Is leakage the

[ericad]

Date: 4/9/2010 2:21:06 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 4/9/2010 1:45:36 PM

Author: ericad

Date: 4/9/2010 12:53:53 PM


Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 4/9/2010 12:11:29 PM



Author: ericad



I get David''s point about the term ''leakage'' being a word that conjures up a negative image but that some leakage doesn''t always equate to an unattractive diamond - it''s a case of ''it depends''. Seems to me that when educating buyers, we might say that some leakage may be tolerable to many buyers, the degree of how much is ''allowable'' is complex and depends on the buyer''s personal preferences, budget considerations, etc. and that one would caution buyers that leakage follows a continuum, the extreme end of which results in windowing. Just like the extreme end of obstruction results in a dark diamond with little contrast or brightness, but that doesn''t mean that all obstruction is bad and to be avoided.

Yes, it is a continuum, leakage and obstruction depending on the extent. But how does someone, who coming here asking for help generally means he/she knows almost nothing about diamonds, does not see many diamonds, knows what to look for, what is obstruction and what is leakage, what jewelry lighting and other lightings effect have on these optical artifacts and what he prefers?




Generally stones with leakage will be stones that are cut with steeper pavilion than ''ideal cut'', heavier stones with less light returns, while stones with leakage will be with shallower pavilion, lighter stone. We generally advice against both, especially for rounds as there are so many that are cut without these 2 ''problems''. If you know what you want, with regards to obstruction and leakages, then choose what you want why would you care or ask for others'' opinions?

Very true, stone, it all comes down to educating the consumer, which is why he/she is on PS in the first place. The participants on PS and tools like HCA are the best resources any consumer could ask for.

I must strongly disagree Erica.

The HCA is controversial for many reasons.

One clear cut bad use is when someone loves their diamond, plugs it into HCA and suddenly finds out their eyes have been lying to them all these years.


Or, as has happened right here, consumers read one sided discussions, and decide that HCA trumps GIA.

That''s a huge mistake IMO.

There is a very great possibility those same consumers might very well eliminate stones they may have preferred based on their visual characteristics.NJDeac- it''s not quite a simple as you outlined- either stones ''perform better or they don''t. The whole issue of performance is NOT agree upon,.


I sincerely doubt that any professional in the field of diamonds would recommend trusting HCA more than GIA...maybe other than Garry..

If PS participants were telling consumers that a stone with an HCA score over 2 (I believe that''s the threshold) will definitely not be beautiful, I would say it''s a big problem and very misleading, but I have not observed that happening here. Diamonds can score poorly on HCA and still be beautiful and I agree that it''s important that consumers understand this. But as a rejection tool for internet buyers who are in the market for a modern round brilliant and know that what they want is maximum light return and have the budget to support it, I think HCA provides these consumers with a level of comfort when buying sight-unseen, as long as the style of cutting that HCA favors is what the consumer is after. How will a consumer know if this is what they like? I have no clue how to answer that apart from them simply taking the responsibility to research for themselves, which is where the gazillion different photos and threads on PS comes in handy

 

[Rockdiamond]

NJDeac- I am arguing exactly the point that a consumer may get a stone they like less if they use HCA, as opposed to visual cues.
Furthermore, it''s by no means agreed that stones which score over 2 are not cut as well as others scoring higher.,
That''s why using HCA to gauge which stone is best can end up with misleading results.
You''ll get the stone Garry liked better- but maybe not the one you may prefer.

Erica- recent threads have clearly shown how HCA usage has upset consumers who loved their diamonds, until they found out the diamond scored poorly on HCA.
That is a large part of the problem.

NJDeac is clearly an intelligent person- if other intelligent people are using wrong assumptions about HCA- or leakage- the results are misinformation.

it''s so tempting. If there was a numerical system where one diamond was proven to be "better" than another, it would sure simplify things. But what if it''s not linear- the "top" is not a pinnacle, rather a plateau? What if a fair percentage of stones occupying that plateau are knocked for "performance","leakage" or HCA? Interpretation of all of these is no more than opinion.
GIA''s EX cut grade gets knocked here because it''s too wide.
Maybe they know something we don''t?

