Thoughts On "Ideal" Cut

[sturgeon123456]

In my opinion, the upshot is that for a well-cut MRB the bezel effect is negligible (at least in the face-up position), whereas for fancy cuts (even well-cut ones) there can be a perceptible effect of bezel-mounting the stone, and that the effect can get worse with tilt.



ETA: Also, in your picture, the partial bezel seems quite deep, so it is probably blocking a significant amount of light from reaching the crown on the three sides that are bezeled. Thus, a shallower bezel, which only covers the girdle and a small part of the crown and pavilion, should have a much less drastic effect.

I agree mostly.
Fancies can be affected much more.
I also agree there comes a point when a bezel is deep enough it will effect the best cut stones.
Once you get above just enough metal to hold the diamond it can have a larger effect.

I also think even a low bezel can create a shadow line at the edge of the diamond that can change the perception of the diamond. I talked a little about it in the other thread re contrast.
As time goes on I wonder if the effect is greater than I used to think.
No proof either way, just my thoughts.

My eyes agree with your thoughts! Also the colour of the metal can influence the colour of the diamond.....setting a fancy light yellow in a rich 18k yellow gold bezel seems to enhance the intensity of the colour.

 

[Karl_K]

My eyes agree with your thoughts! Also the colour of the metal can influence the colour of the diamond.....setting a fancy light yellow in a rich 18k yellow gold bezel seems to enhance the intensity of the colour.

It is funny you say that it is colored diamonds and colored gemstones in bezels both in pictures and in person that make me question my earlier thoughts the most.
Diamond optics and human perception of diamond optics is a young science with a very long way to go before it is understood in any conclusive manner.

 

[sturgeon123456]

My eyes agree with your thoughts! Also the colour of the metal can influence the colour of the diamond.....setting a fancy light yellow in a rich 18k yellow gold bezel seems to enhance the intensity of the colour.

It is funny you say that it is colored diamonds and colored gemstones in bezels both in pictures and in person that make me question my earlier thoughts the most.
Diamond optics and human perception of diamond optics is a young science with a very long way to go before it is understood in any conclusive manner.

Well said!! I think that the most advanced science still lags behind actual human sense.

I do have one question regarding a full bezel set diamond....how could a shiny metal, yellow or white that fully encases a huge percentage of a diamond not impact its performance?

I remember reading an article by good old gold regarding gia cut grading:

"There is one exception however wherein a person might want to consider viewing a diamond against a black background and that is if they are having a diamond set into a bezel type mounting which does not allow any light to enter through the pavilion and is generally all dark underneath the diamond. If you are one of the few people mounting a diamond into a bezel mounting, then there are certain combinations of GIA Ex cut grades you may not want to consider."

It seems that even for GIA excellent cuts it is suggested that the bezel can affect performance, which I completely agree with

 

[OoohShiny]

If you do follow the advice earlier and look at getting a custom cut, I would definitely look into how much / how possible a 5ct Octavia Asscher would be...

Can you imagine how amazing that would look?!

 

[Texas Leaguer]

In my opinion, the upshot is that for a well-cut MRB the bezel effect is negligible (at least in the face-up position), whereas for fancy cuts (even well-cut ones) there can be a perceptible effect of bezel-mounting the stone, and that the effect can get worse with tilt.



ETA: Also, in your picture, the partial bezel seems quite deep, so it is probably blocking a significant amount of light from reaching the crown on the three sides that are bezeled. Thus, a shallower bezel, which only covers the girdle and a small part of the crown and pavilion, should have a much less drastic effect.

I agree mostly.
Fancies can be affected much more.
I also agree there comes a point when a bezel is deep enough it will effect the best cut stones.
Once you get above just enough metal to hold the diamond it can have a larger effect.

I also think even a low bezel can create a shadow line at the edge of the diamond that can change the perception of the diamond. I talked a little about it in the other thread re contrast.
As time goes on I wonder if the effect is greater than I used to think.
No proof either way, just my thoughts.

My eyes agree with your thoughts! Also the colour of the metal can influence the colour of the diamond.....setting a fancy light yellow in a rich 18k yellow gold bezel seems to enhance the intensity of the colour.

It's also important to keep the diamond really clean. Film buildup on the pavilion can significantly reduce performance. And a bezel can make keeping a diamond clean more challenging.

