dark/dull looking ring

[jmartini]

Hello everyone,

Newbie here. I guess I should have done even more research before we purchased (one week ago). I bought an ideal cut .90 RB G color SI (the center of a 3 stone ring). When I hold out my hand to look at my ring, it appears darker and more dull in the middle of the stone...just not as sparkly as I would have expected. However, when I had my sister and mom try on the ring and then I look at it, I can see that it is very sparkly and white loooking. My mom and sis did say that they can see what I am talking about when they look at the ring on their own finger, but not when I have it on....Any ideas? Sounds weird, right? I have a GIA certified diamond (the certificate doesn''t have crown or pavillion angles on it), but the table is 58% and the depth is 63%. I was thinking that maybe it''s too deep. The appraisal and the GIA certificate get mailed out together (I just picked up the ring on Friday), so I don''t have them to look at. I''m not sure if I''ve given you enough info to make any suggestions...I don''t *think* it''s a case of fish eye, but ...

Oh, and is it typical that the ring will look really white under fluorescent lighting?

Thanks everyone! Wish I came here first!
Jen

 

[aphisiglovessae]

Pavilion Depth
The diagram only looks at pavilion depth (distance from the bottom of the girdle to the culet), one of the 3 major proportions affecting a diamond's brilliance. A pavilion depth that is too shallow or too deep will allow light to escape from the side of the stone, or through the bottom, causing a dark and dull appearance and reducing the diamond's brilliance. A well-cut diamond will direct more light through the crown thus maximising the brilliance of the diamond. Note that the diagram is an oversimplified 2-dimensional representation of the complex behaviour of light passing through the diamond which in reality includes refraction, dispersion and reflection.

ETA:
GIA with IDEAL
proportions:
EXCELLENT POLISH
EXCELLENT SYMMETRY OR
VERY GOOD POLISH
VERY GOOD SYMMETRY
A diamond having the above ratings on a GIA certificate would be comparable to an AGS Triple Zero. Providing that the diamond has ideal proportions meaning the table is between 54-57%, the depth is in the range of approx. 59.5 to 62.5%, and the girdle is in the range of thin to slightly thick, and the 'polish and symmetry' are rated as 'excellent' or 'very good', then the diamond would be equivalent to an AGS Triple Zero. These diamonds have the same spectacular overwhelming brilliance that the AGS000's have. Even though the range of tables is from 54 to 57% the optimal ones are 55 and 56%. Even though the ideal depth range is approx. 59.5 to 63% the optimal depth is from approx. 60 to 61.7%.

 

[aphisiglovessae]

If I''m wrong, anyone feel free to correct me.

 

[belle]

where did you get this information from aphis?

 

[aphisiglovessae]

A couple of diamond vendors. It''s probably wrong, but I figured if a few said the same thing, there must be SOME truth in it somewhere.

 

[RockDoc]

There is a lot more in determining the ideal cut than just the table and depth of the stone.

Generally 63% is a bit deep. but in approximate terms the total depth is approximately the total of the crown height, girdle thickness and the pavilion depth.

The crown angle as well as the pavilion angle are also important information to have.


I think the "darkness" you are observing is probably obscuration from your head or another object blocking the light.

The diamond has 57-58 facets ( 58 if it has a culet ) and the angles of each facet are important to know as well as girdle straightness, uniformity, and symmetry of the facting. Centering of the culet and centering of the table also have a bearing on just how well a stone will face up and return light.

There is a lot more to this, but finding out this information would be a good start.

Rockdoc

 

[belle]

Date: 2/27/2006 11:11:29 PM
Author: aphisiglovessae
A couple of diamond vendors. It''s probably wrong, but I figured if a few said the same thing, there must be SOME truth in it somewhere.

if you don''t understand it and aren''t sure whether any of it is right or wrong, you probably shouldn''t be advising people on it. i understand that you are trying to be helpful, but you posted a conglomerate of information that wasn''t your own and insinuated it was by stating ''correct me if i''m wrong''. since you don''t even understand the information you''ve provided, you can''t back up any questions posed in reference to it. this isn''t helpful to newbies trying to sort out information.

 

[belle]

jmartini,
are you noticing this more in bright light (like direct sunlight)?
i wouldn''t say that most diamonds look ''bright'' white under fluorescent lighting, but as rockdoc mentioned, there is much more that goes into determining how a stone performs in different lighting conditions. we would need more information about your stone to make any kind of guesstimates about the cause.