 

[zhuzhu]

My OEC diamond leaks all over the place and I LOVE IT!!!!!

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 4/9/2010 1:25:16 PM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 4/9/2010 1:00:04 PM

Author: Rockdiamond

Stone- the other day you accused me of not being able to use simple equations to mislead a consumer...I mean to figure out the volume of a diamond- which you totally failed to do anyway.

What do you mean I fail to figure out the volume? I already showed you the equations, if you do not understand what I am doing there it is not my fault.

Stone- you told a consumer that her diamond would not spread as well as other, better cut stones.
Your reasoning was a whole set of geometric equations.
These are akin to a lot of what we're discussing here.
Maybe, in theory, there's a use for figuring a diamond's volume or size based on it's table and depth, ca and PA.
In actuality, you proved that using these equations does not work.
The stone in question was not deficient in the manner you suggested it would be using these calculations.
Just like a diamond graded EX cut grade by GIA might be knocked for having leakage, when there seems to be no visual examples of this.
Why would someone need to learn to use calculations that produce meaningless results?

 

[spicytuna]

Date: 4/9/2010 2:49:38 PM
Author: clgwli

About your bolding part. I am newer here. Been lurking almost a year but only posted about 6 months ago give or take. One thing I will say is that the community here should be doing that, but I do not feel it is always done.


I have seen time and time again someone post a decent stone (not super ideal) and posters come in here and say that they''d pass because it is not super ideal. Unless asked, they do not explain why they pass on the stone. Sometimes posters here even ignore that the person is saying they want one of the 3 other Cs other than cut and tell people to sacrifice what they want just to get a super ideal diamond.


No one is ever going to say that an average cut is the same as a super ideal, but in the fairness of being a consumer, don''t you think it is right to acknowledge that a diamond that is not a super ideal can be beautiful too? I have been given the impression from many that unless it is a RB AGS0 that a diamond is not worth purchasing.


I found this forum to learn even more about gems. And something I think that is forgotten is that not everyone finds cut to be #1 on their list. It may be 2 or 3 and honestly that SHOULD be fine. Yes you can show the differences in diamonds, but if that is what the person is looking for then pushing an ideal or saying ''Lower you color, clarity and carat size and you can get X ideal cut'' is not helpful either.


I am sure that will not be a popular post here, but really it does bug me when I see it time and time again. Especially when someone says they have some other criteria that is important first.


I will add I am really attempting to learn about diamonds in general now and some day hope to accept a job in the gem world (I am currently a stay at home mother and cannot work outside the home until my child is older) and I hope to be able to educate consumers myself some day. I am not a fan of modern RB diamonds as I have said many times, but this argument intrigues me as someone who really doesn''t really have a personal investment in it. I personally see both sides as valid and think that somewhere in between lies the correct answer and way to educate people. Forcing ideal cut to everyone is not any more right than saying that mathematical equations to find a great stone is absolute bunk.


Cowering back into my cave now

I *heart* you, Jean. Thank you for that post.

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 4/9/2010 3:29:29 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Stone- you told a consumer that her diamond would not spread as well as other, better cut stones.

Your reasoning was a whole set of geometric equations.

These are akin to a lot of what we're discussing here.

Maybe, in theory, there's a use for figuring a diamond's volume or size based on it's table and depth, ca and PA.

In actuality, you proved that using these equations does not work.

The stone in question was not deficient in the manner you suggested it would be using these calculations.

Just like a diamond graded EX cut grade by GIA might be knocked for having leakage, when there seems to be no visual examples of this.

Why would someone need to learn to use calculations that produce meaningless results?