 

[Dancing Fire]

If you do follow the advice earlier and look at getting a custom cut, I would definitely look into how much / how possible a 5ct Octavia Asscher would be...

Can you imagine how amazing that would look?!

Sure!, Will you loan me $170K?

 

[Serg]

You would receive much less % for Fancy cut depth just if you use maximum diameter as reference ( 100%) instead minimum diameter . there is not a difference for round cut but huge difference for fancy cuts just due definition rule.

if you want correct comparison between depths for round cut and fancy cuts you would use average diameter for fancy cuts.

in any case there is not direct correlation between depth, spread and beauty .

Serg,
Do you think it would be practical and beneficial for spread to be a seperate metric on a lab report, such that the calculation would measure the actual surface area above the girdle? That is, it would take into acount the contribution to surface area of the design of the crown as well.

It seems to me this would be helpful. Not so much to compare fancies against rounds, but to compare stones of the same or similar shapes. In looking at spread in combination with other analytics it would give you a little better picture of the tradeoffs of a particular stone. For instance, if two stones both weigh 1.00 ct and stone A has better spread, but stone B has more appealing light performance, you might opt for stone B. If both have appealing LP it would be logical to opt for stone A.

Bryan,

Spread info for diamond cut is so important as calories info for food .
for both products the mass info is not enough.( I do not speak about taste here, just about objective info)

 

[sturgeon123456]

You would receive much less % for Fancy cut depth just if you use maximum diameter as reference ( 100%) instead minimum diameter . there is not a difference for round cut but huge difference for fancy cuts just due definition rule.

if you want correct comparison between depths for round cut and fancy cuts you would use average diameter for fancy cuts.

in any case there is not direct correlation between depth, spread and beauty .

Serg,
Do you think it would be practical and beneficial for spread to be a seperate metric on a lab report, such that the calculation would measure the actual surface area above the girdle? That is, it would take into acount the contribution to surface area of the design of the crown as well.

It seems to me this would be helpful. Not so much to compare fancies against rounds, but to compare stones of the same or similar shapes. In looking at spread in combination with other analytics it would give you a little better picture of the tradeoffs of a particular stone. For instance, if two stones both weigh 1.00 ct and stone A has better spread, but stone B has more appealing light performance, you might opt for stone B. If both have appealing LP it would be logical to opt for stone A.

Bryan,

Spread info for diamond cut is so important as calories info for food .
for both products the mass info is not enough.( I do not speak about taste here, just about objective info)

I agree that this is important information.....

But my question still remains....do fancies, especially cushions, princess, asschers etc need to be cut so deep to get excellent light return/performance or is it just to maintain as much weight from the rough. It seems to me that its to maintain weight in most cases and due to the lack of a standard the consumers are often left with stones that face up much smaller than they should.

Once again I feel that if a company tried to pass of rounds that were too deep the market would shun them and I feel the same should occur here otherwise we, the consumer, will continue to be buying these fancies that just don't look as they should.

The nicest cut fusion I ever saw had a depth of 60%. The most brilliant radiant was 62%. The best emerald cut I have ever seen was a shallow 57%. These are just to my eyes and not using ASETS or other valuable tools.

I must mention that I have been collecting diamonds for 12+ years and have recently noticed that fancy cuts are getting deeper and deeper. Also I visit with many of my local friends whom are diamond dealers (two gia certified gemoogists) and we go through diamonds together all the time. I would say conservatively I have viewed well over 1500 diamonds, which isn't much compared to most people here, but its enough to know you don't need crazy depths to have a nice cut.

 

[Serg]

You would receive much less % for Fancy cut depth just if you use maximum diameter as reference ( 100%) instead minimum diameter . there is not a difference for round cut but huge difference for fancy cuts just due definition rule.

if you want correct comparison between depths for round cut and fancy cuts you would use average diameter for fancy cuts.

in any case there is not direct correlation between depth, spread and beauty .

Serg,
Do you think it would be practical and beneficial for spread to be a seperate metric on a lab report, such that the calculation would measure the actual surface area above the girdle? That is, it would take into acount the contribution to surface area of the design of the crown as well.

It seems to me this would be helpful. Not so much to compare fancies against rounds, but to compare stones of the same or similar shapes. In looking at spread in combination with other analytics it would give you a little better picture of the tradeoffs of a particular stone. For instance, if two stones both weigh 1.00 ct and stone A has better spread, but stone B has more appealing light performance, you might opt for stone B. If both have appealing LP it would be logical to opt for stone A.

