Are there any photos documenting the negative aspects of a "Steep Deep"

[Rockdiamond]

HI everyone!
The topic of "Steep Deep" seems to come up often here.
Are there any photos showing what the negative effects of "Steep Deep" are?
I''ve looked at a few threads, like this one, but have yet to find photos of an actual diamond showing any problems related to this.

Do any such photos exist?

 

[Karl_K]

This explains what causes the issues and I borrowed some images of a real diamond from Garry.

http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/68/1/Do-the-pavilion-mains-drive-light-return-in-the-modern-round-brilliant.aspx

 

[Karl_K]

Actually the same pictures are in that thread and there are both Kelli's pictures and Garry's pictures showing the problem in the thread you linked.
So I don't see how you can say there are no pictures showing it.

 

[Karl_K]

Sir John has a bunch of pictures in his article here:
http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/72/1/Laboratory-Cut-Grades-What-the-report-doesn%E2%80%99t-show.aspx

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thanks Karl,
I''d seen that one.

If this is the series of photos you are referring to, I honestly do not see the problem

 

[Rockdiamond]

Interesting article by John, but yet again- I do not see anything in the photos which shows a problem.
Differences in cut? Yes.
Huge problem?
Not that I can see

 

[FB.]

I suspect that I may have been the cause of this topic.

I have a 35.5/41.2 "steep deep" (well, the OH does).
Only with close scrutiny can I sometimes see some darkness under the table, when viewing from above. I only detected the effect after much inspection after becoming aware of the effect.

If I run the numbers through GIA's cut estimator, it comes out as "excellent" cut and will tolerate some negative adjustments to the numbers before dropping to very good.
But the cert says "very good" cut, which , I think, has been caused by a little "painting and digging" of the girdle that genuinely seems to help the stone look better than the numbers suggest that it should, yet in this case, it dropped the cut grade.

Also have a couple of other distinctly "steep deeps" (35.5/41. that have ex/ex symm/polish and "very good" (not "excellent") cut grade.
They actually perform very well as earring stones, but have a noticeably dark middle (table) if you look straight at them. But since earring stones are usually viewed at an angle, these stones seem to slightly outperform an ideal cut.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi FB,
I did not mean to single anyone out at all!

I''ve heard the term used derogitorally so many times, I''m honestly curious to see if there''s photos showing this "Ring of Death"

 

[FB.]

David,

I assumed that it was in relation to my "how can cutters abuse an ideal cut" topic currently running, but I haven''t taken any offence.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thansk FB!

Since you own a few "steep Deeps", might I ask- do you see a problem in the photo I posted in this thread?

aslo -were you involved of the purchase of the steep deeps?

 

[Laila619]

My current stone is a ''steep deep'' diamond. My husband proposed with one, back when neither of us knew anything about diamonds. It is very, very sparkly but it has longer LGF. I believe that must help a lot. Once I get my new ideal cut AGS 0 upgrade diamond, it''ll be interesting to see if I notice a big difference in the performance.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thanks for responding Laila!

I''m very interested in your experience.
You mentioned your "Steep Deep" stone is "Very Sparkly"...which sounds pretty good to me.

Are there any aspects of it that you find to be negative in terms of it''s appearance?

When you learned that there are people here who feel "Steep Deep" is a negative aspect, did it change your opinion of your stone?

If "Steep Deep" is such a problem, it makes sense that we''d be able to see this in photos.

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 11/10/2009 1:12:28 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Thanks Karl,

I'd seen that one.


If this is the series of photos you are referring to, I honestly do not see the problem

gee maybe that you can see the persons finger through large areas of the diamond might be a problem?
It sure would be better if those areas were doing something useful like returning light to the eyes.

 

[FB.]

Date: 11/10/2009 2:43:09 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Thansk FB!

Since you own a few 'steep Deeps', might I ask- do you see a problem in the photo I posted in this thread?

aslo -were you involved of the purchase of the steep deeps?

The pair of steep deeps (0.5ct each) (35.5/41.8, GIA = VG cut, polish/symm = EX) work well as earrings, since the normal viewing angle is about 45 degrees. They match or possibly slightly outperform an ideal cut for light return at such viewing angles.
Depending on the relative position of the light source, it's not always possible to see the dark edges table, but if you get within about a 5-10 degree line either side of face-on, then the black centre of the stone looks like an eyeball staring back at you.

An interesting feature of these stones is that their "arrows" appear pink, rather than white, when I use my "home made" variation of an ideal scope. In fact, the only light return from under the table (when viewed directly above), is from the arrows themselves!

