrangement that works in part because it isn't precision or performance focused."

So maybe my brain is "mis-firing" again or maybe my goals in purchasing an old cut diamond are different from "MOST OLD CUT LOVERS" but sorry that sounds just plain strange to me. Oh as long as it is an antique stone and has the faceting i'm looking for and a good price I don't care if it doesn't perform so well. Ok, I guess I'm just not like most old cut lovers then, but if I'm spending thousands on a stone it better perform well or I've just been had like 95% of all consumers out there...old or new cut.

If a not so well performing old cut is what is satisfactory to you and facet arrangement is your focus in an old cut, then yes, that is your right to choose that type of antique stone. But it seems out of the norm for PSr's in here who try to help people find the best performing stones, regardless of the specific type of cut, on their budget and taste to settle for less than great performance when you don't have to. But that seems to be what you are implying by stating that "performance is not their focus" when purchasing an antique stone, but their main focus is "faceting arrangement". As you know, so many things go into making a beautiful diamond. I'm not really sure your #2 is accurate. And I would rather believe that "most old cut lovers" want a great performing old stone as so many have testified in these threads that they have found an old cut that also performs exceptionally well. You might get lucky on ebay but then again you might waste a lot of time and money trying to find "the stone".

i know that some people will not care for all diamond types but some PSr's seem to get digs into Jon at GOG every chance they get for some strange reason that I can't comprehend because he offers all types of diamonds for all tastes, including "genuine" antique stones that are great performers and to each his own. If you don't think that goes on in these threads then that is your opinion. But then again maybe my mind is mis-firing again and maybe I am imagining things. But the more I'm in these threads on old cuts the more I see it, even from another vendor, although in an indirect way.

... [cut for length]

Ariel, I don't think anybody is seeking out dead, dud stones - they're looking for stones that "perform" in a different way. Edge-to-edge white light return just isn't as important to me, personally, as a lot of fire: and the aspect of facet arrangement might make more sense to you if you think about stones other than diamonds. Sapphires don't refract like diamonds, right? Yet people still seek out the well cut ones, not just because good cut intensifies color, but because a beautiful facet arrangement is a delight to the eyes. I love to look into a good Portuguese cut. Old cuts have a little bit of that going on, combined with the refraction of a diamond for amazing scintillation.

Kasey - my pleasure!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

InnaR, there was another poster named Isabelle who accused posters of being shills for vendors. I'm not saying you're her, but I think you might be starting to sound like her. People might prefer certain vendors because they've had great experiences with them and that's okay. It doesn't make them shills.

Actually, the thread she was upset about was a person who had ordered only AVR's and AVC's to compare for her e-ring! And the person was very thorough and took them into many lighting situations and described their performance. Guess what? You don't see fire in diamonds in some lighting! It wasn't a flaw in the stones, it was the lighting. And then when the stones were taken in the right lighting, she saw the fire and fell in love with a particular stone. The OP was NOT pushing AV stones on anyone else, she was choosing which to buy for herself!!!!

Sorry, Mara. But since this has interrupted your thread anyway, I wanted to explain why Inna's posts were very off base on the other thread as well.

 

[Mara]

A great facet arrangement to me just contributes to the cut quality of the stone in terms of how it is going to perform. Just because someone is seeking a pleasing facet arrangement to the eye does not mean they are giving up a ton in performance or cut quality, in fact if you see a beautiful FA then I would imagine that says a great deal about performance right there.

I highly doubt a PS'er is going to be giving up a great performing MRB for some dud OEC. Just like with MRB's there are going to be shades of gray in what people find pleasing and others don't. Some people don't like H&A's because they don't like seeing the arrows in certain lighting! Or their ideal cut going dark in the sun. I used to love those arrows, now I'd prefer just to see twinkles.

Interesting about the AVR's and the white light, I also would love to see a thread on that if anyone is so inclined because I would imagine that cutting a stone for absolute light return does have some type of sacrifice in terms of 'fire'... but I'm not that familiar with AVR's in terms of their crown heights, angles etc. I have a girlfriend who got an amazing OEC borderline transitional stone and she noticed that it doesn't seem as 'fiery' as she expected, maybe because the crown height was not quite as sky high as some of the older less symmetrical OEC's. My OEC borderline tranny is super fiery though and the crown isn't that high but the facets are a lot of small little ones, I find in the sun it has ridiculous fire and flashes all over and in lower lighting of course too. But in store lighting it's white white white.

 

[ericad]

I think the disconnect comes into play because those who aren't passionate about antiques treat AVR's and antique OEC's like they're the same thing, and that one is superior to the other.