Bryan,

Spread info for diamond cut is so important as calories info for food .
for both products the mass info is not enough.( I do not speak about taste here, just about objective info)

I agree that this is important information.....

But my question still remains....do fancies, especially cushions, princess, asschers etc need to be cut so deep to get excellent light return/performance or is it just to maintain as much weight from the rough. It seems to me that its to maintain weight in most cases and due to the lack of a standard the consumers are often left with stones that face up much smaller than they should.

Once again I feel that if a company tried to pass of rounds that were too deep the market would shun them and I feel the same should occur here otherwise we, the consumer, will continue to be buying these fancies that just don't look as they should.

The nicest cut fusion I ever saw had a depth of 60%. The most brilliant radiant was 62%. The best emerald cut I have ever seen was a shallow 57%. These are just to my eyes and not using ASETS or other valuable tools.

I must mention that I have been collecting diamonds for 12+ years and have recently noticed that fancy cuts are getting deeper and deeper. Also I visit with many of my local friends whom are diamond dealers (two gia certified gemoogists) and we go through diamonds together all the time. I would say conservatively I have viewed well over 1500 diamonds, which isn't much compared to most people here, but its enough to know you don't need crazy depths to have a nice cut.

I gave answer to your question early.
There is not direct correlation between spread , depth , performance.
Two fancy diamonds with big depth, big negative spread would have high and low performance.
We designed cushion with very high performance but it has very big negative spread and in same time this cut gives low yield !(From rough.)
It is not easy to find cushion design with better spread and high performance in same time .
And big negative spread/ or big depth does not mean high yield from rough !

What was diamond ratio for your favorite fancy cuts?
I suppose they have close to 1, have not it?
If ratio is bigger then you have increase pavilion depth to avoid too shallow pavilion angle in length direction.

 

[sturgeon123456]

You would receive much less % for Fancy cut depth just if you use maximum diameter as reference ( 100%) instead minimum diameter . there is not a difference for round cut but huge difference for fancy cuts just due definition rule.

if you want correct comparison between depths for round cut and fancy cuts you would use average diameter for fancy cuts.

in any case there is not direct correlation between depth, spread and beauty .

Serg,
Do you think it would be practical and beneficial for spread to be a seperate metric on a lab report, such that the calculation would measure the actual surface area above the girdle? That is, it would take into acount the contribution to surface area of the design of the crown as well.

It seems to me this would be helpful. Not so much to compare fancies against rounds, but to compare stones of the same or similar shapes. In looking at spread in combination with other analytics it would give you a little better picture of the tradeoffs of a particular stone. For instance, if two stones both weigh 1.00 ct and stone A has better spread, but stone B has more appealing light performance, you might opt for stone B. If both have appealing LP it would be logical to opt for stone A.

Bryan,

Spread info for diamond cut is so important as calories info for food .
for both products the mass info is not enough.( I do not speak about taste here, just about objective info)

I agree that this is important information.....

But my question still remains....do fancies, especially cushions, princess, asschers etc need to be cut so deep to get excellent light return/performance or is it just to maintain as much weight from the rough. It seems to me that its to maintain weight in most cases and due to the lack of a standard the consumers are often left with stones that face up much smaller than they should.

Once again I feel that if a company tried to pass of rounds that were too deep the market would shun them and I feel the same should occur here otherwise we, the consumer, will continue to be buying these fancies that just don't look as they should.

The nicest cut fusion I ever saw had a depth of 60%. The most brilliant radiant was 62%. The best emerald cut I have ever seen was a shallow 57%. These are just to my eyes and not using ASETS or other valuable tools.

I must mention that I have been collecting diamonds for 12+ years and have recently noticed that fancy cuts are getting deeper and deeper. Also I visit with many of my local friends whom are diamond dealers (two gia certified gemoogists) and we go through diamonds together all the time. I would say conservatively I have viewed well over 1500 diamonds, which isn't much compared to most people here, but its enough to know you don't need crazy depths to have a nice cut.

I gave answer to your question early.
There is not direct correlation between spread , depth , performance.
Two fancy diamonds with big depth, big negative spread would have high and low performance.
We designed cushion with very high performance but it has very big negative spread and in same time this cut gives low yield !(From rough.)
It is not easy to find cushion design with better spread and high performance in same time .
And big negative spread/ or big depth does not mean high yield from rough !

