A cut above vs regular cut

[gm89uk]

Thank you Serg for your detailed explanation and Rockdiamond for clarifying somethings for me.

That's very interesting Karl. So if one is looking at a well proportioned (34-35/40.6-40. GIA XXX with promising ASET/IS, there is still room that this diamond may not be AGSL0? Or does this mainly account for diamonds that have shallower/steeper angles but still quantify excellent light return?

 

[Karl_K]

Thank you Serg for your detailed explanation and Rockdiamond for clarifying somethings for me.

That's very interesting Karl. So if one is looking at a well proportioned (34-35/40.6-40. GIA XXX with promising ASET/IS, there is still room that this diamond may not be AGSL0? Or does this mainly account for diamonds that have shallower/steeper angles but still quantify excellent light return?

It comes into play much more with fancies than rounds.
Rounds are considered a more settled science and there is much less room to argue and the AGS system was developed using rounds.
However finish deductions can more a RB that would otherwise get 0 down.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I think another question is, does a diamond having excellent measured light return ever mean that it compromises another attribute of a diamond, that one may regard as appealing or beautiful?

Yes that can happen and AGS actually accounts for that factor in some ways.
Originally there was too much of it built into the system that it actually was in some ways contradictory but a diamond can still be bright and not get AGS0.

The weather analogy is excellent. Thanks Sergey.

Further to Karls explanation - AGSL has attempted to cover the deficits by using a penalty system that dings diamonds that have deficiencies.
In the AGS 4 example attached you can get some idea how the system works.
There is a weight deduction which is also listed as a proportion issue because the stone has a spread -6.5% smaller than optimal.

Some problems with this approach:
- sparkles may not be uniform across the stone
- there may be mainly big or many small sparkles where as a mix works best for most cuts.
- the system is not open ended - e.g. if the fire is exceptional, then some people may be happy to suffer the lower light return.
(it is impossible to have maximum fire and maximum brilliance in the same stone "excessive brilliance is the enemy of fire")
-the system is monoscopic and work inspired by Sergey and Yuri has proven that stereoscopic vision plays an important role
- some diamond cuts show a similar amount of fire for both eyes as one - but most show up to 2x as much fire for 2 eyes
- 10 inches alone is in my view not good enough - a lot of diamond buying may be done at that distance, but most diamond pleasure comes from 1.5 to 3 times that distance.
- stone orientation is a big issue - especially for fire.
- diamond movement plus orientation are important factors
- the single worst AGSL deficiet (and every other system) is that they apply different standards for different cuts - that sadly is like a gambling table changing the rules after spinning the wheel and saying "the odds are going to exclude 3, 7 11 and 17 - the house will win on those numbers"

If it was not nap time I could probably continue - but I hope this helps readers understand these issues are very complex and there is no current solution.

 

[Karl_K]

- the system is not open ended - e.g. if the fire is exceptional, then some people may be happy to suffer the lower light return.

The problem with that approach is lighting.
Most people are in lighting conductive to brightness rather than fire the majority of the time.
I would tip the balance to brightness being a larger factor than fire but it can't be forgotten.
If 2 proportion sets are lets say withing 2% of each other for brightness but one shows fire more often and more of it across a lot of lighting conditions then that may be worthwhile even if it is 2% less bright.
However a stone that looks noticeable darker in the more common lighting to gain even as much as 20% in fire is not a good trade off in my opinion.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

- the system is not open ended - e.g. if the fire is exceptional, then some people may be happy to suffer the lower light return.

The problem with that approach is lighting.
Most people are in lighting conductive to brightness rather than fire the majority of the time.
I would tip the balance to brightness being a larger factor than fire but it can't be forgotten.
If 2 proportion sets are lets say withing 2% of each other for brightness but one shows fire more often and more of it across a lot of lighting conditions then that may be worthwhile even if it is 2% less bright.
However a stone that looks noticeable darker in the more common lighting to gain even as much as 20% in fire is not a good trade off in my opinion.

Unless the diamond is set in a style of jewelry that is predominantly worn in the evening Karl - in that case brightness is way less important. Agreed?

 

[Serg]

- the system is not open ended - e.g. if the fire is exceptional, then some people may be happy to suffer the lower light return.