The antique apothecary table isn't the same as the Pottery Barn apothecary table. The antique table may be somewhat worn, rustic, in need of some restoration and TLC, but it's a work of art. And once you factor in the age and craftsmanship that was needed at the time it was made, you can see it's a treasure to be preserved FOR THOSE WHO LOVE AND COLLECT ANTIQUES. Antiques are sometimes in great condition, and sometimes they need work. Sometimes they need a complete overhaul - but they're still antiques - rare and one of a kind.

The modern antique style Pottery Barn table is slick. It's flawless in its finish, it has metal glides and new hardware, it was made using modern technology and is readily available. The Pottery Barn tables may have slight variations in wood grain, but they're essentially consistent in appearance with a high level of quality control so that they all look pretty equal to each other, with just slight nuances. FOR THOSE WHO LOVE NEW THINGS, this table is perfect for them. You get the look, but with the benefit of modern technology.

How can anyone say that the reproduction table is BETTER or SUPERIOR to the original antique? It seems so obvious to me that they're completely different and should be respected as such. They each bring different qualities to the table (pun intended). To say the antique table is "poorly made" compared to the reproduction is where I take issue - because the two should never be compared to each other in the first place.

 

[aljdewey]

"Most old-cut lovers will tell you that old cuts aren't about precision or performance; their appeal comes from facet arrangement that works in part because it isn't precision or performance focused."

So maybe my brain is "mis-firing" again or maybe my goals in purchasing an old cut diamond are different from "MOST OLD CUT LOVERS" but sorry that sounds just plain strange to me. Oh as long as it is an antique stone and has the faceting i'm looking for and a good price I don't care if it doesn't perform so well. Ok, I guess I'm just not like most old cut lovers then, but if I'm spending thousands on a stone it better perform well or I've just been had like 95% of all consumers out there...old or new cut.

If a not so well performing old cut is what is satisfactory to you and facet arrangement is your focus in an old cut, then yes, that is your right to choose that type of antique stone. But it seems out of the norm for PSr's in here who try to help people find the best performing stones, regardless of the specific type of cut, on their budget and taste to settle for less than great performance when you don't have to. But that seems to be what you are implying by stating that "performance is not their focus" when purchasing an antique stone, but their main focus is "faceting arrangement". As you know, so many things go into making a beautiful diamond. I'm not really sure your #2 is accurate. And I would rather believe that "most old cut lovers" want a great performing old stone as so many have testified in these threads that they have found an old cut that also performs exceptionally well. You might get lucky on ebay but then again you might waste a lot of time and money trying to find "the stone".

i know that some people will not care for all diamond types but some PSr's seem to get digs into Jon at GOG every chance they get for some strange reason that I can't comprehend because he offers all types of diamonds for all tastes, including "genuine" antique stones that are great performers and to each his own. If you don't think that goes on in these threads then that is your opinion. But then again maybe my mind is mis-firing again and maybe I am imagining things. But the more I'm in these threads on old cuts the more I see it, even from another vendor, although in an indirect way.

... [cut for length]

Ariel, I don't think anybody is seeking out dead, dud stones - they're looking for stones that "perform" in a different way. Edge-to-edge white light return just isn't as important to me, personally, as a lot of fire: and the aspect of facet arrangement might make more sense to you if you think about stones other than diamonds. Sapphires don't refract like diamonds, right? Yet people still seek out the well cut ones, not just because good cut intensifies color, but because a beautiful facet arrangement is a delight to the eyes. I love to look into a good Portuguese cut. Old cuts have a little bit of that going on, combined with the refraction of a diamond for amazing scintillation.

Kasey - my pleasure!

Circe said it so well in the bolded - that's the sum of the matter. None of the old cut lovers I know aren't looking for dull, dud stones. They're looking for stones that are well cut, but not formulaic. Ariel, I"m sorry if this doesn't resonate with you, and if it doesn't, well.....then it just doesn't. Your priorities may be different and that's fine for you. Thankfully, there are enough choices to suit us all.

However, I really do wish you'd stop making this a crusade against Jon; it's not. This discussion wasn't even about him at the outset - it was about a change in preference from the technically precise look of RBs to the haphazard beauty of old cuts and recognizing that part of their beauty IS the haphazardness of the facet arrangement.

Though you seem hell-bent on looking for insult in 'cookie-cutter', it was never intended or offered that way. Cookie-cutter has MANY positive attributes for people who LIKE them; repeatability, consistency, maximization of performance, etc. But some of us just prefer things a bit outside the lines, and that shouldn't be a source of offense to anyone to say so. It shouldn't be offense if someone says "eh, round stones just don't do anything for me because they don't feel individual; I prefer squares shapes." NO difference. If you're hell-bent on finding insult in that, I'm afraid that's just your issue.

