weight - size - face up - price

[minousbijoux]

I think a lot of people have not read my initial post.

It wasn't to compare a commercial cut stone with a precision cut one, we have been over that a million times here.
The question was approaching a single piece of rough, and the compromised that are made when deciding how to cut it. I was interested in the general preference, if it would be more for weight or beauty. Apparently it's a bit mixed, with some preferring weight and most others beauty or performance.

Sometimes you see people leave a really thick girdle on a stone, this will increase weight a bit as the section through the girdle is the heaviest part of the stone. I personally don't find overly thick girdles to be very attractive. But I suppose that some people would rather have 5.0 cts with a thick girdle, than 4.95 with a proper one.

A similar things often when buying rough. The seller may separate stones from 1 to 2 grams at one price, and over 2 grams at another price. There is always that really weird shaped stone that is 2.1 grams, that will yield a much smaller finished stone than a well shaped 1.5 gram stone, but the seller will want more for the 2.1 gram stone.

Gene: perhaps you could have done a better job explaining it, rather than assuming that people did not read your initial post. It appears to me that everyone did and was trying to respond. In order to fully understand what each option might look, like I would need examples. From then on, presented with the question, I would know exactly how to answer your question.

 

[LD]

If a cutter has the choice and always prefers to precision cut (as you do Gene) then I'm surprised you're asking the question because I don't think you ever cut unprecisely

Your question is at an interesting time because there's not so much rare material now where you'd have an opportunity to cut and have a 2ct difference without the difference in price per carat being huge. I wonder if you said to people that you had a 10ct red hot pink Mahenge Spinel or a drop dead Kashmir/cornflower blue Sapphire, but you could cut it to an 8ct and the only difference would be some light performance I wonder what the answer would be then?

So, assuming the material is easy to obtain, people will be able to shop around and buy the best cut, colour, performance they can for their money. As long as your smaller stone is within the price range of competitors who also precision cut then there's little point in you compromising a cut.

I see beauty in both cut and colour but colour wins every single time - and I know we've had this conversation a million times before! However, having both is best lol

 

[Indylady]

We've all read the post. It wasn't clear if you were speaking of a specific example, such as "what should I do in this particular position." or if the question was an interesting hypothetical.

It depends on the material. Sometimes, for those gems with a higher RI, the cut is more important for me. Other times, it might just depend. For the same face up, I'd generally prefer a better cut.

 

[JewelFreak]

I admire an excellent cut almost as much as color. Given that they face up the same, I can't think of a stone where I wouldn't go for less weight, better performance. That's as a buyer, of course. As a seller, I might look at it differently.

 

[iLander]

As I said in the "Somebody's Gotta Buy This Stone" thread (talking about your stone, actually) "We see a lot of large stones, but most of the time the cut is kinda meh."

I prefer a great cut.

Also, I personally don't care what the cost is per carat. I couldn't tell you what that is on any of my stones, actually.

But I do know if they're pretty (amazing cut) or not . . .

 

[PrecisionGem]

If a cutter has the choice and always prefers to precision cut (as you do Gene) then I'm surprised you're asking the question because I don't think you ever cut unprecisely

Your question is at an interesting time because there's not so much rare material now where you'd have an opportunity to cut and have a 2ct difference without the difference in price per carat being huge. I wonder if you said to people that you had a 10ct red hot pink Mahenge Spinel or a drop dead Kashmir/cornflower blue Sapphire, but you could cut it to an 8ct and the only difference would be some light performance I wonder what the answer would be then?

So, assuming the material is easy to obtain, people will be able to shop around and buy the best cut, colour, performance they can for their money. As long as your smaller stone is within the price range of competitors who also precision cut then there's little point in you compromising a cut.

I see beauty in both cut and colour but colour wins every single time - and I know we've had this conversation a million times before! However, having both is best lol

Ok, let go with your example. A drop dead Kashmir sapphire. Two stones. Both are mounted in the exact same mounting. Lets say a diamond halo! The diamonds are the same size, both sapphires are exactly 12 mm round stones. One has more flash and life, the other a slight window, but you think it kind of looks like it closes up, or is that just part of the setting... who knows. Now you don't know what each stone weighs, but the price of each ring is identical. Which one do you buy? You have a hunch the one that doesn't perform as well may weigh more.