Sorry, you are the one that do not understand the equations. You have no concept of volume and mass. The calculations shows that a stone cut with a 41PA will be the stone geometry you are always trumpeting about, a 60/60 cut stone, instead of a 60/61.5 stone. My calculation shows that with a 41 PA, the stone will weigh in the region of 1.98c instead of a 2.02c. Where do you think that mass is going to if it is cut as a 60/60 34CA 41PA stone? You are always trumpeting about how you like the spread of a 60/60 stone much more right?

That is roughly a difference of 0.04carat that you are paying more for that result in leakage. So you are paying for something that does not make your stone looks better than a 1.98c stone, just paying more for the prestige of going over the 2carat mark, and there is a jump in $/carat at the 2 carat mark.

Also, note that even your beloved GIA mark that stone as a VG cut from the proportion, not just being a downgrade from the G in polish. If you do not believe that, go play with the numbers on GIA facetware. So yes, even GIA calls it an less than Excellent cut in this case.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 4/9/2010 1:30:02 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 4/9/2010 12:32:22 PM

Author: princesss

Date: 4/9/2010 12:28:25 PM

Author: spicytuna

The arrow pattern is caused by obstruction(reflection of the viewer blocking the light) if you don''t get that by now there is no sense even talking to you because that is diamond 101 and if you don''t understand that simple concept by now it is a waste of time even talking to you.


To much obstruction is an issue also.

Wow...all of us ''regular folk'' should just pack up and go home. I have one year in Optics, 3 years of Ophthalmic Optics Graduate studies, and 10 years of experience under my belt. Granted, its not diamond optics, but I think that we all need a good refresher course every now and then...don''t you? RD brings up a lot of good questions...questions that I would like to have answered as well. That is why I am here. I didn''t realize that we were wasting the experts'' time.

Trust me, that wasn''t directed at any newbie - RD and Strm (aka Karl) have been going back and forth for ages about this. Karl isn''t making a sweeping statement that he won''t speak to anybody that doesn''t understand that, but that if, after explaining it to RD many, many times RD still seems to miss the point, then it''s not worth continuing to beat his head against the wall in order to explain it when he knows he will be ignored.[/quote]Astute observation Princess. The sad reality is that RD is preaching to the less informed, his focus is not what the Prosumers and trademembers reply, he is looking for anecdotal evidence from less experienced posters. A few will reply in support, and usually these posters are motivated by the need to validate their own purchase decisions. On that basis they will support RD''s opinion and can relate to the notion that making a less informed choice, ignoring flaws, and just generally assessing the overall appearance has its merits.

[/quote]
By "prosumers" CCL seems to refer to anyone who buys one side of this debate hook line and sinker.
Karl can discuss his side, and I read with interest.
I do not believe we''ll ever see eye to eye.
In that regard, neither will be able to "teach" the other what they believe is correct.
IN the discussion of it, others will learn a lot.

 

[Lula]

I think there might be some leakage here (this is not my diamond, nor does it belong to anyone on PS) ...

 

[Rockdiamond]

Stone-My question is how these equations, in real world terms are useful.

I learned how to judge the grade of a diamond''s cut many years back.
Part of that includes being able to determine if a stone is "hiding weight"- which can be done visually - along with a mm gauge, and a diamond scale.
In diamonds, the practical application of "volume and mass" requires no calculating to ascertain- only visual examination.

The stone in question weighed 2.02cts, and spread 8.15mm- meaning it''s not "hiding weight" in a manner that impacts the visual size.

Where is the value in the equations?
Is it your contention that an 8.15mm stone with the same angles would have been "better cut" if it weighed 1.98cts?

 

[Lula]

...and there might be some leakage here...

I don''t think the leakage is as "bad" as the photo of the stone posted earlier, but I do think this stone leaks, meaning, in my definition, that light going into the stone is exiting out the bottom or the sides of the stone rather than the top of the stone. And I also think that the cut is typical of what most retail stores sell (non-H&A or "Traditional" symmetry).

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thanks Sara!!

Any chance we have measurements on that stone?

 

[Lula]

Date: 4/9/2010 5:16:35 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Thanks Sara!!


Any chance we have measurements on that stone?