What was diamond ratio for your favorite fancy cuts?
I suppose they have close to 1, have not it?
If ratio is bigger then you have increase pavilion depth to avoid too shallow pavilion angle in length direction.

Thanks for the explanation and in all cases yes within the less than 1.05 ratio except for the emerald cut which was 1.19 if I remember correctly.

 

[Rockdiamond]

You would receive much less % for Fancy cut depth just if you use maximum diameter as reference ( 100%) instead minimum diameter . there is not a difference for round cut but huge difference for fancy cuts just due definition rule.

if you want correct comparison between depths for round cut and fancy cuts you would use average diameter for fancy cuts.

in any case there is not direct correlation between depth, spread and beauty .

This is truly the essence of this discussion. Here's sturgeon's original question:

Hi guys I am just wondering your thoughts on the following.....

Lots of online vendors have their own "signature ideal" lines....or rather diamonds that they title as such. I have noticed that on many of the fancy cuts the depths are often 75% or greather.

My thoughts are as follows....

If the diamond doesn't face up as it should, this greatly impacts the appearance of the diamond which should be taken into account when giving a cut grade. I know there isn't a standard for fancies like there is for round but since most shapes that are cut deep like cushions, radiants and princesses were basically invented to maximize yield from rough isn't it obvious whats going on?

Heres my final thought

If i could buy a .75 carat emerald cut that faces up larger than a 1 ct and they are both "excellent cuts", why not go with the act? It seems like a carat just isn't a carat anymore as vendors are maximizing yields and providing stones that are just too deep.

This is a great point that many buyers find important.


Mixing diamonds cut specifically for light performance, as opposed to stones cut for beauty is a mistake IMO.
There are many people who would choose a stone with 55% depth over an Octavia - or other signature type stones of 75% depth.
All due respect to Karl- it's an amazing design. I'd go as far to say polarizing from an artistic standpoint- and that's a compliment. It breaks new ground.
But no design is for everyone
Although shallow stones will not earn light performance grades with AGSL that does not mean they are any less well cut- or beautiful.
Some of the nicest Asscher cuts I've ever seen had depths from mid '50's up to 60%. And they also had an undeniable allure of looking large for their weight.

 

[Karl_K]

This is a great point that many buyers find important.


Mixing diamonds cut specifically for light performance, as opposed to stones cut for beauty is a mistake IMO.
There are many people who would choose a stone with 55% depth over an Octavia - or other signature type stones of 75% depth.
All due respect to Karl- it's an amazing design. I'd go as far to say polarizing from an artistic standpoint- and that's a compliment. It breaks new ground.
But no design is for everyone
Although shallow stones will not earn light performance grades with AGSL that does not mean they are any less well cut- or beautiful.
Some of the nicest Asscher cuts I've ever seen had depths from mid '50's up to 60%. And they also had an undeniable allure of looking large for their weight.

The same design work that is behind the Octavia can be used to design asschers that are beautiful and have high light return that are 50% to 60% in depth and likely get AGS0 LP as a side effect.
Drop AGS0 and make it better brightness than average SE rather than high light return and depths down close to 40% might be possible to make look good.
Finding rough to cut any of them from is another matter entirely.
They are also extremely fussy to cut well with near zero variation allowable.
The will also not have 24% high crowns.

I never claimed Octavia is for everyone and have stated from day one some people will like other looks in asscher cuts better.
What I have stated is the depth number on the report is not indicative of the spread they have. That is a fact.

 

[Rockdiamond]

We're in total agreement Karl.
Higher depth does not necessarily indicate a stone that looks small for it's weight- although I'm sure we also agree that a depth of 75% can be considered on the deep side on a "generic Asscher" and will definitely have negative effects in some stones... but not all.
If we're speaking of colorless cushion, radiant, emerald cut, or non branded princess cut, 75% depth something I generally try to avoid.
But I have found rare examples that had something special enough to purchase. In most cases, when I won't buy stones in 73%+range it's due to small face up size.
Again this is not about Octavia- more general knowledge, as the op phrased the question.

Far more common that a square emerald or asscher of 50-60% depth is going to look large for it's carat weight.
We also agree that many of the shallow stones are not particularly bright. However some shallower stones definitely are bright.
Karl was correct that the proper rough is hard to find- therefore costly- but when they are done well, shallow stones can be amazing. And not necessarily cheap.

