SCIENCE VS BEAUTY

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I am sorry that you have made no attempt to understand why people would want to study diamond cutting and find ways to make more beautiful diamonds more effectively and economically.

Please read www.diamond-cut.com.au and you will see that I in no way suggest there is a restriced "best" that people should have forced on them. I am in favour of 47% to 63% table sizes and 25 to 38 degree crown angles and all sorts of things
I like people using their eyes - but advise them not to compare 2 diamonds in diffferent stores lighting etc

And most of what is developed here on pricescoope is so people can buy diamonds unseen.

 

[moosewendy]

Garry - I did not at any time intend to impugn the importance of your work. Finely cut diamonds are my livlihood, and I assure you that I am not advocating the abandonment of standards. As I said in an earlier post, when buying sight unseen it makes sense to gather all the data you can so as to minimize the risk. My concern is that, reading the posts on pricescope, I sense that many people are taking your work to an unhealthy extreme, even when they are shopping bricks and morters stores and have the opportunity to see the stone. When someone finds a beautiful fancy shape stone that they love, but doesn''t buy it because someone on pricescope told them that the table should be less than the depth, I think there is something wrong. Those criteria of diamond value which have clear naked eye implications are more important than those that don''t. It is possible, for example, to have a fancy shaped diamond with excellent symmetry but asymetrical life. When you have a chance to view the stone, and compare it with other stones, your own eyes should be your principle guide. The less visible stuff should come into play as a tie breaker, if all the more visible aspects are equal.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/5/2004 11

4:22 PM
Author: moosewendy
When someone finds a beautiful fancy shape stone that they love, but doesn''t buy it because someone on pricescope told them that the table should be less than the depth, I think there is something wrong.

Yes... it is so hard though to tell anything with limited choice, little experience and little infomation to talk about. Especially under preassure

.

This ''table < depth'' thing coild not have caught if there was a bit more to tell with GIA stats infront and not much opportunity to compare diamonds. At least, this is my gut fealing about when and how rules of thumb find their place. It''s not a happy encounter...

I have a hard time looking for where this one PS myth came from and what could a better replacement be. Any ideas ?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Ok MW, we agree then - I certainly do not think people should take stats over eyballs, but I do think it is difficult to buy a diamond based only on eyes (speaking as a pro diamond buyer).
Every buying office and trade fair I go to has different lighting etc. So that is why I use the ideal-scope.

Now that works perfectly for rounds - but it there is no perfect fancy shape ideal-scope images.

But back to the basic idea - science vs beauty - yes beauty is what it is all about - but it was you who choose to represent the 2 concepts with VS in between MW.

I think we have got to the point where we have little or no difference in points of view now?

 

[strmrdr]

For me the science behind it is a large part of the beauty.
I will only see so many diamonds in my life and own very very very few.
But the science behind it is way kewl.
I also like to nag those doing the science to keep it real world because that is what matters not how the diamond looks under a dome with a hole in it.

What is way kewl is that I get the chance to interact with those that are working on the science end of diamonds and while at times I get proven to be wrong on some things at least it pulls their heads out of thier labs long enough to think and answer my questions and think about the real world.

Do the studies concentrate too much on light return... yep at times.
Is the whole head shadow thing a detour.. yep in my opinion. A diamond doesnt spend much time getting looked at under those conditions.

But the bottom line is:
You could show me 2 stones both equaly good looking but I would take the one that the science as filtered by me shows to be better.

Why?
Because its kewl :}

 

[Jennifer5973]

Date: 11/5/2004 3:50:59 PM
Author: lmurden
I don't know the answer, but when my finance and I were looking for diamonds we wanted to get the very best cut diamond that we could and still get a nice size diamond. I didn't even bother to get the sarin because I knew when I opened up the ring box that my eyes would be the ultimate judge as to whether the diamond was beautiful. Many here on pricescope would not buy a diamond without a sarin but for me all of the science was not that necessary.

I fit this mold too. I believe strongly that you should look for cut proportions within the Ideal range but it was my eye that told me when I saw the "one." Garry also notes that "most of what is developed here on pricescoope is so people can buy diamonds unseen." To this end, the science is very helpful and allows people to get incredible diamonds and very competitive prices over the Internet when they might otherwise not have such choices locally. All the good work done here also helps people avoid buying sub-par stones....Until they are educated, many people (including a pre-Pricescope me) wouldn't know a "steep and deep" from a fisheye.

I think the science serves a crucial purpose of pointing you in the right direction but your eyes will tell you what you love.

 

[Racer811]

Date: 11/5/2004 11

4:22 PM
Author: moosewendy
... Finely cut diamonds are my livlihood,...

Oh, that explains it. At first I thought you were either a troll looking to stir the pot, or else somebody too intellectually lazy to think about how to objectively rate diamond quality. But it seems that you''re just a jeweler who wants to convince people that there are NO objective standards by which to judge diamonds and that people need to go to stores like yours to see them in person.