 

[aphisiglovessae]

I understand it very well, thank you. I'm just not an expert so I can't say it IS right, which is why I said if anyone thinks it should be corrected, feel free. No need to talk to me like I'm stupid or something. I wouldn't have posted it if I didn't understand it and think that it made sense.

ETA: I also found the same information on sites that are for diamond education and don't sell diamonds.

 

[belle]

Date: 2/27/2006 11:55:53 PM
Author: aphisiglovessae
I understand it very well, thank you. I'm just not an expert so I can't say it IS right, which is why I said if anyone thinks it should be corrected, feel free. No need to talk to me like I'm stupid or something. I wouldn't have posted it if I didn't understand it and think that it made sense.

i'm not an expert, but yeah, i can say if it's right or not. you don't have to be a mathematician to verify that 2+2 =4 is indeed right.
you either know it or you don't. when you said 'it's probably wrong' that showed me you didn't know what you were posting about.

anyway...i do not want to argue with you here. perhaps it would be more helpful for you to link to the sites with this information directly instead of stating it as your own. that would be helpful.

 

[aphisiglovessae]

The only reason why I say it could be wrong is because all of my diamond education is from internet research and everyone knows that you can't believe EVERYTHING you read on the internet. In MY mind, the information is correct, but since I am NOT an expert, I refuse to say that it is and have an expert (like Rockdoc or Dave Atlas) make me look dumb by saying it's not.

ETA: If you think you have a better explanation then simply state it without down-grading my attempt to give this person an answer. And there IS a web address in that post, in case you didn't see it.

If you want a whole list then here is some others I looked at:
www.1diamondguide.com
www.usacerteddiamonds.com
www.diamond.info
www.diamondinfo.org
www.bluenile.com
www.ejeweller.com.au
www.diamondreview.com
www.diamondeducation.net


I would've looked at more, but I didn't want to spend all night reading stuff that said the same thing. The only differences were between 1 and 2% in the proportions.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 2/27/2006 10:19:28 PM
Author: aphisiglovessae
Pavilion Depth
The diagram only looks at pavilion depth (distance from the bottom of the girdle to the culet), one of the 3 major proportions affecting a diamond's brilliance. A pavilion depth that is too shallow or too deep will allow light to escape from the side of the stone, or through the bottom, causing a dark and dull appearance and reducing the diamond's brilliance. A well-cut diamond will direct more light through the crown thus maximising the brilliance of the diamond. Note that the diagram is an oversimplified 2-dimensional representation of the complex behaviour of light passing through the diamond which in reality includes refraction, dispersion and reflection.

ETA:
GIA with IDEAL
proportions:
EXCELLENT POLISH
EXCELLENT SYMMETRY OR
VERY GOOD POLISH
VERY GOOD SYMMETRY
A diamond having the above ratings on a GIA certificate would be comparable to an AGS Triple Zero. Providing that the diamond has ideal proportions meaning the table is between 54-57%, the depth is in the range of approx. 59.5 to 62.5%, and the girdle is in the range of thin to slightly thick, and the 'polish and symmetry' are rated as 'excellent' or 'very good', then the diamond would be equivalent to an AGS Triple Zero. These diamonds have the same spectacular overwhelming brilliance that the AGS000's have. Even though the range of tables is from 54 to 57% the optimal ones are 55 and 56%. Even though the ideal depth range is approx. 59.5 to 63% the optimal depth is from approx. 60 to 61.7%.

Unfortunately, aphisiglovessae is not the first to be hoodwinked by half-truths. Such tall tales are told on the 'net and elsewhere because they may help sales. They are especially confusing when repeated by more than one source.

Here's the real deal: From 1996-2005 the terms triple zero and Ideal became synonymous with top craftsmanship and performance, thanks to the strict standards of the American Gem Society.


These notes may be of interest to some of you:

...Historically, the coveted 'triple zero' was an AGS graded diamond of premium cut, D color and Flawless clarity, thus 0 grades in cut, color, clarity, or AGS 000 (more here).

...As time went on, sellers diluted the term to omit color and clarity and refer to any AGS diamond with the Ideal cut grade as an AGS 000, since to earn Ideal in cut it had to have three subgrades of 0 in proportions, 0 in polish and 0 in symmetry. This usage entered the trade lexicon and everyone, including the AGS, eventually accepted it since it still applied exclusively to AGS graded diamonds.

...As more time went on, sellers twisted the term to improperly describe any diamond (AGS or not) that had proportions matching the published AGS Ideal range and top polish/sym from other labs. This is incorrect, as there is no way of knowing if a diamond graded elsewhere would meet ideal (AGS0) standards in polish and symmetry without actually sending that diamond to the AGS.

