Depth/Table % etc - Princess Cut - confused?!?

[JDSProp]

I''ve been doing some research on the internet trying to achieve the an "ideal" princess and have started to confuse myself... I see some places saying that Depth - 63-70%, Table - 65-72% is ideal, then I see another chart where Depth - 64-75%, Table - 62-68% is ideal and also recommending that the table be less % than the depth. Some of you will kow where I get these numbers..

Since I''ll be buying off the internet I can''t view these side-by-side... in your experience what works best?? They will provide me with a sarin report, but will this tell the whole story??

Here''s an example of 2 diamonds I''m considering, the dilemma:

Depth: 72
Table: 66
Polish: Ideal
Sym: Ideal
Girdle: Sl Thick


Depth: 65
Table: 68
Polish: VG
Sym: VG
Girdle: Thin-Sl Thick

All other aspects are relatively the same... am I splitting hairs here 100x.. or will one "outperform" the other.

Any other info I should look for would be greatly appreciated Eg Crown and Pavillion angles which are ideal?.


Thank you.

 

[oldminer]

As much as I have promoted using the AGA Cut Class charts for assiting folks in getting a great princess cut, we now see some super new style AGS 0 princess cuts coming into the market with what seems to be more depth than what I would have recommended. Of course, more depth leads to a smaller visual size, so in that regard the situation is not necessarily "ideal" in my mind. Thenb again, it is my opinion and not the total trade''s opinion. We''ll wait and see.

From the info you gave, no one can really advise you which to select. One must use the eyes on most fancy shapes still. We will soon grade fancy shapes better, but it is just beginning to happen.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 10/27/2005 9:42:06 AM
Author: oldminer
Of course, more depth leads to a smaller visual size, so in that regard the situation is not necessarily ''ideal'' in my mind. Thenb again, it is my opinion and not the total trade''s opinion.

I am sorry, Dave, but this is incorrect. As I have pointed out in several threads and articles, there is no direct inverse relationship between depth and spread in a princess-cut.

For spread, one needs to look at diameters, and forget about depth.

Live long,

 

[pricescope]

JDSProp, welcome to the forum.

With any fancy shape there is no single combination of crown and pavilion that produce ideal cut. In princess, for instance, there are two crowns and two pavilions. See The matter of depth in a princess-cut, Grading the Princess Cut and Numbers and perception, the case of square diamond-cuts

Optical performance will depend on combinations of each element of the faceting. I.e. having one average crown angle doesn''t tell about each element.

Options:
1. visual examination (yourself and/or expert),
2. Optical tools: Ideal-Scope, Aset-Scope, Brilliance-scope
2. 3D-modelling (3D Sarin or Helium + DiamCalc)

Here is a demonstration for what Paul said about depth and spread. Two diamonds with the same carat weight, Depth% and Table% but different spread.

 

[pricescope]

This one has less weight in the crown, which results in larger diameter.

 

[oldminer]

Okay Paul, I suppose I still don't quite get your point. The new AGS 0 princess cuts I saw were much similar in width to weight ratio to most other princess cuts, nearly all of which are rather small, face-up for a given weight when compared to well cut round diamonds. I know it can vary, but we deal with generalizations and sometimes there are exceptions.

ImaGem and my lab are going to be using average depth; including both diagonals width and length for the calculation of meaningful depth % which will make all princess cuts measure far less deep than the traditional approach. If that sort of thing is what your point is, then I am with you in realizing that the simple width to depth does not truly express any actual measure of great meaning.

I just did not want the consumer to select any diamond using depth % as a defining way to pick a diamond. On that, we probably do agree.

 

[oldminer]

As afar as the two projected 1cat princess cuts go in the graphical illustrations above, please note the 5.4 or 5.7mm widths of these diamonds. BOTH are rather small when compared to round diamonds of similar weight, when well cut. That is one of the points I was making although it may be confused in some way when writing it out.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 10/27/2005 2:06:14 PM
Author: oldminer
As afar as the two projected 1cat princess cuts go in the graphical illustrations above, please note the 5.4 or 5.7mm widths of these diamonds. BOTH are rather small when compared to round diamonds of similar weight, when well cut. That is one of the points I was making although it may be confused in some way when writing it out.