Nope, sorry, RD, no measurements. I got these photos off Craigslist awhile ago, and no mention of a certification or stone specs in the listing. I was hoping the folks on here who can judge a stone''s cut by its visual appearance could explain to me why it looks the way it does!

 

[Rockdiamond]

The table looks too large to my eye.
I''d say the photos are useful in that the stone does seem to be a lesser cut.
Not really horrible, but not a well made stone.

 

[Lisa Loves Shiny]

Date: 4/9/2010 2:49:38 PM
Author: clgwli

Date: 4/9/2010 1:12:44 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover
Your initial post and title is funny RD, good sense of humour.

On a more serious note,

In ~30+ years in the diamond business do you still claim you have never seen a round diamond with a lifeless ring where no light is returned around the edge of the table?

Forget getting hung up with photographs, ASET, Crown Angles, Pavillion angles, this thread appeals to those who don''t embrace the technical tools or want to understand diamond proportions and how they translate to real world performance.

How can you be leading a discussion on colorless diamonds and leakage when in real life you acknolwedge you haven''t seen this lack of liife appearance?
Have you ever used Karl''s red paper or red cloth underneath pavillion test on loose diamonds to look at your own inventory and see more clearly where the leakage is?

I''ve seen maybe a few hundred 1ct and above round diamonds up close in my lifetime and I can easily spot stones with leakage at the edge of the table when viewing away from the bright jewelry store lights.
My wife has a cushion cut with a modern round brilliant style of pavillion and I see a fair sized ring on the outside of the table which is never dark, it just doesn''t show brightness or fire in any lighting or any tilt angle.
The pictures of her ring are in the SMTR thread and you won''t see some glaring ring of death in those photographs either, it doesn''t mean we can''t see the areas where it performs poorly in real life especially in low light conditions.

Ignorance is bliss RD, especially for the ''trust your eyes'' types and boy do you play up the ignorance of the novice posters. A consumer can very easily if not shown the comparison between an ''ideal'' and one with moderate to severe leakage choose a larger or less expensive per carat stone just by the stats on paper, a photograph, and then a limited viewing of a small number of non ideal stones in person. That is NOT an informed decision by any stretch of the imagination.

For those who really care about the cut of diamonds the PS community often advocates making thorough comparisons and then making an informed decision. I don''t feel we need to remind the consumer that Superideals cost more, that part is pretty obvious, but pretending that all modern RB are equally beautiful and advocating ignoring the flaws of diamonds like leakage as trivial is simply wrong.

Expressing concern over leakage highlights the fact that there are diamonds in the same cutting style that have better light return and the customer should be aware of this and then make their own subjective judgement on what they feel is most important.

About your bolding part. I am newer here. Been lurking almost a year but only posted about 6 months ago give or take. One thing I will say is that the community here should be doing that, but I do not feel it is always done.

I have seen time and time again someone post a decent stone (not super ideal) and posters come in here and say that they''d pass because it is not super ideal. Unless asked, they do not explain why they pass on the stone. Sometimes posters here even ignore that the person is saying they want one of the 3 other Cs other than cut and tell people to sacrifice what they want just to get a super ideal diamond.

No one is ever going to say that an average cut is the same as a super ideal, but in the fairness of being a consumer, don''t you think it is right to acknowledge that a diamond that is not a super ideal can be beautiful too? I have been given the impression from many that unless it is a RB AGS0 that a diamond is not worth purchasing.

I found this forum to learn even more about gems. And something I think that is forgotten is that not everyone finds cut to be #1 on their list. It may be 2 or 3 and honestly that SHOULD be fine. Yes you can show the differences in diamonds, but if that is what the person is looking for then pushing an ideal or saying ''Lower you color, clarity and carat size and you can get X ideal cut'' is not helpful either.

I am sure that will not be a popular post here, but really it does bug me when I see it time and time again. Especially when someone says they have some other criteria that is important first.