Or do you need to dig out the stones from the settings and weigh them to make up your mind?

 

[NKOTB]

I'd take sparkle and performance over weight.

 

[T L]

I'm not LD Gene, but to answer your question, now you're talking investment level stones. In that case, I would keep the one with the higher weight because in the end, your heirs will end up with it, and who knows if they'll want to sell it. Those things are sold by carat weight, not by how well they're cut. A fine ruby that is more than 3 carats for example, is worth exponentially more than one less than 3 carats, and the price goes exponentially higher per carat. If you precision cut it, then you can potentially lose a fortune.

You can shave off tens of thousands of dollars off a stone by recutting it, or even more $$$ than that, so no matter how beautiful the cut is, I don't know if it's worth it. Besides, a lot of Kashmirs have silk in them, and aren't really cut for sparkle and light return, much like fine Burmese ruby. I've seen drop dead gorgeous cabochon rubies and sapphires, in which light return is simply not an issue. I don't think all gemstones are going to benefit equally from a precision cut, such as sleepy stones, and opals as well. For example, I rather see a beautiful opal that looks like this, with all it's bumps and lumps, than have it precision cut. It's a matter of taste too, and with some stones, a precision cut is not worth it. However, for the vast majority of gems, I think precision cuts are very beautiful and the stones do benefit greatly.

I think we had this same exact conversation before many times on this site.

ETA: And for me and your hypothetical example, yes, I would have to dig the stones from their settings to have them weighed because investment grade stones require it. I don't think anyone spending a fortune for such a gem would want to have a vague idea of what they weighed, they would need an exact measurement.

 

[canuk-gal]

HI:

Do we see a lot of precision cut ovals, if so how is that defined? Common shape for colored stones, but am certain I would not know precision cut oval. Many appear like "rovals or crovals" (cut for weight?). Can't say I know perfect oval proportions even in a diamond which attempt to make the best use of rough for weight.

cheers--Sharon

 

[T L]

HI:

Do we see a lot of precision cut ovals, if so how is that defined? Common shape for colored stones, but am certain I would not know precision cut oval. Many appear like "rovals or crovals" (cut for weight?). Can't say I know perfect oval proportions even in a diamond which attempt to make the best use of rough for weight.

cheers--Sharon

Sharon, a "supernova oval" is a type of precision cut done on an oval. There's probably more, but that's the one that always comes to mind.

 

[VapidLapid]

I know the OPs intent was that this not be about recutting, but about what to chose of two options when cutting from rough, but since it has come up so often in this discussion, I am wondering if the wittlesbach went up in value both per carat and in all after the recut, or desecration, whatever your point of view. I know it graded a better color which I assume resulted in a higher per carat value. Now we all know that recuts can also result in dreadful losses of color and saturation too. I'm just throwing the wittlesbach in since it is an investment level stone, and there seemed to be exceptions to the issue when such are in question.

 

[pregcurious]

Ok, let go with your example. A drop dead Kashmir sapphire. Two stones. Both are mounted in the exact same mounting. Lets say a diamond halo! The diamonds are the same size, both sapphires are exactly 12 mm round stones. One has more flash and life, the other a slight window, but you think it kind of looks like it closes up, or is that just part of the setting... who knows. Now you don't know what each stone weighs, but the price of each ring is identical. Which one do you buy? You have a hunch the one that doesn't perform as well may weigh more.

Or do you need to dig out the stones from the settings and weigh them to make up your mind?

To be fair, I think if you know the exact face up size (12 mm), you should know the exact carat size (say 10 cts versus 8 cts).

If the native cut stone clearly had no window, was cut symmetrically, and had the same face up shape as the precision cut, I would probably pick the 10 ct drop dead gorgeous native-cut Kashmir sapphire every time. This has been experience when choosing native cut stones (no window, symmetrical, decent face up considering ct weight).

I would go on to say that I may think that the precision cut sapphire is overpriced if they are both truly drop dead perfect Kashmirs, and even with 2 more cts, the native one is the same price as the precision cut sapphire. (At 12 mm, the carat weight to price relationship is not longer linear, but greater than linear.)

