Does this crown/pavillion angle combo work?

[valeria101]

Date: 10/12/2005 4:47:17 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

I do not have a good model of a good stone.
I was thinking of buying this one, but the girdle is a bit thick and the symmetry not quite up to par

If you didn''t buy a diamond to make a point... ''bet I woudn''t either

I had something different in mind while writing the previous post. Looong, long ago you mentioned some cut samples demonstrating different proportions. I don''t think many would balk at CZ. It does make a huge leap over DC images, for now. And the one way to know what you like... is to see it! With diamonds this seems to be a monumental problem...


This wouldn''t be the first time when a certain concept of diamond looks has been put forth by words rather than records of visual experience (thinking of H&A and IS again). If DC did show fire, it would help. If a ''scope image would serve showing that, it would help too - but even if some point can be made about it, I don''t have an authoritative source showing ''fireness'' with comparable clarity as the H&A pattern. Could the more detailed ASET help?


An ideal range of looks is a new thing and it doesn''t help that a narrow slot of the former AGS0 range has been described as an ideal balance of fire and brilliance for so long. Not knowing what those two good things are... the even handed mix just does away with the problem without second thoughts.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 10/12/2005 4:47:17 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
OK Ana, good point

... you can see what I mean about having the Lola G look.

Thankfully you don''t know how I look!

But I might have gotten the point...

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 10/12/2005 5:53:05 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 10/12/2005 5:28:15 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 10/12/2005 4:17:00 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 10/12/2005 10:53:18 AM
Author: aljdewey

I''m not here to help establish a market. I''m not here out of concern for potentially lost dollars to cutters. I''m here as a *consumer* worrying about *consumer* interests. If consumers can have a more diverse range of options that are desirable and cost less money then I think Pricescope is performing its function.
But current behaviour is restricting consumers options.

Current behavior, Garry? You say this like we are breaching some obligation..... you don''t get it. IT''S NOT MY JOB to ''present a diverse range of options'' here. That is not my responsibility, or Mara''s, or anyone else''s. Geez!

I''m here to present MY opinion. I know that others who have different preferences will express theirs, too, and in THAT way, consumers will have a ''diverse range of options''.

I''m really getting disturbed at the premise that we cannot express our opinions or preferences as WE feel, and I find it distateful that you''re making US feel as though we have obligations to help cutters maximize their yield.

I simply ask that the range of ''acceptable'' proprotions that respected people suggest be considered in the light of scientific evidence.

No, Garry....you haven''t "simply asked". You''ve *insisted* -- repeatedly. You''ve chided "respected people" every time they offer an opinion or preference that isn''t as broad as YOU would like it to be. It feels like you are telling people what they can and can''t say, and it''s getting really uncomfortable.

Yanno, there are some people who consider themselves color sensitive here, and they will say "I personally prefer to stay above a G in color." Has that translated into no one buying stones below G? NO. That doesn''t mean others won''t chime in supporting H/I/J stones. It also doesn''t mean that NO ONE will buy an H or an I just because ONE person prefers to stay G or higher.

You don''t seem to have a problem with that. How is that different from saying "I personally prefer those combos?"

Yes, people tend to follow those with "respected opinions"....but there are SO many of those respected folks here, there is PLENTY of room for diversity without MANDATING or demanding that the diversity has to come from ONE individual. Again, if you want diversity, then YOU pipe in on those threads and offer YOUR respected and learned opinion....that''s where the balance will come from. It won''t come from telling Mara or Storm that they shouldn''t disclose their preferences.

So, while we are in the asking stage, I''m going to simply ask you to stop *insisting* that we modify our preferences to suit your range.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Dear Aljdewey,

I am happy for you join the discussion about diamond appearance and proportions.

I am happy for you to have your opinion about my insistence.
Other prosumers who have strong opinions and frequently give advice to newbies are participating on the appearance issues (maybe at my insistance).

Still more ''others'' are reading and lurking and emailing support.

Your point is taken. I will continue my crusade

 

[Regular Guy]

Sometimes I feel either more or less competent to make recommendations to other shoppers on this board.

Anyway, regardless of the fact that in an earlier post, Garry directed readers here, dismissing the idea I was trying to raise there about the question of the extent to which prosumers could reasonably be expected to "do it themselves," shopping successfully for a diamond, based on the info we have available, or not...

In view of the discussion here....

Date: 10/9/2005 3:57:10 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Mara your table was too big and the pavilion too shallow for that crown angle.
And my recolection was the symmetry was not great.

Tim, I have a slight preference for FIC in a ring, and a strong preference for a BIC on the shallow side for ear-rings and pendants.

....where, to all appearances, no discussion was offered to refute the suggestion (apart from the symmetry thing) Garry offered that Mara''s preferences may not be so much preferences, but more biases, based on her inappropriately associating her experience of a past ring with certain proportions, but while not attending to its other handicaps....

....and where in general, I would like to see Pricesope support an environment where we are not so much encouraged to haul off and resign from a discussion about differences in perceptions by offering: "you say tomatoe, I say tomoto," but where we would prefer to want to more critically assess the foundations for perceptions, and where possible, strive to find points of commonality, where they may exist...

.... in this respect, having been a lurker, too, I''ll come out and offer that much support..with appreciation and respect for everyone''s opinion in this matter, as well.

Regards,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Ira sometimes you are so deeply philosophical that i do not understand what you are saying or asking?

I think you mean it is OK to disagree, but we should try to work on our comanalities rather than our differences? I think that is good

I hope to present another respected opinion soon - it probably needs a new thread - and would be a call to all to become involved in this discussion.

I will think about how to present it all this evening.
It might need to be a journal article I think, in the form of a series of letters between lurker / participants behind the scenes. But it is all good stuff, and unlike some of the high brow cut nut stuff, this one should be easy and educational for all.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 10/12/2005 6:05:53 PM
Author: valeria101

Date: 10/12/2005 4:47:17 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
OK Ana, good point

... you can see what I mean about having the Lola G look.

Thankfully you don''t know how I look!

Now we all want to / need to know Ana?
Tell us more?
Or is that ''show us'' ?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 10/13/2005 3:48:52 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)


It might need to be a journal article I think, in the form of a series of letters between lurker / participants behind the scenes. But it is all good stuff, and unlike some of the high brow cut nut stuff, this one should be easy and educational for all.

Go for it Garry! Make my day !