The 35.5/41.2 (1ct) is difficult to detect darkness under the table, but as I said earlier, I think that a little painting and digging has improved the look of the stone, but dropped the GIA cut grade!
The excellent symmetry draws attention from any hint of darkness by showing a very nice 8-point set of arrows that would make any stone look slightly dark under the table. But the arrows also give a wonderful contrast. However, as I mentioned, the 35.5/41.8 invert the colour of the arrows to white light, making them invisible.

Yes, I was involved in the purchase of the stones.
The 35.5/41.8 ct work OK as earrings. The 35.5/41.2 works OK as a pendant.
Put a 35.5/41.8 in a pendant and the stright-on viewing angle would make it look like an eyeball with the black pupil in the middle.
Put the 35.5/41.2 in earrings and the light return would be stright out the top and not out at an angle.
Both cuts have their place.

 

[Rockdiamond]

No Karl, I don''t notice that.
For one thing, the photo on the person''s finger is taken at an angle.
The entire left side is dark, while the entire right side looks lighter.
This is because the light is coming from the right side, and the stone is not straight on to the camera.
No, that photo does not indicate any clear problem to me.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 11/10/2009 3:46:38 PM
Author: FB.

Date: 11/10/2009 2:43:09 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Thansk FB!

Since you own a few ''steep Deeps'', might I ask- do you see a problem in the photo I posted in this thread?

aslo -were you involved of the purchase of the steep deeps?

The pair of steep deeps (0.5ct each) (35.5/41.8, GIA = VG cut, polish/symm = EX) work well as earrings, since the normal viewing angle is about 45 degrees. They match or possibly slightly outperform an ideal cut for light return at such viewing angles.
Depending on the relative position of the light source, it''s not always possible to see the dark edges table, but if you get within about a 5-10 degree line either side of face-on, then the black centre of the stone looks like an eyeball staring back at you.

An interesting feature of these stones is that their ''arrows'' appear pink, rather than white, when I use my ''home made'' variation of an ideal scope. In fact, the only light return from under the table (when viewed directly above), is from the arrows themselves!

The 35.5/41.2 (1ct) is difficult to detect darkness under the table, but as I said earlier, I think that a little painting and digging has improved the look of the stone, but dropped the GIA cut grade!
The excellent symmetry draws attention from any hint of darkness by showing a very nice 8-point set of arrows that would make any stone look slightly dark under the table. But the arrows also give a wonderful contrast. However, as I mentioned, the 35.5/41.8 invert the colour of the arrows to white light, making them invisible.

Yes, I was involved in the purchase of the stones.
The 35.5/41.8 ct work OK as earrings. The 35.5/41.2 works OK as a pendant.
Put a 35.5/41.8 in a pendant and the stright-on viewing angle would make it look like an eyeball with the black pupil in the middle.
Put the 35.5/41.2 in earrings and the light return would be stright out the top and not out at an angle.
Both cuts have their place.

FB- I promise, I''m not trying to be argumentative.
I don''t carry a lot of Round diamonds, I''m not trying to "push" steed deeps on anyone.
What I am pointing out is that a lot is made of this "steep deep" distinction, yet there''s no photographic evidence showing a real problem. Maybe this is a question of taste. You might be among those who ike the way a steep deep looks- I mean, you did pick a few!

When people wear diamonds, they move. Be it in an earring, or a ring. Both rings and earrings are viewed frequently at an angle.
If there was such a visual problem with the so called "Steep Deep", it would be readily apparent when earrings are shown in a display box, where most people will see them striaght on.


To again point out the obvious- there ARE a lot of badly cut diamonds out there.
I do not feel it''s accurate to categorize diamonds graded "EX" cut grade by GIA as badly cut.....even if a group of folks here dislikes their angles.

If there is a "ring of death" shouldn''t we be able to see it?
I mean, if it was a "Ring of slight discomfort" maybe it might be harder to see.......

 

[FB.]

Date: 11/10/2009 3:24:30 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Thanks for responding Laila!

I'm very interested in your experience.
You mentioned your 'Steep Deep' stone is 'Very Sparkly'...which sounds pretty good to me.

Are there any aspects of it that you find to be negative in terms of it's appearance?

When you learned that there are people here who feel 'Steep Deep' is a negative aspect, did it change your opinion of your stone?

If 'Steep Deep' is such a problem, it makes sense that we'd be able to see this in photos.

When I initially encoutered the negative attitude towards "steep deep", my opinion of the stone dropped - it was psychological.
But after further detailed inspection, the slightly steep-deep 35.5/41.2 still looked very good and, in fact, I probably like the stone slightly more than before, now that I appreciate it's beauty after the thorough inspection.

I once posted some scores out of ten for what I had seen of the visual performance of each cut grade compared head-to-head and I rated something like:

AGS Ideal: 9/10

GIA Excellent: 9/10

GIA Excellent (slightly steep/deep 35/41): 8.5/10

GIA Excellent (moderately steep/deep 35.5/41.2): 8/10

GIA Very good: 7.5/10

GIA good: 6.5/10

 

[Laila619]

Rock diamond,

Once I found out my current stone was a steep deep, it didn''t bother me at all. It''s still crazy sparkly and I get compliments on it all the time!