The problem with that approach is lighting.
Most people are in lighting conductive to brightness rather than fire the majority of the time.
I would tip the balance to brightness being a larger factor than fire but it can't be forgotten.
If 2 proportion sets are lets say withing 2% of each other for brightness but one shows fire more often and more of it across a lot of lighting conditions then that may be worthwhile even if it is 2% less bright.
However a stone that looks noticeable darker in the more common lighting to gain even as much as 20% in fire is not a good trade off in my opinion.

Germans prefer beer with sausage, Italian prefer vine with pizza.
whats are better Vine? Beer? Sausage or Pizza?
Ideal Vine? Ideal Beer?
Most consumers even do not that Fire is. there are a lot of brainwashing about brightness, Light return.

Melee diamonds almost have not Fire , but have brightness higher than 1 ct diamonds.
Are consumers prefer melee performance instead 1ct AGS0 diamond performance?
Is it good idea to stop do any statement about consumer Taste without any Consumer Taste research, without consumer cut education.?
speak about your preference.

 

[Serg]

AGS cut grading system is not main issue in this discussion
Future of Diamond industry is much more important.
Concept of Ideal Diamond( same cut for everyone) kills industry.

The natural deviation in the most fitting embodiments of people’s dreams is the basis for the very diversified but structured positioning of the brands in different consumer markets: automobiles, clothes, footwear, watches, pens, etc. What would people think of the claim that an “ideal” -­for­-everybody car has just been launched?


In the luxury segment, the exactness of personalisation is critical because luxury brands are, first of all, a means of self­ expression and making statements about oneself. T​he upper end is prepared to pay a significant premium for finely tuned products because the uniqueness of a product stresses the uniqueness of its owner.



As customers are rightly suspicious about the quality of fancy cuts, they have the freedom to choose only the clarity and the colour of the round stones. This situation cannot serve as a basis for differentiation and manifestation of oneself because the majority of triple excellent round diamonds are indistinguishable, in terms of cut, clarity and color, to the eye of a typical consumer in a typical situation of consumption.



Being unable to cut distinguishable diamonds, the diamond industry leaves the extra margin to those who are able to personalize and add value—the jewellery brands.



Relevant experience in brand usage and emotional bonding are the key factors in establishing a brand and developing loyalty. By choosing, among highly but differentially performing diamonds, one which appeals to him or her most of all, a customer would get a certain reflection of own personality, e.g., romantic, bold, playful, etc. This type of personal connection with the product lasts much longer than the average love embodied by the gift of a diamond engagement ring in modern America.

 

[Rockdiamond]

AGS cut grading system is not main issue in this discussion
Future of Diamond industry is much more important.
Concept of Ideal Diamond( same cut for everyone) kills industry.

The natural deviation in the most fitting embodiments of people’s dreams is the basis for the very diversified but structured positioning of the brands in different consumer markets: automobiles, clothes, footwear, watches, pens, etc. What would people think of the claim that an “ideal” -­for­-everybody car has just been launched?


In the luxury segment, the exactness of personalisation is critical because luxury brands are, first of all, a means of self­ expression and making statements about oneself. T​he upper end is prepared to pay a significant premium for finely tuned products because the uniqueness of a product stresses the uniqueness of its owner.



As customers are rightly suspicious about the quality of fancy cuts, they have the freedom to choose only the clarity and the colour of the round stones. This situation cannot serve as a basis for differentiation and manifestation of oneself because the majority of triple excellent round diamonds are indistinguishable, in terms of cut, clarity and color, to the eye of a typical consumer in a typical situation of consumption.



Being unable to cut distinguishable diamonds, the diamond industry leaves the extra margin to those who are able to personalize and add value—the jewellery brands.



Relevant experience in brand usage and emotional bonding are the key factors in establishing a brand and developing loyalty. By choosing, among highly but differentially performing diamonds, one which appeals to him or her most of all, a customer would get a certain reflection of own personality, e.g., romantic, bold, playful, etc. This type of personal connection with the product lasts much longer than the average love embodied by the gift of a diamond engagement ring in modern America.