If you take the example of the 5.4x5.4 mm., the 5.4 mm stands for the smallest diameter. The diameter from point to point is 7.6 mm., and thus the average diameter is 6.5 mm, which is exactly the average diameter of a well cut round brilliant.

Live long,

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Paul, Surely the other variables do come into play- but to say a princess cut diamonds depth has nothing to do with it's spread is misleading.
I agree with Dave- the "Ideal" princess cuts are going to appear small to people used to looking at well cut princess cuts with depths in the 60's.


JDS- there are a lot of people in the diamond trade who disagree that the new "ideal" princess cut is any improvement over a well cut traditonal princess cut at all.......

 

[researcher]

As you can see, the question of the best princess cut can''t be answered here. That being said, of the two stones you''re considering my guess is the first will outshine the second!!! BTW, I''m no expert but the numbers have a greater chance of being good

 

[valeria101]

Date: 10/27/2005 4:19:34 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren


I agree with Dave- the ''Ideal'' princess cuts are going to appear small to people used to looking at well cut princess cuts with depths in the 60''s.

Princess cuts with 60%-ish depth... are there enough of those for anyone to get used to them ?

 

[Kaleigh]

researcher you know princess cuts very well.

 

[oldminer]

David from DBL and I are on the same wavelength here. But, Paul, I am going to use the AVERAGE in future cut grading schemes and I do agree the AVERAGE is the sort of magical range closer to rounds....You convinced me to look into that, and I now believe what you are proffering is correct.
By formula, here is the actual visible face up of a square and a round:

The face-up visible square area of a 5.6mm square princess is 31.36 sq mm
The face-up visible square area of a 6.3mm round diamond is 31.16 sq mm.

a 5.4mm square will be truly smaller than a 6.3mm round
a 5.7mm square will be truly larger than a 6.3mm round.

Now, will the eye see it that way? I suppose that is a question of perception of the round versus square shape. My intuition tells me the square will still seem smaller, but the facts are otherwise. Paul, you are pretty much right about the ACTUAL physical outcome. THANKS.

 

[JDSProp]

I want to thank everyone for responding to my question.

I''m also wondering if someone could give me some advice on the 2 diamonds that I gave as an example, and is it possible to choose one that would be superior to the other from this information.

I will also be receiving a Sarin report, and is there information in there that would help me make my decision. I realize there is no better way to choose than to compare visually, but buying over the internet obviously has it limitations.


Best Regards,

Jason

 

[Kaleigh]

I like the first one more than the second one, but princess cuts are not my forte. Any chance they can send you pics of these stones???

 

[researcher]

I agree with Kaleigh--bring on the pics! Can you get an ideal scope image? It tells so much of the story in terms of light leakage. As for the Sarin, I would look for things such as:

Girdle variations--you don't want the corners to be too thin or they will chip easily! (in the second stone, you would see what areas on the sarin are slightly thick (hopefully the corners) and which parts are thin).

Crown height--shoot for a stone with a crown of at least 10%. This is not likely to be the case with the second stone (which is part of the reason why I don't like it), but the fact that the first stone has a depth greater than the table is often a good indication.

While a Sarin is nice to have, I would DEFINITELY try to get an ideal scope image. It will tell you more than the Sarin about the stone's actual performance.

 

[researcher]

Oh, and here''s some info I "stole" from Paul Slegers (at least, I''m pretty sure it''s from him) who cuts the Infinity princess diamonds:

For a table size of 55%, you need at least 69.66% depth
For a table size of 60%, you need at least 69.50% depth
For a table size of 65%, you need at least 69.50% depth
For a table size of 70%, you need at least 70.00% depth
For a table size of 75%, you need at least 73.33% depth
For a table size of 80%, you need at least 72.16% depth

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Date: 10/27/2005 5:33:17 PM
Author: researcher
Oh, and here''s some info I ''stole'' from Paul Slegers (at least, I''m pretty sure it''s from him) who cuts the Infinity princess diamonds:

For a table size of 55%, you need at least 69.66% depth
For a table size of 60%, you need at least 69.50% depth
For a table size of 65%, you need at least 69.50% depth
For a table size of 70%, you need at least 70.00% depth
For a table size of 75%, you need at least 73.33% depth
For a table size of 80%, you need at least 72.16% depth

This type of chart is completely useless. In reality you simply can''t order around depth and table percentages.
Diamonds are cut based on the rough.

