The most underappreciated cut…

During a Q&A, I got the most intriguing question, a question that has occupied my mind since I received it. The question was formulated in a rather straightforward manner, and I will try to answer the same way, although my mind wants to write a thesis and hold a Ted Talk.

I originally posted this text on Instagram, but I felt it needed further elaboration – it is perhaps not at thesis, but maybe the introduction to a Ted Talk “What is the most underappreciated cut in your opinion?”Firstly, I want to start by saying that there is a moment for every cut, where it serves its purpose and “makes sense”. There are cuts that work better for certain stones and there are cuts that I like better than others. There are cuts that I don’t desire for myself – like the princess and radiant cut - but that I would recommend for someone else cherishing their qualities. But that was a long paragraph that did not answer the question.

The question was which cut, in my opinion, is the most underappreciated. Well upon reflection, I think that lack of appreciation has a lot to do with trends and what is in vogue at a certain period of time. A relevant example from the watch world: right now vintage Cartier Tank watches are the Bee’s knees, they are watches you could get at the fraction of the price you pay today just a few years ago - they were under appreciated, now they are not.

With that frame of mind I would argue that right now I think that a cut that doesn’t get enough credit is the marquise cut, or navette as it is also called. Why? Well it is a cut that brings all the sparkle, whilst at the same time elongates the finger worn set north/south, which gives an elegant yet interesting silhouette. Worn set east/west it brings all the edge and sass.

It’s a cut that can create a very different impression depending on the proportions of the stone, and that because of this is quite versatile: you can play with the length to width ratio to have vastly different vibes. It can feel both modern (wider) and art deco (narrower), and it is a cut I wish more people would consider - but I think people avoid because it feels to pointy. It is also a cut that gives great finger coverage.

Now, a cut that I don’t think is necessarily underappreciated, but that I prefer to other cuts with a similar shape is the square emerald cut – like the Asscher Cut (which I also love) and the brilliant princess and cushion cuts (not my cup of tea).

The square emerald and the Asscher are the most similar and it is easy to understand why: the original Asscher cut and the square emerald cut both have 58 facets. Both cuts capture the light of a gemstone through their multi-faceted design. They are best suited to highlighting diamonds and gemstones of exceptional cut and clarity, as like in any step cut flaws will be easily detected.

The Asscher cut consists of a square cut diamond with chopped corners, giving the stone an almost octagonal appearance. In contrast, the corners of the square cut emerald are not so deeply cut, so it is more of a full square. The original Asscher cut has a three step crown and a seven step pavilion and the 58 facets are larger and wide-set compared to the square emerald cut. The Asscher also has a smaller table and higher crown height that the square emerald cut.