Wow.
Amazing Serg.
You're so spot on correct. You've truly identified my main motivation in these discussions.
As the internet gains more and more prominence in the market, the integrity of the information posted on a site like PS becomes more and more important.
Its great that some sellers can use AGSL in marketing their diamonds. But it's not a scientifically better diamond necessarily. There are indeed many diamonds with obvious deficits. But many of the stones eliminated by AGSL fancy shaped grading do not have such deficits.

 

[Karl_K]

- the system is not open ended - e.g. if the fire is exceptional, then some people may be happy to suffer the lower light return.

The problem with that approach is lighting.
Most people are in lighting conductive to brightness rather than fire the majority of the time.
I would tip the balance to brightness being a larger factor than fire but it can't be forgotten.
If 2 proportion sets are lets say withing 2% of each other for brightness but one shows fire more often and more of it across a lot of lighting conditions then that may be worthwhile even if it is 2% less bright.
However a stone that looks noticeable darker in the more common lighting to gain even as much as 20% in fire is not a good trade off in my opinion.

Unless the diamond is set in a style of jewelry that is predominantly worn in the evening Karl - in that case brightness is way less important. Agreed?

Again depends on the lighting they will be under.
It is my dream someday that people will have diamonds tailored to their specific environment and events.
Designed and cut just to suit them.
However today the costs are way to high to do that and the marketing is a nightmare.
Until that time a diamond that is a all lighting compromise is likely better than one that is more specialized.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Karl- if you think about it, this debate really has legs. You and I have been "debating" it, in some form or another for well over ten years.
Nowadays, I believe we share a lot more in common than we did at first.
The entire debate about 60/60 was basically resolved at least ten years ago, when the bulk of manufacturers of RBC's re-calibrated the mass production to higher crowns, and smaller tables.
In some cases the change has been great- like in brown rounds. India has really upped the game in terms of the quality of cutting brown- as well as colorless diamonds over the past 10-15yrs.
In colorless, I'm not as sold that such a change should dominate the market.
Have these changes elevated the state of the art?
Yes in some ways IMO
Or is it stagnation?
Like a "diamond GMO" are we somehow loosing diversity?
Written as someone who would LOVE to see AGSL earn a greater market share- I'm super glad the PC Cut grade never caught on to any great extent.
Hopefully this will spur AGSL to look deeper into light performance and broaden the definitions.

 

[Karl_K]

Have these changes elevated the state of the art?
Some, but more so GIA cut grading has elevated the middle of the round market

Yes in some ways IMO
Or is it stagnation?
Rounds have been stagnant for a long time, there is just so much you can do with them.

Like a "diamond GMO" are we somehow loosing diversity?
no we have gained diversity overall. There are a lot of fancy cuts on the market that would not have been so without the AGS0 LP to give them some 3td party legitimacy.

 

[Karl_K]

To expand on it a little and fix my typo....
"no we have gained diversity overall. There are a lot of fancy cuts on the market that would not have been so without the AGS0 LP to give them some 3rd party legitimacy."

Lets say you come up with a new cut.
You can tell people its the best thing since diamonds were cut and people are going to dismiss that as marketing garbage.
However if it has an ags0 and there is a positive association with ags0 then it is more likely to be considered then accepted.
That said there are some awesome designs possible that would not get AGS0 that are not going to be produced.
So where does it balance out...To me it seems to be tipping to the side of making more designs marketable and improving choice.

 

[manygo]

er regular cut

 

[SirGuy]

Karl, you brought up a good point about branding and marketing.

Some big names in the business (the big "T" for example) only offer their own in-house reports, which they insist are better than GIA or AGS.

I've heard of one PS'er who had a well cut stone (a Brian Gavin one maybe?) who was allowed by Tiffany to put it in one of their settings, as it reportedly (pun intended) passed muster with them. I understand that's not their normal practice.

So Tolkowsky set up a range of cuts and found what people preferred. Over time cutting techniques, methodologies, performance assessment, and measurement has improved. Now cutters are sometimes crafting round stones to deliberately fall within an AGS0 grade. The grade is now the standard and the cause (and not necessarily the result) of the cutter's intent.

So which comes first? Which is the most honest assessment of beauty?