I will add I am really attempting to learn about diamonds in general now and some day hope to accept a job in the gem world (I am currently a stay at home mother and cannot work outside the home until my child is older) and I hope to be able to educate consumers myself some day. I am not a fan of modern RB diamonds as I have said many times, but this argument intrigues me as someone who really doesn''t really have a personal investment in it. I personally see both sides as valid and think that somewhere in between lies the correct answer and way to educate people. Forcing ideal cut to everyone is not any more right than saying that mathematical equations to find a great stone is absolute bunk.

Cowering back into my cave now

I wonder the same things. I understand that a diamond with a great amount of leakage will not for the most part be attractive. I think I have seen that one example of leakage used a few times where there is a picture of a diamond laying on somebodys finger and you can see the ring of flesh underneath the diamond. But surely there is some leakage that will not usually be seen by the naked eye - but would still be excluded for leakage by many because of the numbers.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 4/9/2010 4:02:22 PM
Author: spicytuna

Date: 4/9/2010 2:49:38 PM
Author: clgwli

About your bolding part. I am newer here. Been lurking almost a year but only posted about 6 months ago give or take. One thing I will say is that the community here should be doing that, but I do not feel it is always done.


I have seen time and time again someone post a decent stone (not super ideal) and posters come in here and say that they''d pass because it is not super ideal. Unless asked, they do not explain why they pass on the stone. Sometimes posters here even ignore that the person is saying they want one of the 3 other Cs other than cut and tell people to sacrifice what they want just to get a super ideal diamond.


No one is ever going to say that an average cut is the same as a super ideal, but in the fairness of being a consumer, don''t you think it is right to acknowledge that a diamond that is not a super ideal can be beautiful too? I have been given the impression from many that unless it is a RB AGS0 that a diamond is not worth purchasing.


I found this forum to learn even more about gems. And something I think that is forgotten is that not everyone finds cut to be #1 on their list. It may be 2 or 3 and honestly that SHOULD be fine. Yes you can show the differences in diamonds, but if that is what the person is looking for then pushing an ideal or saying ''Lower you color, clarity and carat size and you can get X ideal cut'' is not helpful either.


I am sure that will not be a popular post here, but really it does bug me when I see it time and time again. Especially when someone says they have some other criteria that is important first.


I will add I am really attempting to learn about diamonds in general now and some day hope to accept a job in the gem world (I am currently a stay at home mother and cannot work outside the home until my child is older) and I hope to be able to educate consumers myself some day. I am not a fan of modern RB diamonds as I have said many times, but this argument intrigues me as someone who really doesn''t really have a personal investment in it. I personally see both sides as valid and think that somewhere in between lies the correct answer and way to educate people. Forcing ideal cut to everyone is not any more right than saying that mathematical equations to find a great stone is absolute bunk.


Cowering back into my cave now

I *heart* you, Jean. Thank you for that post.

You may feel that the generally accpeted HCA Idealscope with no leakage under the table > In Peson Viewing method is overly selective and critical I disagree.
I don''t derive any satisfaction nor should the novice poster, if I pat them on the back and say beautiful unless it meets my high standards for what is beautiful relative to its peers in the same cut design.

I am glad Rocky Talky doesn''t work this way otherwise this would not be an education forum, this would be a sales forum where all we do is reccomend PS vendors and then pat people on the back for using them.
You won''t learn anything from posts like that and may even pass on the same low standards to someonelse.

You want to see overly critical and picky take a look at this method which is what I saw regularly in another forum, here is a cut/paste where one poster regular nitpicks WF ACA and GOG ideal HAs.
I can''t post the forum link so I just cut and pasted the analysis a regular poster makes there. This happens to be one he thinks is okay the other critiques are a lot worse.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arr...d-1445156.htm#
HCA Score:1.2 excellent

Light Return (ASET/ IDEAL Scope):Very good with minor light leakage

Crown/Pavilion Angle deviation:0.4/0.3... Quite good with crown a bit bit high

H&A Pattern: Excellent

Star Ratio/Deviation:53% Good chance of above average hotspot and scint

Depth Gridle Facet:78% Good chance of ex average hotspot and scint...limited by above average star ratio

Painted/Dugged/Classic gridle:Classic with minor unevenness

Fluorescence:Negligible cannot complain

Inclusion:Expect of a VS2... might want to request to check for eye-clean
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[CharmyPoo]

Date: 4/9/2010 5:12:41 PM
Author: sarap333
...and there might be some leakage here...