If a windex-blue, glowing Paraiba from the original mine presented itself, I would buy the native cut with 2 more carats. This is assuming they have the same color (to address VLs comment). Color is king, and I think that is crucial to this question. If one stone has better color than the other, all bets are off. I am not a cut nut. Color what makes me buy a stone, but the cut. (That said, I have a threshold for size. I will not buy a stone that does not have the face-up size I desire. That is a different discussion.)

 

[T L]

I know the OPs intent was that this not be about recutting, but about what to chose of two options when cutting from rough, but since it has come up so often in this discussion, I am wondering if the wittlesbach went up in value both per carat and in all after the recut, or desecration, whatever your point of view. I know it graded a better color which I assume resulted in a higher per carat value. Now we all know that recuts can also result in dreadful losses of color and saturation too. I'm just throwing the wittlesbach in since it is an investment level stone, and there seemed to be exceptions to the issue when such are in question.

It did gain a better color grade, and clarity too if I remember correctly (not sure though). It probably went up in value not just because it was recut, but rather because giant fancy colored diamond prices are continuing to climb like crazy year after year. I do remember the anger when it was recut because it was not just a valuable blue diamond, but it had historical significance, so to recut it was kind of like painting over the "Mona Lisa" to some people. Many felt it should have just remained in its historical cut, preserved, even though there was a great deal of abrasion, chips and the cut was less than stellar. Graff made a controversial decision to recut, and he even renamed the stone.

 

[lindacat]

Better cutting - hands down. I get so tired of seeing gemstones that are badly cut and have alot of windowing and look washed out because of that. If only they had been cut better, I am willing to pay more for a well cut stone any day....a bad looking stone still looks bad, even if it is a rare gem.

 

[Kelli]

I'd want the livelier stone all day long, hands down, no question. However, I don't think I'll ever be able to afford something that anyone would care about cutting down over rarity. Thanks to my beer budget I buy garnets and tourmalines, and not the rare kinds. All I can really ask for is a dazzling cut and a color that is appealing to me.

Maybe it would be different if I was buying museum-worthy rare gems?

 

[PrecisionGem]

Somehow this discussion always go to very expensive stones, that I don't think many if anyone of the regular posters owns.

The original question was for stone that we typically see purchased around PS.

It seems from most answers that people would prefer a better performing stone, even if it cost a bit more per ct.

TL as far as thinking about stones as an investment, I think it's a very bad idea. Certainly I wouldn't think of a 10 sapphire as an investment stone. If the ring my example back in 1988 was purchased for say $100,000 what do you think you could sell it for quickly today? Most people are buying at retail, but end up selling wholesale or below.

Now take that same 100k in 1988 and buy 10,222 shares of Apple stock at the price of $9.78 per share in 1988. Today you would have $5,416,611.00 to pass on to your children. I think they would be much more pleased to get those shares of stock than your old scratched up sapphire ring.

 

[digdeep]

PrecisionGem......I typed at the same time as your thread, but along the same line...........

It seems that a majority of people are saying the stone with the better life would be their choice. However, those who are going for the extra 2 carat's are looking at investments with future price returns, not just the attraction/use of the stone. Those are two different populations in the gem world. There are financial constraints for most people when buying gems or jewelry which brings us back to the color issue (Liveliness, sparkle factor, bling!) being more important than weight, for most people. Gene......are you reading this thread in this manner?

 

[minousbijoux]

It seems to me that you have received your answer but perhaps it is not what you seek? If so, I have pretty much lost the point of this thread and the question for which you seek an answer. Perhaps you can reiterate your question in a different way?

 

[jstarfireb]

I would definitely take a lower-weight, better-performing stone any day. Especially at the same face-up size. I don't particularly care about carat weight. I pay much more attention to sparkle/performance, color, and mm size. And I typically won't spend more than $200-300 on a stone, so I'm definitely not talking about investment-grade material. So if, for example, you would recut a pavilion at a loss of carat weight but same face-up size and better sparkle, I say the loss of weight is not a problem at all.

 

[FrekeChild]

I would definitely take a lower-weight, better-performing stone any day. Especially at the same face-up size. I don't particularly care about carat weight. I pay much more attention to sparkle/performance, color, and mm size. And I typically won't spend more than $200-300 on a stone, so I'm definitely not talking about investment-grade material. So if, for example, you would recut a pavilion at a loss of carat weight but same face-up size and better sparkle, I say the loss of weight is not a problem at all.