A seller lays out five stones, without saying which is which. Do most customers pick the best AGS0 stones when choosing blindly for performance and "beauty"? Are some swayed by marketing and branding? Does a $60 bottle of wine taste better than a $10 bottle if you know the price before you sip?

Does Tiffany have their stones cut to fit their particular standard of performance, or do they simply do an in-house grading of whatever they buy? If the former, do theirs look better to the uneducated consumer who's fascinated with the brand name? Do their stones pass a blind test?

It's sometimes a bit of mixing up cause and effect. I'm sure some cutters are wary to delve into MRB territory with experimentation when GIA and AGS are the big dogs in the room passing muster.

When I had a ring made for my fiancée, I had a decent idea of what she would want. I looked at the stones unset and gave my approval to the jeweler before looking at their AGS reports. The human eye is the best reporter of quality, some would argue. But which confirms which?

Does the eye confirm the report, or the report confirm the eye?

I would like to see another large sample Tolkowsky-style test. Let's see what real consumers actually like these days. I expect for many it'll fall into what AGS considers "ideal." But not for all, especially if there aren't many off the beaten path.

Good discussion.

 

[Karl_K]

So Tolkowsky set up a range of cuts and found what people preferred. Over time cutting techniques, methodologies, performance assessment, and measurement has improved. Now cutters are sometimes crafting round stones to deliberately fall within an AGS0 grade. The grade is now the standard and the cause (and not necessarily the result) of the cutter's intent.

So which comes first? Which is the most honest assessment of beauty?

Diamond cut has changed over time with changes in lighting and how people wear diamonds.
Wearing diamonds only for special occasions was the norm not the exception in Tolkowsky's day.
Remember that diamonds cut in Tolkowsky's day would be an OEC not a RB.

Well cut rounds certainly came first by decades.
AGS didn't break any new ground in rounds other than sorting what has been done into categories.
The existing premium cut round diamonds on the market certainly had an influence on the AGS grading system.

 

[Karl_K]

It's sometimes a bit of mixing up cause and effect. I'm sure some cutters are wary to delve into MRB territory with experimentation when GIA and AGS are the big dogs in the room passing muster.

GIA and AGS has killed any attempt at advancement in the MRB but in reality there is nothing that hasn't been tried so its not a huge deal.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Yes, interesting.
I could point to the RBC market- and look at AGSL as the lab which has been more restrictive on rounds- more like the GMO type of idea.
GIA does have a wider grade- which gets bashed about here for being too wide, but in reality allows more diversity. Well cut 60/60 has never gone away- or lost the elements that made it desirable in the first place. But such stones are much harder to find nowadays as more and more cutters joined the 55-58% table brigade.


Sirguy brings up some very important points- relevant to the discussion.
If AGSL says a princess cut should be cut in a given manner, anyone wanting to earn the top grade NEEDS to stick to the formula.
In essence, the cutter has to accept AGSL ideas, regardless of what they might think based on their own ideas and experience.
What's happened in practice, with this AGSL princess cut grade is that many cutters have refused to ignore what their eyes tell them and instead many cutters have ignored AGSL ideas.

When Yoram cuts for us, I'm truly not interested in handcuffing him to conform to AGSL current ideas of light performance- I'm far more interested in what Yoram thinks is beautiful.
In terms of new cuts- there's been many new variations coming out over the past few years as sub sets of Cushion Modified Brilliant- and cushion Brilliant that never go to AGSL.
If AGSL was not so restrictive in their cut grading, maybe some of these would have gone to AGSL.

I am honestly hopeful that we may see some updated standards coming along from AGSL- they do deserve a lot of credit for their work- and also a larger market share.

 

[Karl_K]

Well cut 60/60 has never gone away- or lost the elements that made it desirable in the first place.

As was pointed out 5 years ago to you AGS and GIA almost perfectly overlap using the AGS guidelines for 60% tables. Since experience has shown that the guidelines were conservative AGS likely allows more 60% table combinations than GIA EX. So why are still complaining about it?
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/how-important-are-hca-factor-grades-in-assessing-diamonds.150674/page-3']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/how-important-are-hca-factor-grades-in-assessing-diamonds.150674/page-3[/URL]

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Well cut 60/60 has never gone away- or lost the elements that made it desirable in the first place.