If you look at JDS''s initial question, this type of chart goes along with the idea of buying a diamond by numbers- which is fine to do as long as it''s YOUR money.
I spend millions a year on diamonds, and I''d NEVER "buy by the numbers" with MY money.

JDS- whoever suggested the photos AND a dependable vendor- that''s your best shot of getting a great stone you''ll love.

 

[RADIANTMAN]

Date: 10/27/2005 3:39:24 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

Date: 10/27/2005 2:06:14 PM
Author: oldminer
As afar as the two projected 1cat princess cuts go in the graphical illustrations above, please note the 5.4 or 5.7mm widths of these diamonds. BOTH are rather small when compared to round diamonds of similar weight, when well cut. That is one of the points I was making although it may be confused in some way when writing it out.

If you take the example of the 5.4x5.4 mm., the 5.4 mm stands for the smallest diameter. The diameter from point to point is 7.6 mm., and thus the average diameter is 6.5 mm, which is exactly the average diameter of a well cut round brilliant.

Live long,

Paul - I've read your article about "average diameter" but I don't get your conclusions. As best as I can tell using my high school geometry, the spread of a diamond is, geometrically, the surface area of the girdle plane -that is the geometric size of the circle in a round diamond, and the square in a princess. A 6.5 MM round has a gemetric spread of 33.18 sq mm (calculated as pi R squared).

A 5.4 mm princess has a geometric spread of 29.16 sq mm (calculated as length x width). The 5.4 mm princess is the equivalent of a 6.1 mm round, 12% smaller in spread than the 6.5 mm round. The 5.7 mm princess has a surface area of 32.49. That would be equivalent to a 6.4 mm round - not bad, but still a little smaller than a perfect round.

If my math is wrong, please explain what I've missed. It's true that depth % is a misleading indicator of spread for princesses, but substituting one misleading indicator for another does not solve the problem.

Wouldn't using actual surface areas to calculate spread allow consumers to compare the relative geometric size of different diamonds with complete accuracy ?

 

[Hamster]

JDS-
Can you ask the vendor to send both stones to an appraiser for you to have them professionally evaluated and then make a choice with some expert help? You would then be able to see the stones in person and get some expert advice as to the price you are paying for whichever one you like better. Our princess was also bought over the Internet, but not before it got sent to an appraiser!

 

[researcher]

Date: 10/27/2005 6:25:19 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

Date: 10/27/2005 5:33:17 PM

Author: researcher

Oh, and here''s some info I ''stole'' from Paul Slegers (at least, I''m pretty sure it''s from him) who cuts the Infinity princess diamonds:


For a table size of 55%, you need at least 69.66% depth

For a table size of 60%, you need at least 69.50% depth

For a table size of 65%, you need at least 69.50% depth

For a table size of 70%, you need at least 70.00% depth

For a table size of 75%, you need at least 73.33% depth

For a table size of 80%, you need at least 72.16% depth

This type of chart is completely useless. In reality you simply can''t order around depth and table percentages.

Diamonds are cut based on the rough.


If you look at JDS''s initial question, this type of chart goes along with the idea of buying a diamond by numbers- which is fine to do as long as it''s YOUR money.

I spend millions a year on diamonds, and I''d NEVER ''buy by the numbers'' with MY money.


JDS- whoever suggested the photos AND a dependable vendor- that''s your best shot of getting a great stone you''ll love.

David,
JDSProp, like most of us here, are consumers who are trying to narrow down our choices over the internet, so one of the things we look at is the numbers. Do they tell the full story? No. But, they help us in weeding out the worst stones. Now, if, in working with a TRUSTED vendor, the vendor stated that a particular stone was the exception to the rule, great! I''d consider it in a heartbeat. But, when I was first looking at diamonds on the internet I did not have a trusted vendor. In fact, to be honest I wasn''t sure I could trust an internet vendor. So, I relied on what I could--the numbers. And using them along with the expertise of Brian from WF (whom I learned, through multiple interactions, I could trust) I found a great stone. Did Brian choose the stone for me to consider? No. I went by the numbers. But, he helped me to choose between my top three selections.