 

[Hest88]

Another issue with just using your eyes is that it''s all well and good for a professional who sees hundreds of stones in the course of a year to judge a good stone, but when an uninformed consumer walks into the average jewelry store and looks at a limited number of stones, he has no idea if any of the stones he''s looking at represent the best of what he can get. Personally, I don''t see anything wrong with a consumer asking for stones with better numbers then seeing if the finer cut is worth it to him.

I mean, if you''ve never been on an airplane before, wouldn''t you find even Coach marvelous? But how do you know how marvelous it can be unless you see what people call 1st class?

 

[fortheloveofdiamonds]

Good Point!

 

[laney]

Date: 11/6/2004 11:56:15 AM
Author: Racer811

Date: 11/5/2004 11

4:22 PM
Author: moosewendy
... Finely cut diamonds are my livlihood,...

Oh, that explains it. At first I thought you were either a troll looking to stir the pot, or else somebody too intellectually lazy to think about how to objectively rate diamond quality. But it seems that you''re just a jeweler who wants to convince people that there are NO objective standards by which to judge diamonds and that people need to go to stores like yours to see them in person.

Hmm, I agree Racer!

 

[Rhino]

Date: 11/5/2004 11:18

8 PM
Author: valeria101

Date: 11/5/2004 11

4:22 PM
Author: moosewendy
When someone finds a beautiful fancy shape stone that they love, but doesn''t buy it because someone on pricescope told them that the table should be less than the depth, I think there is something wrong.

Yes... it is so hard though to tell anything with limited choice, little experience and little infomation to talk about. Especially under preassure

.

This ''table < depth'' thing coild not have caught if there was a bit more to tell with GIA stats infront and not much opportunity to compare diamonds. At least, this is my gut fealing about when and how rules of thumb find their place. It''s not a happy encounter...

I have a hard time looking for where this one PS myth came from and what could a better replacement be. Any ideas ?

Yep. It was me.

However I have, at the same time stated that this is no hard fast rule either. When I''m searching for, say, princess cuts, traditional cushions, radiants (and such shapes) I stand a much better chance of finding a high performing diamond whose table total depth measurements, you''ll find that if you compared 10 stones whose tables were equal to or greater than their total depth with 10 others whose tables were smaller, you''ll find the brightest stones among the 2nd lot. so... for clarification ... the table div>

Peace,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 11/6/2004 12:36

7 AM
Author: strmrdr
For me the science behind it is a large part of the beauty.
I will only see so many diamonds in my life and own very very very few.
But the science behind it is way kewl.
I also like to nag those doing the science to keep it real world because that is what matters not how the diamond looks under a dome with a hole in it.

What is way kewl is that I get the chance to interact with those that are working on the science end of diamonds and while at times I get proven to be wrong on some things at least it pulls their heads out of thier labs long enough to think and answer my questions and think about the real world.

Do the studies concentrate too much on light return... yep at times.
Is the whole head shadow thing a detour.. yep in my opinion. A diamond doesnt spend much time getting looked at under those conditions.

But the bottom line is:
You could show me 2 stones both equaly good looking but I would take the one that the science as filtered by me shows to be better.

Why?
Because its kewl :}

LOL... we''re 2 peas in a pod.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 11/6/2004 1

7

0 PM
Author: Hest88

Another issue with just using your eyes is that it''s all well and good for a professional who sees hundreds of stones in the course of a year to judge a good stone, but when an uninformed consumer walks into the average jewelry store and looks at a limited number of stones, he has no idea if any of the stones he''s looking at represent the best of what he can get. Personally, I don''t see anything wrong with a consumer asking for stones with better numbers then seeing if the finer cut is worth it to him.

I mean, if you''ve never been on an airplane before, wouldn''t you find even Coach marvelous? But how do you know how marvelous it can be unless you see what people call 1st class?

Excellent point Hest. This is one reason why I cringe at times when I see people say on the forum ... who cares about the facts ... go by your eyes!!!


The first question that always enters my mind is ... WHOSE EYES??? The eyes of an amateur who has maybe looked at 10-20 mall diamonds? Or perhaps the eyes of someone whose been in this business who specializes in CRAP who is used to seeing stone after stone after stone of muck?

This is why, beyond the "subjectivism", it pays to take a plain look at the facts. See what is supposed to constitute the best (or those among the best) then compare that with what you''re considering and see if you still think that 36 degree crown/42 degree pavilion is so pretty.

 

[Jennifer5973]

ost that only ones eyes should be used to judge a stone?

I don''t think so; at least i haven''t interpreted such posts that way. But yes--the individual will know which stone "speaks" to him/her among a group of good ones if he/she is educated. The "science" and the education are critical to the "eyes" functioning properly in the process.