..As even more time went on, some sellers even began blatant abuse of the term by claiming that limited proportions sets and lesser grades in polish/sym would be comparable to AGS 000 (as in the quoted post). This is false. For example, the above cites accurate AGS depth, table and girdle information but excludes the all-important crown and pavilion angle information, so there is no way of knowing if the diamond even meets traditional ideal proportions. Further - as before - the '0' grade is exclusive to AGS: VG/EX symmetry from another lab are typically beneath AGS Ideal standards.

In July of 2005 the AGS raised the bar again: Now the only true AGS 000 is one that has earned the AGS 0 grade in light performance, 0 in proportions and 0 in finish. The light performance grade is proprietary and exclusive to AGS.

Sellers use the improper and abusive tactics described above to try and associate their goods with a known standard.

The bottom line?

If a seller wants to brag about having AGS 000 stones the answer is simple... He should send his diamonds to the AGS for grading.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 2/28/2006 1:23:57 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

In July of 2005 the AGS raised the bar again: Now the only true AGS 000 is one that has earned the AGS 0 grade in light performance, 0 in proportions and 0 in finish. The light performance grade is proprietary and exclusive to AGS.

Sellers use the improper and abusive tactics described above to try and associate their goods with a known standard.

The bottom line?

If a seller wants to brag about having AGS 000 stones the answer is simple... He should send his diamonds to the AGS for grading.

John Q
if my stone is also graded D IF by AGS .....will AGS put 00000 on the report?

what do you call a stone with 5 zeros?

 

[aphisiglovessae]

Thank you very much for the enlightenment. I have a question for you though. Without formal education, how is one to determine which information is correct when sites reference experts in their document?

For example, David Atlas is referenced in this page of proportion tables concerning ideal cut diamonds:
http://www.diamond.info/diamonds/diamonds_4cs_cut5.shtml

Although the percentages listed are not exactly what I have written, they are within 1 to 2 percent of the tables supposedly created by David Atlas of AGA. Are you saying that these standards were ONCE true and are no longer valid due to grading changes or were they incorrect to begin with?? I know that the AGA grading scale is slightly different than AGS and GIA, but shouldn't they be similar to an extent that they are comparable?

ETA: Is one to assume that "ideal" is Tolkowsky with its strict proportions or is ideal a general term for a stone that is within a range of proportions that deem the best cut? If it IS Tolkowsky, yes the information I found is way off, but I always thought it was really a general term for stones fitting into the proportion range for the best (hence ideal) cut.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 2/28/2006 1:55:11 AM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 2/28/2006 1:23:57 AM
Author: JohnQuixote



In July of 2005 the AGS raised the bar again: Now the only true AGS 000 is one that has earned the AGS 0 grade in light performance, 0 in proportions and 0 in finish. The light performance grade is proprietary and exclusive to AGS.

Sellers use the improper and abusive tactics described above to try and associate their goods with a known standard.

The bottom line?

If a seller wants to brag about having AGS 000 stones the answer is simple... He should send his diamonds to the AGS for grading.

John Q
if my stone is also graded D IF by AGS .....will AGS put 00000 on the report?

what do you call a stone with 5 zeros?

We''ve been through all of this before DF.
Maybe you were off starting a breakfast thread in hangout (?)

Four zeros is the Quado. Five is the Quinto... Of course, that leads to scandalous speculation about six zeros.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 2/28/2006 1:58:19 AM
Author: aphisiglovessae
Thank you very much for the enlightenment. I have a question for you though. Without formal education, how is one to determine which information is correct when sites reference experts in their document?

For example, David Atlas is referenced in this page of proportion tables concerning ideal cut diamonds:
http://www.diamond.info/diamonds/diamonds_4cs_cut5.shtml

Although the percentages listed are not exactly what I have written, they are within 1 to 2 percent of the tables supposedly created by David Atlas of AGA. Are you saying that these standards were ONCE true and are no longer valid due to grading changes or were they incorrect to begin with?? I know that the AGA grading scale is slightly different than AGS and GIA, but shouldn''t they be similar to an extent that they are comparable?

You''re welcome. Without formal education it''s challenging, but PS is a good place to ask for and receive honest answers.

As for standards - you''re citing from different systems. It may help to separate the word ''ideal'' from the ''0'' grade. The word ''ideal'' is not exclusive to the AGS: That word has been used by many over the years to describe different sets of diamond parameters (arguably, the AGS ''Ideal'' parameters are most popularly associated with the word).