Yup. That's how I see it too. I'm always going to look for beauty over a heavier stone.

Is this a "hypothetical" question in that you have bought a parcel of expensive rough and should you cut it to maximize performance of weight, to ensure a return on your investment?

 

[T L]

Somehow this discussion always go to very expensive stones, that I don't think many if anyone of the regular posters owns.

The original question was for stone that we typically see purchased around PS.

It seems from most answers that people would prefer a better performing stone, even if it cost a bit more per ct.

TL as far as thinking about stones as an investment, I think it's a very bad idea. Certainly I wouldn't think of a 10 sapphire as an investment stone. If the ring my example back in 1988 was purchased for say $100,000 what do you think you could sell it for quickly today? Most people are buying at retail, but end up selling wholesale or below.

Now take that same 100k in 1988 and buy 10,222 shares of Apple stock at the price of $9.78 per share in 1988. Today you would have $5,416,611.00 to pass on to your children. I think they would be much more pleased to get those shares of stock than your old scratched up sapphire ring.

Gene, You're the one who brought up Kashmir sapphires in your example above. I did also say that for the VAST MAJORITY of gems, that precision cutting will make them look better.

I simply don't think every single solitary gem there is will benefit that much, or at all, from precision cutting, and althogh it's a small subset, investment gems are part of that group. I also don't think opals with lots of color play really benefit either, and I brought those up as well. We're taking all gems into account here, are we not?

However, for reasonably priced gems that mortals can afford, or can save up for, that are very transparent, yes, I do think they will benefit from the brilliance that optimal precision cutting can give them. Almost everything you sell fits that criteria, so people should buy precision gems from you.

It is also important to note that you are expert at what you do, and you also cut for optimal color. I have seen precision cut gems that were cut along one axis in such a way that face up color was sacrificed, but weight was retained instead. I guess it depends on what the person wants, but in reasonably priced material, I would want the precision faceting, or any faceting (native as well), to show the best face up color also. One would hope, and I know many assume, that just because a gem is precision cut, it shows the best color, but unfortunately I have seen big name lapidaries cut a stone showing less than optimal color, albeit the facet meets, angles and polish were perfect. Yellow scapolite comes to mind there in the one example I distinctly remember, and tourmaline is also a big culprit because often the open axis will produce a much smaller gem.

 

[JewelFreak]

Face up size being equal, I just don't see ct wt as a preference over performance. Not even in high-dollar gems -- as Gene says, you buy retail, sell wholesale, so much of your projected markup or profit is lost there. Unless it's an extremely rare or historic stone (and markets fluctuating over time as they do), a colored gem doesn't look like a sure investment for anybody's children's benefit.

Especially since Gene specified the types PSers buy, I'd go for the better-cut stone -- what fun is it to wear one that is heavier (and I'd be the only one who knew it) but less attractive?

--- Laurie

 

[canuk-gal]

HI:

Do we see a lot of precision cut ovals, if so how is that defined? Common shape for colored stones, but am certain I would not know precision cut oval. Many appear like "rovals or crovals" (cut for weight?). Can't say I know perfect oval proportions even in a diamond which attempt to make the best use of rough for weight.

cheers--Sharon

Sharon, a "supernova oval" is a type of precision cut done on an oval. There's probably more, but that's the one that always comes to mind.

TL:

Thank you very much--I should have asked for an example....do you have a picture in your cache????

Of course it begs the question (or at least to me)--do fine and/or collectable gems get cut into these precision cuts? If weight is the bottom line since it lends toward more $$$ to the supplier, and of course to some owners bigger might be better, how often is this precision cutting used?

cheer--Sharon

 

[T L]

HI:

Do we see a lot of precision cut ovals, if so how is that defined? Common shape for colored stones, but am certain I would not know precision cut oval. Many appear like "rovals or crovals" (cut for weight?). Can't say I know perfect oval proportions even in a diamond which attempt to make the best use of rough for weight.

cheers--Sharon

Sharon, a "supernova oval" is a type of precision cut done on an oval. There's probably more, but that's the one that always comes to mind.

TL:

Thank you very much--I should have asked for an example....do you have a picture in your cache????