Interesting side note is that Yoram, who cuts the Octavia is also incredibly adept at cutting truly attractive, bright stones in the 40-60% depth ranges

 

[sturgeon123456]

We're in total agreement Karl.
Higher depth does not necessarily indicate a stone that looks small for it's weight- although I'm sure we also agree that a depth of 75% can be considered on the deep side on a "generic Asscher" and will definitely have negative effects in some stones... but not all.
If we're speaking of colorless cushion, radiant, emerald cut, or non branded princess cut, 75% depth something I generally try to avoid.
But I have found rare examples that had something special enough to purchase. In most cases, when I won't buy stones in 73%+range it's due to small face up size.
Again this is not about Octavia- more general knowledge, as the op phrased the question.

Far more common that a square emerald or asscher of 50-60% depth is going to look large for it's carat weight.
We also agree that many of the shallow stones are not particularly bright. However some shallower stones definitely are bright.
Karl was correct that the proper rough is hard to find- therefore costly- but when they are done well, shallow stones can be amazing. And not necessarily cheap.

Interesting side note is that Yoram, who cuts the Octavia is also incredibly adept at cutting truly attractive, bright stones in the 40-60% depth ranges

Thanks so much for the excellent points! Great to hear from you on this one...

Once again my main goal is to find a nice stone that looks to be its proper size and I don't think that I need to go too deep to find a nice chunky cushion. I have seen many beautiful cushions that were in the 60-68% range and had a nice "spread".

I have to say once again, I have never seen an octavia and I am not knocking them in any way, I still have no idea what the depths of those stones are etc., I am merely basing this on my experience. I thought I had a pretty good grasp on things until I started my search, eventual purchase, now re search for a large colourless diamond.

My collection consists mostly of fancy coloured diamonds and I have never once questioned the depth on a fancy stone, I always assume in those scenarios the cutters are more worried about maximizing color over any other factor.

On the other hand my search for the colourless fancy shapes has left me a little baffled.

One last note.....there is an asscher on the DBL web page that is FIY and has a depth around 60% and the cut looks gorgeous in the photos....that to me is a winner.....

 

[OoohShiny]

If you do follow the advice earlier and look at getting a custom cut, I would definitely look into how much / how possible a 5ct Octavia Asscher would be...

Can you imagine how amazing that would look?!

Sure!, Will you loan me $170K?

lol

Give me a moment, I've got it down the back of this sofa somewhere...

 

[Karl_K]

We're in total agreement Karl.
Higher depth does not necessarily indicate a stone that looks small for it's weight- although I'm sure we also agree that a depth of 75% can be considered on the deep side on a "generic Asscher" and will definitely have negative effects in some stones... but not all.
/quote]
Looking at the mm size and comparing it to others will spot when spread is an issue.
With a 60% table and 75% depth an SE would likely have impacted spread, the mm measurements would tell you for sure. It could also have great performance other info and ones eyes will tell you that.
88.8%
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/the-888-a-nightmare-from-storms-computer.79687/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/the-888-a-nightmare-from-storms-computer.79687/[/URL]

Or you can try 100%......
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/the-perfect-100-the-10-10-10-nightmare-from-storms-computer-2.79900/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/the-perfect-100-the-10-10-10-nightmare-from-storms-computer-2.79900/[/URL]

 

[Rockdiamond]

Cool Karl- now lets see some gorgeous 50% Asschers

 

[Karl_K]

Cool Karl- now lets see some gorgeous 50% Asschers

This is an old design of mine it could be improved likely.
This is posted for education reasons only it is not a design I am marketing and is not available for sale.
I'm am posting it only to show what is possible.
While an AGS0 LP candidate at 57.3 it is not as bright as Octavia but I think it is above the AGS0 min for square emerald cuts based on running other designs in the AGS software.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Very cool Karl!!
Of course there's quite a few cutters who are producing remarkable diamonds like this right now.
One aspect of custom cuts that is important to mention- being "forced" into a given configuration adds a lot of cost, time and effort on the part of the cutter- and you need an exceptionally skilled and precise cutter.
With a lot of non branded cuts the cutter is free to experiment more on a stone by stone basis.
I have noticed huge improvements over the past 5 years in how some of the best and largest cutters in the world have pushed the limits of design in square emerald, cushion, pear shape and radiant cut in both fancy color and colorless.