The ''0'' grade is exclusive to the AGS. Associating ''triple 0'' with diamonds graded by other labs is incorrect.

Dave''s AGA charts use the term American Ideal. Instead of a 0 grade, the AGA top grades in cut are 1A and 1B (both of which fall into his ''American Ideal'' parameters).

 

[aphisiglovessae]

Date: 2/28/2006 2:16:20 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 2/28/2006 1:58:19 AM

Author: aphisiglovessae

Thank you very much for the enlightenment. I have a question for you though. Without formal education, how is one to determine which information is correct when sites reference experts in their document?


For example, David Atlas is referenced in this page of proportion tables concerning ideal cut diamonds:

http://www.diamond.info/diamonds/diamonds_4cs_cut5.shtml


Although the percentages listed are not exactly what I have written, they are within 1 to 2 percent of the tables supposedly created by David Atlas of AGA. Are you saying that these standards were ONCE true and are no longer valid due to grading changes or were they incorrect to begin with?? I know that the AGA grading scale is slightly different than AGS and GIA, but shouldn't they be similar to an extent that they are comparable?

You're welcome. Without formal education it's challenging, but PS is a good place to ask for and receive honest answers.


As for standards - you're citing from different systems. It may help to separate the word 'ideal' from the '0' grade. The word 'ideal' is not exclusive to the AGS: That word has been used by many over the years to describe different sets of diamond parameters (arguably, the AGS 'Ideal' parameters are most popularly associated with the word).


The '0' grade is exclusive to the AGS. Associating 'triple 0' with diamonds graded by other labs is incorrect.


Dave's AGA charts use the term American Ideal. Instead of a 0 grade, the AGA top grades in cut are 1A and 1B (both of which fall into his 'American Ideal' parameters).

Is the AGS "triple 0" a better cut than ideal then?

I understand what you are saying, but just because they call it something different, why does it mean they cannot be compared? I looked at some tables for each laboratory and they looked VERY similar. The information I posted comparing AGS000 to GIA ex/ex is from what I thought was a very reputable dealer.

 

[Mara]

There is a huge thread on the new GIA charts and how it compares to AGS....maybe John has that link for you to read Aphis.

From what I have read I don't really buy into the whole GIA cut grade thing...esp since I plugged in a stone or two that would be/is an AGS 0 and GIA only gives it something like a VG. One of which is my own stone which outperforms any stone I have owned previously. Personally while I feel both are reputable, I tend to prefer the cut grades from AGS to have specs closer to what *I* consider ideal.

Jmartini, maybe you have head obstruction aka when you look at the stone your head blocks some of the light so that the light into the stone is not returning properly to your eye, but when someone else wears it, you see it at a different angle and therefore more light is getting into and returning from the stone to your eye. There is more on the whole head obstruction in previous threads. But the specs may classify this as a bit of a steep, deep stone where you do have some darkness in the stone, if you have a Sarin it may help.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 2/28/2006 2:00:28 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 2/28/2006 1:55:11 AM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 2/28/2006 1:23:57 AM
Author: JohnQuixote





In July of 2005 the AGS raised the bar again: Now the only true AGS 000 is one that has earned the AGS 0 grade in light performance, 0 in proportions and 0 in finish. The light performance grade is proprietary and exclusive to AGS.

Sellers use the improper and abusive tactics described above to try and associate their goods with a known standard.

The bottom line?

If a seller wants to brag about having AGS 000 stones the answer is simple... He should send his diamonds to the AGS for grading.

John Q
if my stone is also graded D IF by AGS .....will AGS put 00000 on the report?

what do you call a stone with 5 zeros?

We''ve been through all of this before DF.
Maybe you were off starting a breakfast thread in hangout (?)

Four zeros is the Quado. Five is the Quinto... Of course, that leads to scandalous speculation about six zeros.

yes we have

i still say only D IF along with the NOW "0 grade in light performance", 0 in proportions and 0 in finish can be call "quinto zeros"

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 2/28/2006 2:48:56 AM
Author: Mara
There is a huge thread on the new GIA charts and how it compares to AGS....maybe John has that link for you to read Aphis.

From what I have read I don''t really buy into the whole GIA cut grade thing...esp since I plugged in a stone or two that would be/is an AGS 0 and GIA only gives it something like a VG. One of which is my own stone which outperforms any stone I have owned previously. Personally while I feel both are reputable, I tend to prefer the cut grades from AGS to have specs closer to what *I* consider ideal.