As was pointed out 5 years ago to you AGS and GIA almost perfectly overlap using the AGS guidelines for 60% tables. Since experience has shown that the guidelines were conservative AGS likely allows more 60% table combinations than GIA EX. So why are still complaining about it?
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/how-important-are-hca-factor-grades-in-assessing-diamonds.150674/page-3']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/how-important-are-hca-factor-grades-in-assessing-diamonds.150674/page-3[/URL]

Karl is correct David
http://www.octonus.com/oct/mss/gia&agspgs.phtml
on the Chart GIA is letters E and V etc AGS are the numbers

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Karl, you brought up a good point about branding and marketing.

Some big names in the business (the big "T" for example) only offer their own in-house reports, which they insist are better than GIA or AGS.

I've heard of one PS'er who had a well cut stone (a Brian Gavin one maybe?) who was allowed by Tiffany to put it in one of their settings, as it reportedly (pun intended) passed muster with them. I understand that's not their normal practice.

So Tolkowsky set up a range of cuts and found what people preferred. Over time cutting techniques, methodologies, performance assessment, and measurement has improved. Now cutters are sometimes crafting round stones to deliberately fall within an AGS0 grade. The grade is now the standard and the cause (and not necessarily the result) of the cutter's intent.

So which comes first? Which is the most honest assessment of beauty?

A seller lays out five stones, without saying which is which. Do most customers pick the best AGS0 stones when choosing blindly for performance and "beauty"? Are some swayed by marketing and branding? Does a $60 bottle of wine taste better than a $10 bottle if you know the price before you sip?

Does Tiffany have their stones cut to fit their particular standard of performance, or do they simply do an in-house grading of whatever they buy? If the former, do theirs look better to the uneducated consumer who's fascinated with the brand name? Do their stones pass a blind test?

It's sometimes a bit of mixing up cause and effect. I'm sure some cutters are wary to delve into MRB territory with experimentation when GIA and AGS are the big dogs in the room passing muster.

When I had a ring made for my fiancée, I had a decent idea of what she would want. I looked at the stones unset and gave my approval to the jeweler before looking at their AGS reports. The human eye is the best reporter of quality, some would argue. But which confirms which?

Does the eye confirm the report, or the report confirm the eye?

I would like to see another large sample Tolkowsky-style test. Let's see what real consumers actually like these days. I expect for many it'll fall into what AGS considers "ideal." But not for all, especially if there aren't many off the beaten path.

Good discussion.

Sir Guy - good thoughtful post.
As Karl always says - the biggest variable is the lighting you are viewing the diamonds in. One reason David has so many disagreements is much of his light comes from windows - so naturally he likes a lot of ASET green in stones. That is great for fancy colored diamonds and crushed ice styles.s

I the image I generated a stone with GIA X cut and just outside the large overlap of AGSO=GIA X. Note how much green is in the ASET image.
So David, you might like to install some blinds and see what everyone else sees?
(BTW I can recommend the blind man from the village who installed the blinds in the convent bathroom)

But then, you could always lie on the floor or desk and examine diamonds if you were working late?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Well cut 60/60 has never gone away- or lost the elements that made it desirable in the first place.

As was pointed out 5 years ago to you AGS and GIA almost perfectly overlap using the AGS guidelines for 60% tables. Since experience has shown that the guidelines were conservative AGS likely allows more 60% table combinations than GIA EX. So why are still complaining about it?
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/how-important-are-hca-factor-grades-in-assessing-diamonds.150674/page-3']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/how-important-are-hca-factor-grades-in-assessing-diamonds.150674/page-3[/URL]

You guys are missing the point- regardless of the ability of 60/60 diamonds to qualify for AGSL 0 or GIA EX-
The entire style of cutting has changed over the past 15 years. Far better planning and execution of cutting due to computers.
Just like everything else, benefits and liabilities come with this advance in technology.
I agree that, in general, the bar has risen as many Indian factories have adopted the smaller table slightly deeper model - Ideal Cut.
Due to increased tooling, and cutting technology, the average cut is far better than in the past- and the market sees far less truly off make stones.