However, when shopping for my upgrade, I wasn''t about to deliberately select another steep deep. Too much PS knowledge.

 

[FB.]

Date: 11/10/2009 3:57:57 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 11/10/2009 3:46:38 PM
Author: FB.

Date: 11/10/2009 2:43:09 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Thansk FB!

Since you own a few 'steep Deeps', might I ask- do you see a problem in the photo I posted in this thread?

aslo -were you involved of the purchase of the steep deeps?

The pair of steep deeps (0.5ct each) (35.5/41.8, GIA = VG cut, polish/symm = EX) work well as earrings, since the normal viewing angle is about 45 degrees. They match or possibly slightly outperform an ideal cut for light return at such viewing angles.
Depending on the relative position of the light source, it's not always possible to see the dark edges table, but if you get within about a 5-10 degree line either side of face-on, then the black centre of the stone looks like an eyeball staring back at you.

An interesting feature of these stones is that their 'arrows' appear pink, rather than white, when I use my 'home made' variation of an ideal scope. In fact, the only light return from under the table (when viewed directly above), is from the arrows themselves!

The 35.5/41.2 (1ct) is difficult to detect darkness under the table, but as I said earlier, I think that a little painting and digging has improved the look of the stone, but dropped the GIA cut grade!
The excellent symmetry draws attention from any hint of darkness by showing a very nice 8-point set of arrows that would make any stone look slightly dark under the table. But the arrows also give a wonderful contrast. However, as I mentioned, the 35.5/41.8 invert the colour of the arrows to white light, making them invisible.

Yes, I was involved in the purchase of the stones.
The 35.5/41.8 ct work OK as earrings. The 35.5/41.2 works OK as a pendant.
Put a 35.5/41.8 in a pendant and the stright-on viewing angle would make it look like an eyeball with the black pupil in the middle.
Put the 35.5/41.2 in earrings and the light return would be stright out the top and not out at an angle.
Both cuts have their place.

FB- I promise, I'm not trying to be argumentative.
I don't carry a lot of Round diamonds, I'm not trying to 'push' steed deeps on anyone.
What I am pointing out is that a lot is made of this 'steep deep' distinction, yet there's no photographic evidence showing a real problem. Maybe this is a question of taste. You might be among those who ike the way a steep deep looks- I mean, you did pick a few!

When people wear diamonds, they move. Be it in an earring, or a ring. Both rings and earrings are viewed frequently at an angle.
If there was such a visual problem with the so called 'Steep Deep', it would be readily apparent when earrings are shown in a display box, where most people will see them striaght on.


To again point out the obvious- there ARE a lot of badly cut diamonds out there.
I do not feel it's accurate to categorize diamonds graded 'EX' cut grade by GIA as badly cut.....even if a group of folks here dislikes their angles.

If there is a 'ring of death' shouldn't we be able to see it?
I mean, if it was a 'Ring of slight discomfort' maybe it might be harder to see.......

David,

I don't think that you're being argumentative at all. There's nothing wrong with a good discussion and it opens everyone's eyes to other possible viewpoints.

I think that until people are made aware of "steep deep", most won't notice it since - as you say - diamonds are viewed from many angles.
But in average light conditions and a direct face-on view and the middle can turn black. By illuminating a steep-deep from multiple angles (as in a jewellery shop), they seem less prone to darkness.

I have just taken a mediocre-quality picture of the earrings beside the pendant and hopefully it is attached below.
You can see the slightly reduced brilliance of the steep deeps, plus the black table.
I have double-imaged the picture so that I can easily highlight the black table with a red arrow, without potentially spoiling the original picture at the top.

 

[FB.]

....and the same stones viewed from the kind of angle that most people might see your earrings (light performance is very similar between the 35.5/41.2 and the 35.5/41.8, with the earring stones possibly being slightly brighter):

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thank you so much for taking and posting those photos fb!

I''ll bet you''ve gained a new respect for those who photograph diamonds ...heheh
Seriously, I can see what you''re pointing to, but not in enough detail.
The photos are not focused well enough to be meaningful ( to my eye)

Did you feel the photo I posted in this thread shows negative aspects?


Laila,
I am so happy to read your response.
Part of my motivation is exactly someone in your position. They may have a stone they love, but reading derogatory opinions of others could actually give them doubt, causing them to love the stone less.
Or, they may have an honest seller offer them a stone , which gets knocked here to the extent it might look like the seller is playing games- when in fact the seller may have never heard the term "Steep Deep"

In your response you used the term "Too much PS knowledge"
My goal here sometimes is to separate the opinions form the facts- allowing a better knowledge overall.