Mara
yep....that''s why i love stones with 34.3-34.7'' crown X 40.7-40.8 pav,both AGS and GIA will agree this is ID,ID and EX,EX.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 2/27/2006 10:16:18 PM
Author:jmartini


When I hold out my hand to look at my ring, it appears darker and more dull in the middle of the stone...

... , when I had my sister and mom try on the ring and then I look at it, I can see that it is very sparkly and white looking.

It sounds like this has NIL to do with the stone (i.e. it could be the nicest kid on the block), but with the way you look at it: close up under your shadow or from a bit far in full light.

There might just be a quick way to tell if my hunch is right for the occasion: there is one little movie that describes what I am referring to. Take a 5 min look clip called 'Head Obstruction' in Pricescope's Video Gallery. Try it out on your diamond and.... tell us if this is it or not (if you want to).

Now, sure enough some versions of the 'Ideal' may be more or less prone to this sort of behavior, but... all are and the differences between cases are not so huge. At least considering the range of proportions usually presented around here. The IdealScope or Aset 'portrait' of your stone (even set) might clarity which is what...

Anyway, also as far as I know, not all diamond cuts get this much of this 'head obscuration' thing. In anything but a round it would be a fault. For some reason, rounds are exempt

There is a bit more about this on this thread

Now... allot of diamonds are cut round and this is a H&A RBC fan club (mostly). So... please take into account that while founded (by Serghey's research), this view is NOT mainstream

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 2/28/2006 2:27:18 AM
Author: aphisiglovessae

Is the AGS 'triple 0' a better cut than ideal then?

I understand what you are saying, but just because they call it something different, why does it mean they cannot be compared? I looked at some tables for each laboratory and they looked VERY similar. The information I posted comparing AGS000 to GIA ex/ex is from what I thought was a very reputable dealer.

In AGS terms, 'triple 0' is also the AGS definition of ideal, so they are commensurate.
What others call ideal may be different.

Here is how some comparison is possible: To compare a diamond graded by another lab to AGS' traditional Ideal parameters you must have all of these measurements: Table%, Depth%, Girdle, Culet, Crown Angle and Pavilion Angle (it's not enough to have only Table%, Depth% and Girdle). If all of the measurements fall within published AGS Ideal ranges the diamond can be said to meet AGS Ideal proportions, and it would have received a '0' in cut under their old proportions-based system (1996-2005)... Good so far. But there is no way to know if that diamond would qualify for the top AGS grades in polish and symmetry: AGS maintains that their ideal grade is a stricter standard than other labs' EX grades. Without sending the diamond in, it cannot be said for certain if it would have met those standards.

Some of this is fractional: If the diamond was graded by a strong lab the differences in VG, EX and Ideal are differences in fine craftsmanship, not visible beauty. Nevertheless, they are measurable differences and a seller should probably not call them equivalent because they are not.

And again, since July 2005 the AGS 0 grade is dependent on light performance which can only be judged at AGSL in their proprietary metric.

My position is that if a seller wants to boast AGS 000 stones he should simply send his diamonds to the AGS for grading or just advertise them for what they are.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 2/28/2006 7:48:28 AM
Author: valeria101

There might just be a quick way to tell if my hunch is right for the occasion: there is one little movie that describes what I am referring to. Take a 5 min look clip called ''Head Obstruction'' in Pricescope''s Video Gallery. Try it out on your diamond and.... tell us if this is it or not (if you want to).

Second this suggestion.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 2/28/2006 2:48:56 AM
Author: Mara
There is a huge thread on the new GIA charts and how it compares to AGS....maybe John has that link for you to read Aphis.

I can pass it on. It''s pretty dry stuff.
Aphisiglovessae, if you get through it you deserve a purple heart

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/consumer-advisory-gia-cut-grade-rounding-problems.39401/

 

[aphisiglovessae]

wow, 11 pages!!

I''ll certainly try. Thanks John and Mara!

See why I didn''t want to say that was the correct answer? Whew.

 

[jmartini]

>>>>There might just be a quick way to tell if my hunch is right for the occasion: there is one little movie that describes what I am referring to. Take a 5 min look clip called ''Head Obstruction'' in Pricescope''s Video Gallery. Try it out on your diamond and.... tell us if this is it or not (if you want to).>>>>

Thank you so much for that suggestion. I tried that on my diamond and, at first, it seemed like that was exactly what was going on. However, after reading the newsletters at ideal-scope.com, I feel like what I am seeing may really be more a case of light leaking out. I think what I am seeing is a dark circle around the center of the diamond (but not the center, if that makes any sense). Also, I just got the GIA cert in the mail today. The measurements for my .90 RB is 6.09-6.15 x 3.87, Depth 63.2% and Table 58% with a Girdle of Medium to Thick, Faceted. Ugh, I really wish I had known to get the crown and pavillion angles (sarin report or something like that, right?).