If we look at the market 15 years back- at the top levels, there was a diversity of super well made stones in the 1990's. Lazaare Kaplan "Ideal" make was as good as any other cut. Many considered it world's best.
Others preferred Russian.
Russian diamond cutting factories were also producing super well cut stones- but with the more traditional ( at the time) proportion sets ( 60/60 80% LGF) Obviously, super well cut 60/60's would look nothing like Garry's simulation.
Well cut 60/60's have more scintillation. More events slightly less brilliant ( according to an ASET) than a smaller table "Ideal" cut.
Both will be selected by a fair percentage of people with a preference. Which is likely why GIA included the wider range it did in EX cut grade.
This is a matter of taste- having little to do with my window shades ( which are indeed there- just ask the blind man

It's a moot point nowadays.
In the 2000's as the bar rose, it seems like many of the worlds cutters went to a smaller table/ slightly deeper "Ideal" " style of cutting RBC.
AGSL and the research we're discussing had a large part in that shift.
Part of the down side is that today, you see far fewer 60/60 longer LGF stones on the super high end market.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Well cut 60/60 has never gone away- or lost the elements that made it desirable in the first place.

As was pointed out 5 years ago to you AGS and GIA almost perfectly overlap using the AGS guidelines for 60% tables. Since experience has shown that the guidelines were conservative AGS likely allows more 60% table combinations than GIA EX. So why are still complaining about it?
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/how-important-are-hca-factor-grades-in-assessing-diamonds.150674/page-3']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/how-important-are-hca-factor-grades-in-assessing-diamonds.150674/page-3[/URL]

You guys are missing the point- regardless of the ability of 60/60 diamonds to qualify for AGSL 0 or GIA EX-
The entire style of cutting has changed over the past 15 years. Far better planning and execution of cutting due to computers.
Just like everything else, benefits and liabilities come with this advance in technology.
I agree that, in general, the bar has risen as many Indian factories have adopted the smaller table slightly deeper model - Ideal Cut.
Due to increased tooling, and cutting technology, the average cut is far better than in the past- and the market sees far less truly off make stones.

If we look at the market 15 years back- at the top levels, there was a diversity of super well made stones in the 1990's. Lazaare Kaplan "Ideal" make was as good as any other cut. Many considered it world's best.
Others preferred Russian.
Russian diamond cutting factories were also producing super well cut stones- but with the more traditional ( at the time) proportion sets ( 60/60 80% LGF) Obviously, super well cut 60/60's would look nothing like Garry's simulation.
Well cut 60/60's have more scintillation. More events slightly less brilliant ( according to an ASET) than a smaller table "Ideal" cut.
Both will be selected by a fair percentage of people with a preference. Which is likely why GIA included the wider range it did in EX cut grade.
This is a matter of taste- having little to do with my window shades ( which are indeed there- just ask the blind man

It's a moot point nowadays.
In the 2000's as the bar rose, it seems like many of the worlds cutters went to a smaller table/ slightly deeper "Ideal" " style of cutting RBC.
AGSL and the research we're discussing had a large part in that shift.
Part of the down side is that today, you see far fewer 60/60 longer LGF stones on the super high end market.

While improvements in instrumentation and computer technology are certainly related, the biggest reason for the improvement in mainstream cutting of rounds is simply the release of the GIA cut grade. Manufacturers now have a target to shoot for that rewards them for cutting a better diamond. And the GIA system is forgiving enough to allow them to get good weight retentention. Even in 60% tables.



If the GIA were to ever come out with a cut grade system for princess (which they have said for years they were working on), it would likely have the same effect of improving the overall quality of diamonds being produced.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Regarding diversity: Checking today on rapnet I searched for 1.00-1.05ct, G color, SI1
Table depth combo:
58T/62D= 10 stones listed
57/62= 10
60/60=2

Similar results with differing clarities and colors- something like 10:1 against the slightly larger table, slightly shallower diamonds.
Bear in mind that in many of these cases, the 60/60 will have a greater spread.