Anyway, my point is that I don''t think it''s fair to say the advice given by people on PS is, to quote, "useless" when all we have to go by is numbers. In fact, I kind of take offense to it. I have no problem with people stating you can''t go by the numbers alone, but you have to start somewhere so why not start with the numbers? I mean, you''re saying that people can''t just rely on a stone being great by its grading report, so what is left for people who are already skeptical about buying online? Should they just go to their local B&M stores if all they have are their eyes to trust before they''ve made a connection with a vendor? Pictures are telling, but with technology today you can manipulate photos in too many ways for someone to trust them blindly. I mean, you can''t even trust that two stones from the same vendor are comparable because all it takes is slightly turning a stone and the light will hit it differently, making it have more or less visible fire.

So, for the internet diamond shopper there are SEVERAL factors that need to be taken into consideration. The certification, the ideal scope image, the numbers, photos of the diamond, and possibly other tools that measure its performance. These factors, when taken together, help us to NARROW DOWN our choices. Will there be gems out there we''ll possibly miss as a result of using these tools? Maybe. But that is when I rely on the vendor to point out those cherries. If a vendor were to tell me I''ve really done my research but he/she had a stone that was superb and PROVE to me it was better than the stones I selected (through ideal scope images, photos, etc.) then I would definitely take his/her opinion into consideration. But, until I had rapport with a particular vendor I would probably ask to see both stones with my own eyes for comparison. If their selection was better, they would have my trust from that point forward. But, I''m not going to blindly trust. I mean, what if my idea of a beautiful stone is different than the vendors? What if fire is all I care about, when the vendor prefers white light?

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Researcher- I apologize if the tone of my post was too strong.

I feel that you are in a great position, as a buyer, when you find a seller, with great stones that you can trust- like Brian.
The exact same thing holds true with a B&M purchase.
You need to find a store you can trust.
Of course photos are easy to manipulate, and taking representative photos of diamonds can be difficult- again- if the seller is honest, the photos have meaning. If you can't trust the seller, of course you can't trust the photos

If you have a reason to understand my frustration with this subject, hence my harsh response- it would be that I have been here for quite a while, and my message has been consistent all along. Diamond grading, and cut grading in particular is not a precise science.
That is to say- the results are not repeatable between two examples. A Princess Cut with certain numbers is not going to look exactly like another with the same numbers.
This is due to many reasons- such as, the difficulty of exactly measuring every facet of a diamond.
Or the fact that diamond rough is, well, it's a rock. Not every diamond has the exact same properties - like, how easy they are to polish.
So you could get two diamonds with the same numbers, as measured by the latest Sarin- yet the two diamonds look different. Particularly in the Fancy Shapes.

So a chart giving minimum this and maximum that is interesting- but , in my opinion, finding someone like Brian to work with is a far more concrete step towards finding a great diamond.

 

[oldminer]

One of the things our new diamond reports will have on FANCY SHAPE reporting will be the square surface area in mm within the plane of the girdle. This will allow comparison of actual visual size of any diamonds on wishes to compare with the age old question of "Which one looks larger?"

It is nice to see someone in the thread has agreed that average diameter is not really the right way to indicate a meaningful depth percentage. It is easy to make an average and that is what we might do under the pressure of the trade, but the surface area to depth ratio is far more meaningful, I believe. The real problem with that approach is that gemologists, appraisers and jewelers will not be able to calculate this for pear, marquise, radiant and other unusual shaped diamonds.... We need to be practical in our approach, so average diameter may have to suffice.

 

[RADIANTMAN]

Date: 10/28/2005 7:32:47 AM
Author: oldminer
One of the things our new diamond reports will have on FANCY SHAPE reporting will be the square surface area in mm within the plane of the girdle. This will allow comparison of actual visual size of any diamonds on wishes to compare with the age old question of ''Which one looks larger?''

It is nice to see someone in the thread has agreed that average diameter is not really the right way to indicate a meaningful depth percentage. It is easy to make an average and that is what we might do under the pressure of the trade, but the surface area to depth ratio is far more meaningful, I believe. The real problem with that approach is that gemologists, appraisers and jewelers will not be able to calculate this for pear, marquise, radiant and other unusual shaped diamonds.... We need to be practical in our approach, so average diameter may have to suffice.