 

[beaujolais]

Great question, great photos, wonderful information. Thanks.

 

[FB.]

Date: 11/10/2009 5:04:48 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Thank you so much for taking and posting those photos fb!

I''ll bet you''ve gained a new respect for those who photograph diamonds ...heheh
Seriously, I can see what you''re pointing to, but not in enough detail.
The photos are not focused well enough to be meaningful ( to my eye)

Did you feel the photo I posted in this thread shows negative aspects?


Laila,
I am so happy to read your response.
Part of my motivation is exactly someone in your position. They may have a stone they love, but reading derogatory opinions of others could actually give them doubt, causing them to love the stone less.
Or, they may have an honest seller offer them a stone , which gets knocked here to the extent it might look like the seller is playing games- when in fact the seller may have never heard the term ''Steep Deep''

In your response you used the term ''Too much PS knowledge''
My goal here sometimes is to separate the opinions form the facts- allowing a better knowledge overall.

Yes, I appreciate that taking diamond pictures is not easy.

The problem with the pictures is that I took them from about 2ft away (about the minimum focus distance of the camera), so as to replicate a more normal viewing distance in the real world environment - and to avoid being accused of shadowing the diamonds.
It''s not so much that they''re out of focus, but the fact that they are zoomed-in and cropped images that lack sufficient resolution (pixels) of the camera at that distance.

Basicially, I need a camera with a closer focus distance and higher resolution.

But that''s the best I can offer, for now.

 

[purrfectpear]

Date: 11/10/2009 5:04:48 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
My goal here sometimes is to separate the opinions form the facts- allowing a better knowledge overall.

But the FACT is that a steep deep will have dark areas when viewed straight on.

It''s an OPINION when some people say that FACT doesn''t bother them in the least, and they are consumers who will continue to purchase and enjoy that diamond, as they should.

You aren''t disputing facts David. You''re disputing opinions. You''re attempting to prove that some who holds the opinion that a steep deep is a negative are wrong. Why is their opinion any less valid than the consumer who says "I don''t care, I love it anyway"?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Got it FB!
Hate to be a pest, but I''m still curious about the photo that I copied from another thread about this, and posted here in this thread.
Do you feel it depicts a large problem with the looks of the stone?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 11/10/2009 5:47:33 PM
Author: purrfectpear

Date: 11/10/2009 5:04:48 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
My goal here sometimes is to separate the opinions form the facts- allowing a better knowledge overall.

But the FACT is that a steep deep will have dark areas when viewed straight on.

It''s an OPINION when some people say that FACT doesn''t bother them in the least, and they are consumers who will continue to purchase and enjoy that diamond, as they should.

You aren''t disputing facts David. You''re disputing opinions. You''re attempting to prove that some who holds the opinion that a steep deep is a negative are wrong. Why is their opinion any less valid than the consumer who says ''I don''t care, I love it anyway''?

Hi Purrfect,
It is by no means a fact that "steep deep" stones have noticeable dark areas in their center- that''s an opinion ( presented as a fact)
If it''s a fact that such stones have a noticeable dark area in the center, a photo showing this should be no problem.
Yet, there seem to be no such photos.

I''m the number one advocate for encouraging folks to love what they love- as opposed to over analyzing it to death.
Same holds true for dislikes.
For my money, the expression of likes and dislikes is a large part of what makes a forum interesting and fun.
When consumers are led to believe personal likes and dislikes are facts, confusion occurs.

Stones graded EX cut grade are considered to be well cut by GIA- and likely agreed upon by most of the knowledgeable people in the trade.
That''s a fact.

 

[diamondringlover]

I have a steep deep princess, I cant remember how deep, I would have to find the paper work, but it is very deep and faces up much smaller then its 1.01ct, if faces up like a .83ct or so, with that being said, it still sparkles like crazy and I get a ton of compliments, however, I would love to able to replace it with a normal round diamond...maybe one day

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 11/10/2009 6:04:36 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Stones graded EX cut grade are considered to be well cut by GIA- and likely agreed upon by most of the knowledgeable people in the trade.

That''s a fact.

That is the problem with the system.
To much trade input.
People like you who dismiss dark splotches under the table as the way things have always been so they are EX.

 

[E B]

Date: 11/10/2009 1:12:28 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Thanks Karl,

I'd seen that one.

If this is the series of photos you are referring to, I honestly do not see the problem

I can see the ring in all of the photos, even on the 'bright' side of photo #6. It's pretty obvious to me.

 

[Laila619]

Here is my .98 steep deep stone.

It scores 3 ''very highs'' on the Brilliancescope (which I know is not a popular tool on PS).

Would I buy another steep deep stone? No. Not after having found PS. But I do know some can still be very bright and sparkly.