I'm not suggesting there's anything "wrong" with the smaller table greater depth combo- only that there's also nothing inherently "wrong" with 60/60 diamonds.
Basically, the way it's developed, consumers are getting short changed due to a lack of choice.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Regarding diversity: Checking today on rapnet I searched for 1.00-1.05ct, G color, SI1
Table depth combo:
58T/62D= 10 stones listed
57/62= 10
60/60=2

Similar results with differing clarities and colors- something like 10:1 against the slightly larger table, slightly shallower diamonds.
Bear in mind that in many of these cases, the 60/60 will have a greater spread.

I'm not suggesting there's anything "wrong" with the smaller table greater depth combo- only that there's also nothing inherently "wrong" with 60/60 diamonds.
Basically, the way it's developed, consumers are getting short changed due to a lack of choice.

Didn't you say in a previous post that cutting had gotten better due to better computers and tooling? How is that short changing consumers?

Since 60/60 can potentially make both GIA EX and AGS0, if a cutter wants to cut it, there is nothing stopping him.

There has never in the history of mankind been a better time to be a diamond shopper. With the ability to easily shop a virtual world market of diamonds, and the improvements in cut quality and diversity of facet designs coming off the wheel today, combined with the hyper competitiveness driven by internet competition, and the tools to find the best of the best, the advantage has shifted dramatically to the consumer.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Bryan, in my experience, nothing good comes without something negative.
Yes overall RBC cutting has improved.
It may be one of the most advantageous points in time to be a diamond shopper.
Prices have come down due to increased efficiency.
BUT- using the RBC market as a barometer, this has cost us diversity, as I've illustrated.
Yes, cutters can choose to cut 60/60's and earn EX or 0 cut grade- but that's not what's happening.
The discussion started regarding princess cuts.
The story in this regard is still unfolding.
Cutters are NOT flocking to AGSL type princess cut stones.
When we're looking at princess cuts, red is NOT better than green in ASET.
Hopefully we will continue to see a greater diversity in princess cuts.
In a perfect world AGSL will change to a more diverse model, and this can also help raise the bar overall.
Or, GIA will finally come out with a Princess cut grade that would also have the effect of increasing average cut quality- without pigeonholing all princess cuts into the same narrow parameters.

 

[GT-101]

Wow, this thread blew up. So I'm down to 2 stones - let me know what you guys think:

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/princess-cut-loose-diamond-3430631.htm#
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/princess-cut-loose-diamond-2978544.htm#

Thank you.

 

[solgen]

Bryan, in my experience, nothing good comes without something negative.
Yes overall RBC cutting has improved.
It may be one of the most advantageous points in time to be a diamond shopper.
Prices have come down due to increased efficiency.
BUT- using the RBC market as a barometer, this has cost us diversity, as I've illustrated.
Yes, cutters can choose to cut 60/60's and earn EX or 0 cut grade- but that's not what's happening.
The discussion started regarding princess cuts.
The story in this regard is still unfolding.
Cutters are NOT flocking to AGSL type princess cut stones.
When we're looking at princess cuts, red is NOT better than green in ASET.
Hopefully we will continue to see a greater diversity in princess cuts.
In a perfect world AGSL will change to a more diverse model, and this can also help raise the bar overall.
Or, GIA will finally come out with a Princess cut grade that would also have the effect of increasing average cut quality- without pigeonholing all princess cuts into the same narrow parameters.

If a 60/60 can get AGS 0 and GIA 3EX then there must be another reason why they aren't cutting them. Maybe customers like steeper/deeper stones so the market adjusts accordingly? Or perhaps H&A cut influenced it in some manner. Though I'd imagine you could cut a 60/60 to ideal H&A. But perhaps some branded H&A cut took off so cutters decided to mimic those proportions.

Wow, this thread blew up. So I'm down to 2 stones - let me know what you guys think:

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/princess-cut-loose-diamond-3430631.htm#
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/princess-cut-loose-diamond-2978544.htm#

Thank you.

Wish they had vids so you could see the movement. I'd probably lean towards the .952 tho.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Wow, this thread blew up. So I'm down to 2 stones - let me know what you guys think:

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/princess-cut-loose-diamond-3430631.htm#
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/princess-cut-loose-diamond-2978544.htm#

Thank you.

I would go for 1ct because its a carat