Hi David:

It was nice meeting you last week in Philadelphia. I think you and I agree that if a characteristic of a diamond can be measured directly, as imagem attempts to do, you are likely to get a more accurate measure than if you try to extrapolate the information indirectly.

I hope you will resist industry pressure to use "average diameter." As I demonstated in my previous post, the analysis is flat out wrong. Paul analyzed a 5.4 mm square princess using "average diameter" and somehow concluded that it has equivalent spread to a 6.5 mm round. In fact, it is equivalent to a 6.1 mm round. That 5.4 mm 1 carat princess will have the same surface area as a well cut 0.85 carat round.

Average diameter calculated Paul''s way doeesn''t work because the distance point to point is present in only one spot, while the length and width are disributed throughout the diamond. If you weighted the various "diameters" based on their actual impact on surface area, the point to point disatance would recede into complete irelevence.

I hope that you and imagem are successful in convincing the trade to look at things directly. While I don''t believe that all characteristics of a diamond are susceptible to scientific quantification, the information we do use should be real measurements of the actual diamond being evaluated.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 10/27/2005 5:33:17 PM
Author: researcher
Oh, and here''s some info I ''stole'' from Paul Slegers (at least, I''m pretty sure it''s from him) who cuts the Infinity princess diamonds:

For a table size of 55%, you need at least 69.66% depth
For a table size of 60%, you need at least 69.50% depth
For a table size of 65%, you need at least 69.50% depth
For a table size of 70%, you need at least 70.00% depth
For a table size of 75%, you need at least 73.33% depth
For a table size of 80%, you need at least 72.16% depth

Hi researcher,

If you take this out of context, it is difficult to understand. What is listed here, is the minimum depth% needed in order to possibly get an AGS-0-grade.

Live long,

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Dave, Radiantman, DBL,

I hope that you are not taking my words as ''industry pressure''. I am but a minor player in the industry, and having been absent on this thread for about a day, I see nothing but my words being misunderstood or twisted.

Let me rephrase:

1. It is incorrect to assume a direct inverse relationship between depth% and spread in a princess-cut. It is a notion originating from studying round brilliants, and it is incorrect to assume the same in princess-cut. The directly following assumption that a deeper princess-cut is less spready is therefore incorrect, and no expert, semi-expert or whatsoever in the field of diamonds should make or post that claim.

2. In the industry-wide description of measurements of a diamond, there is a negative discrimination of fancy shapes. In a round, average diameter is listed, and used as the basis of percentage-notations, while in a fancy shape, the smallest diameters are listed, and the very smallest is used as the basis of percentage-notations. This leads to false assumptions, expecially with most people having a knowledge-base, coming from the study of round brilliants only.

3. Whether average diameter or surface-area should be noted instead, is not my concern. It should be the one that fits best with the way a human being perceives the spread of a shape. As a professional, knowing the numbers, I have the tendency to regard the spread of princesses slightly lower than that of a round. But when showing goods to consumers, who do not know any of the numbers, most of them say that a 1Ct-princess looks bigger than a 1Ct-round. Who is right?

In any case, may I ask you to re-read every word here carefully, because I want you to read what I am writing, not what you think that I am writing.

Live long,

 

[RADIANTMAN]

Date: 10/28/2005 11:06:40 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Dave, Radiantman, DBL,

I hope that you are not taking my words as ''industry pressure''. I am but a minor player in the industry, and having been absent on this thread for about a day, I see nothing but my words being misunderstood or twisted.

Let me rephrase:

1. It is incorrect to assume a direct inverse relationship between depth% and spread in a princess-cut. It is a notion originating from studying round brilliants, and it is incorrect to assume the same in princess-cut. The directly following assumption that a deeper princess-cut is less spready is therefore incorrect, and no expert, semi-expert or whatsoever in the field of diamonds should make or post that claim.

2. In the industry-wide description of measurements of a diamond, there is a negative discrimination of fancy shapes. In a round, average diameter is listed, and used as the basis of percentage-notations, while in a fancy shape, the smallest diameters are listed, and the very smallest is used as the basis of percentage-notations. This leads to false assumptions, expecially with most people having a knowledge-base, coming from the study of round brilliants only.