Of course it begs the question (or at least to me)--do fine and/or collectable gems get cut into these precision cuts? If weight is the bottom line since it lends toward more $$$ to the supplier, and of course to some owners bigger might be better, how often is this precision cutting used?

cheer--Sharon

You're welcome.

Here's a random pic of a supernova oval I pulled from PS slightly tilted away from the camera.

Vendor photo

 

[LD]

Sharon you've hit the nail on the head - not many investment stones are precision cut. They are typically nicely cut (actually some are really bad cut) to preserve weight.

Gene - In your original thread you asked us to give you an answer based on an unknown stone BUT for me there were variables which is why I answered as I did. Yes I would go for weight if the stone was an Alexandrite, Paraiba Tourmaline or, as in your example based on mine, a Kashmir Sapphire of the finest quality/colour etc. The reason is because an 8ct and a 10ct fine rare stone IS going to have a price difference irrespective of face up size.

If however, we were talking about an Amethyst or a Garnet then no I wouldn't go for weight.

However, I also wouldn't pay over the odds for a well cut Amethyst/Garnet etc and pay the extra for the cutting if there was huge price difference between normal/precision cut. If there was a modest difference then I might.

Sorry I know this story gets boring (and I know you know it) but one of my Paraibas (just over 4ct) had an awful window but recutting would have halved it's weight and drastically de-valued the stone (with no guarantee that colour wouldn't be affected) so it was a no-brainer to leave well alone and try to disguise the window in a setting. That's an example of weight over cut.

 

[canuk-gal]

HI:

Once again, thank you, TL, for the (representative) photo and LD for your input.

I cannot begin to understand the economics but other than collecting anecdotal information, may I ask, Gene, are you trying to apply some theory--for e.g. diminishing returns, to gem cutting?

Perhaps there is no formula or correct answer, but at some point decisions about "preservation of weight" over "beauty" occurs. Both beauty and weight are "valuable"--where does one end and the other begin?

cheers--Sharon

 

[PrecisionGem]

TL and LD, the original question was a 10 ct. $100 per ct stone.

You girls then brought up the idea of $50,000 per ct material and started talking about re-sale and investment ( I still contend, gems are a very poor investment at most any price.) and then recutting etc.

As you know, a don't like doing re-cuts, and seldom do. However I can say that every time I have recut a stone, I sold it for more than I paid for it, and it was a more attractive stone than the original. Really flat stones with a large window are not good candidates for a recut since you are going to loose a lot, but then I wouldn't consider buying one in the first place. It does allow someone to buy a larger stone at a cheaper price, as these stones are discounted by dealers over a stone with a better make.

 

[Indylady]

TL and LD, the original question was a 10 ct. $100 per ct stone.

You girls then brought up the idea of $50,000 per ct material and started talking about re-sale and investment ( I still contend, gems are a very poor investment at most any price.) and then recutting etc.

As you know, a don't like doing re-cuts, and seldom do. However I can say that every time I have recut a stone, I sold it for more than I paid for it, and it was a more attractive stone than the original. Really flat stones with a large window are not good candidates for a recut since you are going to loose a lot, but then I wouldn't consider buying one in the first place. It does allow someone to buy a larger stone at a cheaper price, as these stones are discounted by dealers over a stone with a better make.

I doubt there are many girls posting on this thread--just adult men and women.

 

[minousbijoux]

TL and LD, the original question was a 10 ct. $100 per ct stone.

You girls then brought up the idea of $50,000 per ct material and started talking about re-sale and investment ( I still contend, gems are a very poor investment at most any price.) and then recutting etc.

As you know, a don't like doing re-cuts, and seldom do. However I can say that every time I have recut a stone, I sold it for more than I paid for it, and it was a more attractive stone than the original. Really flat stones with a large window are not good candidates for a recut since you are going to loose a lot, but then I wouldn't consider buying one in the first place. It does allow someone to buy a larger stone at a cheaper price, as these stones are discounted by dealers over a stone with a better make.

I doubt there are many girls posting on this thread--just adult men and women.

I'm glad someone else said it.

 

[chrono]

Guess I'm not as sensitive as others; the use of "honey" and "sweetheart" bothers me more.

Gene,
Going off a tangent here since I think the answer is quite clear for gems in the $1k price range. Would you still have the same opinion if the item is $1000/ct? $5000/ct?