 

[Karl_K]

Very cool Karl!!
Of course there's quite a few cutters who are producing remarkable diamonds like this right now.
One aspect of custom cuts that is important to mention- being "forced" into a given configuration adds a lot of cost, time and effort on the part of the cutter- and you need an exceptionally skilled and precise cutter.
With a lot of non branded cuts the cutter is free to experiment more on a stone by stone basis.
I have noticed huge improvements over the past 5 years in how some of the best and largest cutters in the world have pushed the limits of design in square emerald, cushion, pear shape and radiant cut in both fancy color and colorless.

When you buy rough by the 10s of thousands your going to get some oddball rough, I have noticed also that instead of forcing them into the same old same old with a lot of loss some are getting creative.
Some can pull it off some cant its a crap shoot when shopping them.
Someone buying 10s and hundreds of rough are less likely to get enough of them to make it worth doing.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Trying to buy such stones using ASET and limited info is totally a crap shoot for consumers, I agree.
But if one is looking at the diamonds themselves, it's like falling off a log
It's really easy to know what one loves, if you look at a lot of stones.
Even for people who don't look at a lot of stones in person- many times they have some sort of intuitive instinct in selection a diamond.
Some people really know what they love to see.

In terms of how much a cutter can buy, I disagree that only the largest ones get the right pieces to experiment.
We don;t have to look further than Yoram, which is certainly not a "large" cutter in the grand scheme of things- yet manages to find and experiment on unusual pieces all the time.

 

[Karl_K]

In terms of how much a cutter can buy, I disagree that only the largest ones get the right pieces to experiment.
We don;t have to look further than Yoram, which is certainly not a "large" cutter in the grand scheme of things- yet manages to find and experiment on unusual pieces all the time.

I didn't say not get any, I said get many.
Yoram is not the norm... in a good way.
He views unusual rough as a challenge where many others may view it as a pain.

 

[sturgeon123456]

In terms of how much a cutter can buy, I disagree that only the largest ones get the right pieces to experiment.
We don;t have to look further than Yoram, which is certainly not a "large" cutter in the grand scheme of things- yet manages to find and experiment on unusual pieces all the time.

I didn't say not get any, I said get many.
Yoram is not the norm... in a good way.
He views unusual rough as a challenge where many others may view it as a pain.

Guys I am learning so much....thanks so much. It is unreal to hear from experts...

Remember my point of view is of a consumer and collector and I have always just thought to shy away from stones that are too deep....

Attached is a pic of an emerald cut I own with a 57% depth (recent acquisition). It seems to be faceted very similar to the Krupp diamond although I am not sure of the dimensions of that one. The krupp diamond is a whopping 33+ carats and obviously mine is tiny but she still sparkles like crazy!! Never thought it was possible to have such a pretty emerald cut with such a small depth %

 

[Rockdiamond]

Awesome looking stone Sturgeon!!!

I can see that the culet is a keel line and slightly open- a lot of amazing shallow stones have open culets.

As you are seeing- part of the problem is getting the right information.
Consumers want "easy" answers ( which is understandable), and there's plenty of sites that take advantage of that by posting table and depth ranges, and associating those numbers with cut quality.
It's like giving someone a golf club, and sending them off to play baseball.
They have a tool- that seems very concrete, giving a false sense of security that they will like stones, which in fact they might not upon seeing them- and or casting gorgeous stones into an undesirable, and undeserved "lower class".

 

[sturgeon123456]

Awesome looking stone Sturgeon!!!

I can see that the culet is a keel line and slightly open- a lot of amazing shallow stones have open culets.

As you are seeing- part of the problem is getting the right information.
Consumers want "easy" answers ( which is understandable), and there's plenty of sites that take advantage of that by posting table and depth ranges, and associating those numbers with cut quality.
It's like giving someone a golf club, and sending them off to play baseball.
They have a tool- that seems very concrete, giving a false sense of security that they will like stones, which in fact they might not upon seeing them- and or casting gorgeous stones into an undesirable, and undeserved "lower class".

Well said, especially with fancies....very hard to judge based on anything other than the eyeballs!

I take chances sometimes and purchase items based on pictures only but I always have to have a level of trust with the seller before I do so, otherwise I will pass everyone.

Problem is these mass online retailers have so much access to inventory but so little personalized help. The people I deal with I have maintained a relationship with for 12+ years and I trust them over anything else.