3. Whether average diameter or surface-area should be noted instead, is not my concern. It should be the one that fits best with the way a human being perceives the spread of a shape. As a professional, knowing the numbers, I have the tendency to regard the spread of princesses slightly lower than that of a round. But when showing goods to consumers, who do not know any of the numbers, most of them say that a 1Ct-princess looks bigger than a 1Ct-round. Who is right?

In any case, may I ask you to re-read every word here carefully, because I want you to read what I am writing, not what you think that I am writing.

Live long,

Paul:

I did not intend to mischaracterize your views, and apologize if I did so.

I agree with you 100% that depth% in a princess (or radiant) is a pretty useless measurement that doesn''t tell you much of anything. Using it as a way of guessing whether a princess spreads its size is both unnecessary (since actual surface area is simple to calculate) and wrong.

In connection with radiant cuts, I have given quite a bit of thought to how best to adjust depth % to get a number that actually provides useful information. I considered using the diagonal, but the math just doesn''t work. I settled on a formula that correlated depth to the surface area of the top. This gives me useful information, but is still an imperfect predictor of spread.

If we are moving away from using depth % as a useful measure for measuring princess spread because, as you and I agree, it doesn''t work, it''s important that we replace it with something that does work. Averaging the width and the point to point measure simply doesn''t work. Measuring surface area does. As an industry we should work to provide the public with the most accurate information possible, and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[oldminer]

Visible surface area to depth ratio can readily be calculated by some diamond measuring devices, but in many shapes, like a radiant, it is difficult to do manually. The jury is still out if even this direct measure means anything special. In round diamonds, because of their shape and standardized range of cutting, there are certain relationships where depth to average diameter has some degree of meaning. Whether it will end up being as meaningful for fancy shapes, I really won't predict because I simply don't know.

What we will do, as time goes by, is look at the data we have collected and see if there is a meaningful correlation that we can make between depth and face-up visible surface area. That's the right way to approach this and we don't yet have an immediate answer. I just thought it would be great to discuss the possibilities here.

Sorry Paul, if anything you said was misinterpreted by me. It was unintentional if it occurred. My feeling is that both of us believe that average depth % in fancy shapes is not the meaningful measure that it is with round diamonds. You come to that conclusion by looking at what you cut and I come to it because the numbers alone are misleading. By using surface area, we hope to discover new and potentially revealing relationships that do work for fancy shapes.

 

[RADIANTMAN]

Date: 10/28/2005 12:52:42 PM
Author: oldminer
Visaible surface area to depth ratio can readily be calculated by some diamond measuring devices, but in many shapes, like a radiant, it is difficult to do manually. The jury is still out if even this direct measure means anything special. In round diamonds, becuase of their shape and standardized range of cutting, there aree certain relationships where depth to average diameter has some degree of meaning. Whether it will end up being as meaningful for fancy shapes, I really won''t predict becuase I simply don''t know.

What we will do, as time goes by, is look at the data we have collected and seee if there is a meaningful correlation that we can make between depth and face-up visible surface area. That''s the right way to approach this and we don''t yet have an immediate answer. I just thought it would be great to discuss the possibilites here.

Hi Dave, Paul and whoever else is listening,

I am not proposing using total depth as a percentage of surface area as a measure of spread in radiants and princesses. As I explained in my previous post, this measure provides more useful information than traditional depth %, but still does not correlate well enough to spread.

I am proposing using surface area itself, not a percentage. It is easily calculated for rounds, princesses and radiants and is a completely accurate measure of how big that diamond actually is. Some shapes with the same geometric spread may look bigger or smaller based on optical illusion, but this effect will vary from person to person and each consumer must make that judgment for themselves.

Why in a case where accurate direct measurement is not only possible but easy are we debating what kind of indirect measure we can use instead?

 

[oldminer]

Radiantman;

Nearly the entire industry is deeply enmeshed in exactly the argument you just pointed out. They are agruing how to calculate enough data to correlate to actual, visual results. Maybe they will succeed with rounds and square princess cuts, but direct measurement makes more sense if it can be accurately and repeatedly perfomed.

Measuring the visible surface area of a diamond of any shape is not a difficult task with computerization and programing. I think this is worthy of doing when making reports, if only to answer the question I mentioned earlier on, "Which diamond looks larger?". Later on, we may learn if the visual size versus depth means something to performance. I think it will, but I''m just guessing right now. We definitely are going to examine the findings after we create sufficient data to check it out.