I also do believe, even if it is in the minority, that some people can see the difference between the dud and the doosie.


Touting that only the numbers and only the science can truly determine a diamond''s beauty supports those whose interests lie in buying stones sight unseen, but I don''t think anyone is quite saying this is the way to go exclusively here either.

 

[moremoremore]

I actually used only my eyes!(but also, I guess, I picked a stone with fairly good numbers) But there was just simply no need to go any futher. There just wasn''t.

. The light return is evident!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Nicrez]

On round stones, it is entirely possible to shop by numbers, as well as find a 60/60% stone more appealing than a H&A stone... each has his tatse, but from what I noticed, people who like the science and technical perfection tend to DISLIKE shaped stones, as they carry little to few hard and fast rules of cut accuracy.

That said, shaped stones are the ones that need to be seen with the eyes the most. There are no magic numbers to find in a stone that does not have all 360 planes of symmetry. The variance of elogated sides on marquis, and pears, the shoulders of a pear or a cushion cut make these shapes more difficult to have ONE depth level that works.




I can't say I have seen nearly enough stones to determine which one is better than the other, and I couldn't say I was a pro with the first Radiant I ever saw, but my eyes remembered that well cut stone and compared it to the others that followed. As a person who loves new experiences there are times where knowledge is very useful and necessary, but other times where it can actually detract from the moment.




Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating that diamond buyers buy blindly, I am saying that we use a lot of fear tactics to scare people away from stones NONE of us have seen, simply based on a few posts we have read saying that the NUMBERS of that stone are garbage. Heck, I know I have done that before... maybe most of the time I was dead on, but who's to say, as I never SAW that stone.




Sadly, we have a lot more reform to do with the diamond market, so that retailers can be trusted and respected for thier opinion and held accountable for any shady dealings...plus, most people want quantifiable standards for cuts to ensure that they aren't overpaying for a stone, as well as getting a stone that will retain it's value. I guess on this forum it is quite prevalent to trade-up, so this is important here, but most people don't do that, they simply buy MORE (earrings, pendants, gifts) So as long as a person knows nothing of cut standards, and goes out to buy a diamond to several places, sees many types of cuts, and let's their eyes do the decision making, the only concern should be durability at that point (I2's etc), because if their eyes didn't see clarity or color when they bought it, why should it matter if it's an eyeclean SI1 or a high G or low G, THEY CAN'T SEE IT unless someone else pointed it out...




My friend has one eyebrow higher than the other. For 5 years of our friendship I never ever noticed. One day she told me, and now it's glaringly obvious.... I am just saying sometimes it's best to leave well enough alone...

 

[Jennifer5973]

Nicrez, with THAT radiant, it''s too bad you can''t clone your eyeballs.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/6/2004 9:56

7 PM
Author: Nicrez

, people who like the science and technical perfection tend to DISLIKE shaped stones, as they carry little to few hard and fast rules of cut accuracy.

Actualy asschers are my favorites.
mk2 eyeball is the best way of picking them.
but the numbers give a starting point.
High crown (over 10%) for fire and evenly as possible cut steps on the sarin measurements is a good starting point.
From there its all eyeballs.

 

[moosewendy]

Thanks to all who have responded for a spirited and mostly intelligent discussion. As for Racer, your posts reflect either an inability to read, or an inability to understand. I assure you I am not a retail jeweler, and my economic interest lies in the maintenance of high cut standards, not a diminution of them. My point is simply that science can provide a range of fine quality stones to choose from, but within that range, it cannot determine one which is the "best." It is up to the individual to apply their own taste in making the final decision. Too many people who work with diamonds on an every day basis prefer a 59%-60% table, for example, for that preference to be dismissed as an uneducated or silly choice. Those who choose 54% tables (a look I personally do not like) are not making a smarter choice, they are simply making a different one. Education is crucial to a good diamond purchase. For Racer''s information, my livlihood depends on educated consumers. But a proper education includes an understanding that "well-cut" constitutes a range, not an absolute. Science should supplement your personal taste, not replace it.

 

[fortheloveofdiamonds]

Moosewendy,

Very well put! Well cut is definetly in a range. I see what you are saying and I totally agree. Knowing the parameters for a well-cut stone, one should decide between this variety and choose a stone that speaks to them.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Thanks MooseWendy, so back to the start, given that I am one of the main protagonists of providing #''s based science here on Pricescope, you could certainly not say that I tell people not to buy from a wide range range of proportions.

If you enter #''s into HCA you can get scores under 2 on diamonds with 45% to 62% table size, and crown angles from 28 to 38 with pavilion angles from 42 ish to under 40.

All these stones look different - but all meet my criteria for beautiful in that they perform well. It is then up to the punter to select the ones that look good to them.

The fact that most select 55-56% 34 - 35 and 40.6 to 40.9 continualy dismays me.