Well .. according to some of the theories discussed here.

If
A. I love the stone in person AND
B. It hurts my feelings when someone says that my diamond is leaky

Then
C. There is no leakage in the diamond

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 4/9/2010 12:18:55 PM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 4/9/2010 11:51:32 AM
Author: risingsun
To Stone: I aced my graduate school courses in research, design and statistics, but I never had occasion to use your formula. I am planning to wear a big ''L,'' for loser, across my forehead for the rest of the day

If you have ever watched Top Gear, this is the preferred method of shame!!

Huh? Those formulas are middle school level trigonometry and geometry equation, I learn them before I was even 14. Sorry, I have to ask but just what kind of education did people in the US goes through? I guess it if OT. I have no idea these kind of basic math is not taught in school in the US as I am not local. Shouldn''t GRE math at least need these level of math? Been a long while since I took GRE.

I just have to not use these assumptions.

And no, I am no expert in optics, everything I know about that is from school and own research, very basic, probably no higher than high school level physics. That is GCE A level, British system, not US education system.

Stone, just because you recall everything you learned in highschool math does not mean all of us do

I bet I recall some things from highschool that you have forgotten.

 

[CharmyPoo]

Date: 4/9/2010 6:13:51 PM
Author: dreamer_d
Stone, just because you recall everything you learned in highschool math does not mean all of us do

I bet I recall some things from highschool that you have forgotten.

I learnt all those formulas in high school and used them in univerity regularly. I haven''t had a need to use them in my daily life and job - hence, forgotten a lot of them. I don''t think that makes me an idiot but maybe a little forgetful.

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 4/9/2010 5:09:26 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Stone-My question is how these equations, in real world terms are useful.

I learned how to judge the grade of a diamond''s cut many years back.

Part of that includes being able to determine if a stone is ''hiding weight''- which can be done visually - along with a mm gauge, and a diamond scale.

In diamonds, the practical application of ''volume and mass'' requires no calculating to ascertain- only visual examination.

The stone in question weighed 2.02cts, and spread 8.15mm- meaning it''s not ''hiding weight'' in a manner that impacts the visual size.

Where is the value in the equations?

Is it your contention that an 8.15mm stone with the same angles would have been ''better cut'' if it weighed 1.98cts?

Sorry, that is a very uncertain, stupid way to judge if a stone has hidden weight. Measure the weight and if the diameter is within the expected spread, no hidden weight?

What if the crown is cut shallow but then with a steep crown, or a thick girdle? That can be cut and still comes in line with the same diameter and you will say there is no hidden weight as that is what you are taught and use all your life, but there is hidden weight.

My equations are to a simple model that anyone can use to roughly judge the volume and accompanying mass difference between 2 cuts, it is not meant to be an exact measure of the volume and accompanying diameter. How exact can you get with a volume measurement out of averaged and rounded numbers, not to mention the assumption that these are conical volume and do not take into account of facets.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 4/9/2010 2:49:38 PM
Author: clgwli

About your bolding part. I am newer here. Been lurking almost a year but only posted about 6 months ago give or take. One thing I will say is that the community here should be doing that, but I do not feel it is always done.

I have seen time and time again someone post a decent stone (not super ideal) and posters come in here and say that they'd pass because it is not super ideal. Unless asked, they do not explain why they pass on the stone. Sometimes posters here even ignore that the person is saying they want one of the 3 other Cs other than cut and tell people to sacrifice what they want just to get a super ideal diamond.