ETA: I'm sorry you felt I "didn't bother" with some of your questions; I answered that which I thought was the source of confusion. You apparently have some other rant going about AVRs/AVC (in another thread maybe) that's really none of my concern and has nothing do to with this conversation, hence the not answering. This thread was about a recognition by Mara that she's not longer entranced by the look of technically perfect stones; she finds more beauty in a different and less technically perfect look now, and she's contemplating selling her RB. THAT is what this thread was about, and if you guys want to have offline fights about the merits of repros (AVC/AVR), that's just not a discussion I care to involve myself in much since they aren't my thing.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I think the "fire" issue is that people don't understand that you aren't going to see it in certain lighting. For example, I have never seen fire in any diamond in regular office fluorescent lighting or in complete shade outdoors. But if you take the diamond into the sunlight or Walmart type stores with overhead halogen lighting, then it is very apparent. This will apply to mrb's, OEC's, AVR's, and whatever other initials you can think of!

 

[Circe]

Thanks, Alj - blushing.

DS - part of it, though, might be a question of cut type. Somebody a few pages back - sorry that I don't remember who - mentioned that AVRs looked more like transitionals to them then they did what we think of as OECs. Those sorts of stones, with the regular "snowflake" facets and the somewhat bigger tables (as compared to the teeny-tiny tables of the older cuts) actually do tend to return a lot of white light - they're like BICs rather than FICs. The lighting environment is definitely crucial, but even once you take that into account ....

(You probably know all this, just mentioning it for lurkers.)

Again, this is a matter of taste and not criticism. AVRs are beautiful examples of that type! But it does mean that they don't necessarily fulfill the desires of people who want OECs. Now, if Jon wanted to cut something that fit the proportions of, say, that little 60 pointer Dreamer mentioned ...

 

[Skippy123]

One may not care for the look of them, but I don't think it's accurate to say that AVRs are not OECs. According to the grading lab, the certificate, and the cut criteria, they are OECs.

Well, so by that logic, you must also believe that many 100+-year stones are round brilliants, because the GIA reports say so. (Incidently, that's a huge reason why EGL is the preferred lab for many older cuts. They at least more consistently recognize the difference between an old euro and a rb.)

The fact that a grading lab doesn't have a label to mark something as a reproduction doesn't make it less of one. If the only two labels available are round brilliant and old euro, it makes sense to choose the old euro label since that's what they most closely resemble. Since they don't have a label for "old euro *style*", it makes sense.

Well, 100 year old stones are round (depending) and brilliant (can be) but AVR's certainly aren't old.

(That was a totally worthless comment to this thread, wasn't it?)

Really, the pertinent question to this thread is: WHAT does Mara have her eye on, that's she's gunning to leave that J in the dust?

that is what I am wondering too! I always thought if she turned in her 2 ct RB I would snatch it up, seriously!!! I guess I can't now being a SAHM!

 

[Mara]

...haha TG and Skippy... couldn't leave you gals totally hanging. Here's a pic of what I am considering.

 

[aljdewey]

I always thought if she turned in her 2 ct RB I would snatch it up, seriously!!! I guess I can't now being a SAHM!

Skip, you're not alone on that, believe me. I've had dibs on that stone since the day we first laid eyes on it together at WF, and it's seriously the only stone I'd have considered getting in addition to my e-ring......but I'm suffering from the same affliction Mara is. While I used to love it and can still appreciate it for what it is, it doesn't speak to me now the way old stones with the CHUNKY facets do. I'm hoarding *those* like they're going out of style (which they kind of are!).

 

[justginger]

That is sooooo beautiful, Mara. I'd make the switch so fast, your head would spin.

 

[SparklyOEC]

That is sooooo beautiful, Mara. I'd make the switch so fast, your head would spin.

+1...absolutely gorgeous OEC! I'd snatch that baby up in a minute.

 

[aljdewey]

...haha TG and Skippy... couldn't leave you gals totally hanging. Here's a pic of what I am considering.

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. That doesn't perform at ALL.

 

[TravelingGal]

...haha TG and Skippy... couldn't leave you gals totally hanging. Here's a pic of what I am considering.

::::::thud::::::::

Considering? What is there to CONSIDER?!

 

[TravelingGal]

btw, is that a 3c? And if so, would you even wear the 1.5 OEC? I know you mostly only wear on your left hand now.....

 

[Gypsy]

Lovely. I adore the color. What is the estimated (or actual) color?

 

[Matata]

In a nutshell, you wouldn't have posted at all if you weren't going to make the switch. You know you're gonna do it. You have to do it because once something like this gets under your skin, you can't shake it. And I have the utmost faith that if you change your mind in future and decide you need super ideal again, you'll find a way. You are Mara after all.