question about depth% in AGS 0 princess cuts

[viscera912]

hello everyone,

the world of princess cuts have changed for the better due to the new AGS 0 scoring thing for princesses. due to reading the various threads that have dealt with the parameters for the new ags 0, one may notice that the depth% are a little larger than what we may have thought "good" a couple months ago. correct me if i am wrong but if the depth% is lower it gives the illusion that it faces up larger for its carat weight? thus, if we have deep princesses in the ags 0 category score, would it face up even better due to the cut excellence, or does it face up as a smaller diamond because of the larger depth%. i may have not been very clear with my question if so i apologize, but im not using the proper lingo....if you want to talk medical jargon.....ahhh never mind

so let me see if i can summarize, a princess cut with a smaller depth % makes the diamond look bigger for its carat weight while a larger depth makes it look smaller, thus if this statement is true then would the ags 0 look smaller for its carat weight????

jason

 

[researcher]

I don''t know the answer but I can tell you that, to another non-expert I know what you''re getting at and would also LOVE the answer!

 

[kbaker]

Where can I find the new AGS 0 ratings? I am dying to see the new changes?!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

we have hod lots of recent threads - do a search.

There is a huge amount of hidden weight in the 4 steepest seondary pavilion angles that do not show up in depth %. The rule does not work.

 

[kbaker]

I tried doing two searches and did not find any solid info about the new scorings...

 

[Chiefrocka]

Unrelated to a degree but along the lines of illusion of size...let me throw this out since I''m looking a princess diamonds as well. In the event a stone is slightly rectangular (regardless of classification i.e. square modified, rectangular 1:1.1 ratio) when it''s set long, meaning the longest side runs with the finger. It gives a slight illusion that the stone is larger.... get it???

 

[DiamondExpert]

Chief - it also makes the fingers look longer!

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

In a round brilliant, there is a negative correlation between depth and spread, in a sense that a higher depth generally means less spread.

This rule does not apply to princess-cuts. Both pavilion and crown are a result of a combination of two main angles, in stead of 1 in a round brilliant. This means that one can hide a lot of weight in one of these angles, without changing the total depth.

Because traditionally, there were no basic cut-parameters for a princess, they have always been cut to preserve weight. If you follow the parameters of AGS however, this becomes a different story, and one can have a high total depth, while the spread of the stone is still good.

I hope that this is somewhat clear.

Live long,

 

[viscera912]

hmmm, i understand what you are saying about the hiding the weight in the pavillion angles, that makes sense to me. my next question is this re: the ags 0''s, was one of the goals during the brainstorming process in how to get more light return based on unveiling that hidden weight? obviously the light return is simply astounding, does that extra weight below, now revealed, which opens up that pav angle= better light return?

 

[RADIANTMAN]

While depth% percentage in a princess doesn''t correlate to spread as well as it does in rounds, that doesn''t mean there is no correlation at all. In fact, a princess with a 75% depth is extremely likely to spread smaller than one with a 70% depth.

An analysis of the AGS''s spread guidance indicates that they believe that the "ideal" spread for a princess is 15% smaller than for a round. This means that AGS 0 princesses will, indeed, include stones that many of us would consider too small for their carat weight.

Are they correct? The weight (no pun intended) given to spread in their cut grade was a subjective, not a scientific determination. Thus they are neither correct nor incorrect. It''s simply their opinion. I personally disagree with them, and I suspect I am not alone in my view (though I may be alone on this forum).

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 5/25/2005 1:04:53 PM
Author: RADIANTMAN
While depth% percentage in a princess doesn''t correlate to spread as well as it does in rounds, that doesn''t mean there is no correlation at all. In fact, a princess with a 75% depth is extremely likely to spread smaller than one with a 70% depth.

In this thread I give a clear example how one can have the same weight and the same spread, with respectively a depth of 65 and one of 75%.

In reality, the differences are even bigger. It is clear to me that with the same depth and the same diameter, we could also cut stones weighing 15% more than they weigh now. The difference is that they will have much less light performance.

Live long,