No one is ever going to say that an average cut is the same as a super ideal, but in the fairness of being a consumer, don't you think it is right to acknowledge that a diamond that is not a super ideal can be beautiful too? I have been given the impression from many that unless it is a RB AGS0 that a diamond is not worth purchasing.

I found this forum to learn even more about gems. And something I think that is forgotten is that not everyone finds cut to be #1 on their list. It may be 2 or 3 and honestly that SHOULD be fine. Yes you can show the differences in diamonds, but if that is what the person is looking for then pushing an ideal or saying 'Lower you color, clarity and carat size and you can get X ideal cut' is not helpful either.

I am sure that will not be a popular post here, but really it does bug me when I see it time and time again. Especially when someone says they have some other criteria that is important first.

I will add I am really attempting to learn about diamonds in general now and some day hope to accept a job in the gem world (I am currently a stay at home mother and cannot work outside the home until my child is older) and I hope to be able to educate consumers myself some day. I am not a fan of modern RB diamonds as I have said many times, but this argument intrigues me as someone who really doesn't really have a personal investment in it. I personally see both sides as valid and think that somewhere in between lies the correct answer and way to educate people. Forcing ideal cut to everyone is not any more right than saying that mathematical equations to find a great stone is absolute bunk.

Cowering back into my cave now

CL If you think consumers who come here for help should be given different advice, then post in RT and give them the advice you want!

 

[clgwli]

CCL I want to ask for a clarification on what you mean by the HCA method (truncating what you said) being overly critical. Are you stating that I think people are being to critical on stones in general? As in that you (those liking HCA method) cannot appreciate an average stone. Or that I think you (those liking the HCA method) are more or less taking too much time to evaluate a stone and thus being critical in the search?

I am just curious what you meant by that before I address it and agree or disagree

The point of my post to clarify to anyone curious, was that not everyone puts as much emphasis on the ideal cuts as some here. And in my lurking and posting I have seen that people really do put down stones without listening to what others have as a priority. There are quite a few posters here I have seen who say they want a good cut, but really put emphasis on something else first. Now I understand trying to point out why you think that an ideal cut stone is better, however when someone says that it isn''t as important I get a distinct feeling that no one really cares to help them anymore. That a GIA excellent that is not an HCA of less than 2 is not worth the look.

Not everyone values this and as a consumer forum I don''t get why only the best of the best of the best is pushed. I''ve seen people suggest SI1s to people who value clarity first just to get an ideal cut stone.

I will say again, I do not appreciate round cut diamonds. I have a couple larger older transition cut rounds that I do like for their personality. I have 3 pairs of studs ranging from ideal to very good. Other than that I cannot see myself buying a round brilliant again. I do not like them at all and really found comparing my gems that I do not like the AGS0 look. I immensely dislike the arrow obstruction in these rounds. Reminds me of spiders and I hate spiders

So even a VG with symmetry that gets rid of this look is what I prefer and buy when purchasing the few rounds I do wear.

I do like learning about rounds though for other reasons and I do like all I have learned. I just understand why some do not put ideal cuts to be #1, though they most likely want at least an excellent cut.

So yes I am making a comment about what I read and observe on rounds since I do not have much interest in them on a personal level. I will only buy one if I lose a stone and need to replace it.

I do appreciate those who like the AGS0 look of a RB, but I also appreciate vintage pieces which allows me to really appreciate personalities in stones. And yes, I do believe technology is removing the personality of RB stones in general. Probably why I like squarish shaped fancies. They seem to vary a lot more and have more personalities depending on the type of cut.

 

[Lula]

Date: 4/9/2010 5:34:54 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
The table looks too large to my eye.

I'd say the photos are useful in that the stone does seem to be a lesser cut.

Not really horrible, but not a well made stone.

Okay, great, thank you!! But if you had to guess at its proportions, could you? And when you say the table is too large, is it too large for the rest of the proportions to work, or is it too large in an absolute sense?