So, if this diamond is supposed to be an Ideal Cut (although it doesn''t say that on the cert, but shouldn''t it?), I guess I thought that it automatically wouldn''t have light leakage. I feel like a dummy now. Now I wonder if it would be worth it to purchase an ideal scope to look at this diamond and to take it with me to look at other diamonds if I decide to exchange this one. The owner also said this was a "machine cut" diamond (better than a hand cut diamond). I''m feeling like my husband and I made a huge mistake and buyers remorse is setting in

Thank you all for being here to answer questions.

Jen

 

[belle]

Date: 2/28/2006 2:34:40 PM
Author: jmartini

Thank you so much for that suggestion. I tried that on my diamond and, at first, it seemed like that was exactly what was going on. However, after reading the newsletters at ideal-scope.com, I feel like what I am seeing may really be more a case of light leaking out. I think what I am seeing is a dark circle around the center of the diamond (but not the center, if that makes any sense). Also, I just got the GIA cert in the mail today. The measurements for my .90 RB is 6.09-6.15 x 3.87, Depth 63.2% and Table 58% with a Girdle of Medium to Thick, Faceted. Ugh, I really wish I had known to get the crown and pavillion angles (sarin report or something like that, right?).

crown/pavilion angles (yes, from a sarin or similar) would be very helpful in understanding what is going on, but an idealscope would tell very much about this circle you are referring to as well.

Date: 2/28/2006 2:34:40 PM
Author: jmartini

So, if this diamond is supposed to be an Ideal Cut (although it doesn''t say that on the cert, but shouldn''t it?), I guess I thought that it automatically wouldn''t have light leakage. I feel like a dummy now. Now I wonder if it would be worth it to purchase an ideal scope to look at this diamond and to take it with me to look at other diamonds if I decide to exchange this one. The owner also said this was a ''machine cut'' diamond (better than a hand cut diamond). I''m feeling like my husband and I made a huge mistake and buyers remorse is setting in

the problem with the term ''ideal'' cut is that it is used without a concrete definition. anyone can call a stone ''ideal'' but we don''t really know what that means unless you specifically ask. an idealscope would be a prudent purchase if you are going to try and weed out the leaky mediocre cuts so widely available at most jewelry stores.

is there a good return policy on the stone?

 

[jmartini]

By the way, I paid $4450 for my stone.

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 2/28/2006 2:43:26 PM
Author: belle
the problem with the term 'ideal' cut is that it is used without a concrete definition. anyone can call a stone 'ideal' but we don't really know what that means unless you specifically ask.

EXACTLY! I've seen a few websites that have "IDEAL" listed as "CUT" for each and every one of their stones. (They're either pretty selective or pretty liberal in their descriptions, no?)

Plenty of ebay vendors do the same thing "one ideal cut diamond" when it looks like the proverbial "frozen spit". IDEAL is an overused buzzword like "high performance" when it comes to cars & engines and "designer" when it comes to clothes ... um, "which designer?" Joe Schmo or Karl Lagerfeld? It matters!

 

[valeria101]

Date: 2/28/2006 2:34:40 PM
Author: jmartini

So, if this diamond is supposed to be an Ideal Cut (although it doesn''t say that on the cert, but shouldn''t it?)

Nearly every online shop has some ''cut grades'' based on... whatever the programmer thought it is cute when they made up the interface for the respective joint''s diamond database!

If ''ideal'' - there''s usually some proof of that other than the seller''s word. Some diamonds come with a ton of paper to make that claim to top cut quality. Somehow, it looks like the sellers who just make a verbal claim get a nice free ride on the work and investment of the folk who do bother to provide data and back their claims

Sometimes the price does reflect the lenient grading, sometimes... not really.



Now I wonder if it would be worth it to purchase an ideal scope to look at this diamond and to take it with me to look at other diamonds if I decide to exchange this one.

Up to you... If you can return the ring, there''s always another way: to go to a shop that already has the info.



The owner also said this was a ''machine cut'' diamond (better than a hand cut diamond).

Yeah, right... I doubt there''s such thing. Popular myth though

My 2c