I'm really sincere about these questions, not being facetious at all. You (RD) strike me as a very visual person (as compared to a numbers person) which is fine, but I think where these threads go wrong is that a visual person and a numbers person may agree in theory on something, but they cannot understand how the other arrived at his/her conclusion because they don't speak the same language.

Just a hunch, I could be all wrong here.

 

[Lula]

Date: 4/9/2010 6:09:14 PM
Author: CharmyPoo

Date: 4/9/2010 5:12:41 PM

Author: sarap333

...and there might be some leakage here...

Well .. according to some of the theories discussed here.


If

A. I love the stone in person AND

B. It hurts my feelings when someone says that my diamond is leaky


Then

C. There is no leakage in the diamond

Good one, Charmy! This cracked me up.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 4/9/2010 6:09:14 PM
Author: CharmyPoo

Date: 4/9/2010 5:12:41 PM
Author: sarap333
...and there might be some leakage here...

Well .. according to some of the theories discussed here.

If
A. I love the stone in person AND
B. It hurts my feelings when someone says that my diamond is leaky

Then
C. There is no leakage in the diamond

I agree.

People feel emotional about their diamonds. That is a great thing! But why should that preclude any attempt to quantify optical performance of a diamond?

 

[clgwli]

Date: 4/9/2010 6:20:22 PM
Author: dreamer_d

Date: 4/9/2010 2:49:38 PM
Author: clgwli

About your bolding part. I am newer here. Been lurking almost a year but only posted about 6 months ago give or take. One thing I will say is that the community here should be doing that, but I do not feel it is always done.

I have seen time and time again someone post a decent stone (not super ideal) and posters come in here and say that they''d pass because it is not super ideal. Unless asked, they do not explain why they pass on the stone. Sometimes posters here even ignore that the person is saying they want one of the 3 other Cs other than cut and tell people to sacrifice what they want just to get a super ideal diamond.

No one is ever going to say that an average cut is the same as a super ideal, but in the fairness of being a consumer, don''t you think it is right to acknowledge that a diamond that is not a super ideal can be beautiful too? I have been given the impression from many that unless it is a RB AGS0 that a diamond is not worth purchasing.

I found this forum to learn even more about gems. And something I think that is forgotten is that not everyone finds cut to be #1 on their list. It may be 2 or 3 and honestly that SHOULD be fine. Yes you can show the differences in diamonds, but if that is what the person is looking for then pushing an ideal or saying ''Lower you color, clarity and carat size and you can get X ideal cut'' is not helpful either.

I am sure that will not be a popular post here, but really it does bug me when I see it time and time again. Especially when someone says they have some other criteria that is important first.

I will add I am really attempting to learn about diamonds in general now and some day hope to accept a job in the gem world (I am currently a stay at home mother and cannot work outside the home until my child is older) and I hope to be able to educate consumers myself some day. I am not a fan of modern RB diamonds as I have said many times, but this argument intrigues me as someone who really doesn''t really have a personal investment in it. I personally see both sides as valid and think that somewhere in between lies the correct answer and way to educate people. Forcing ideal cut to everyone is not any more right than saying that mathematical equations to find a great stone is absolute bunk.

Cowering back into my cave now

CL I you think consumers who come here for help should be given different advice, then post in RT and give them the advice you want!

I really honestly do not understand what you are saying here. I said in my last post that I think a lot of those who help here do not listen to what the consumer wants and push their ideals sometimes more than what the consumer wants. That''s an observation in a nutshell.

Again I do not care for RB so I do not feel the desire to post advice for them. I was making a general observation about when someone asks for example a 1.5 carat RB G and above in color and VS1 and above in clarity. Their priority in order is size, clarity cut then color. I have seen more than once here that people push for the ideal cuts and suggest a lower color and clarity to achieve this in their budget. I know I am not the only one who has seen this and it does make me wonder if this forum is to help find the best diamond for the person or if people think their views are always right for everyone.

And yes my comments are straying from the original topic, but it is an observation I have noticed about this place since I found it. Yes there are a lot of helpful people here, but I also feel that there is a lot of people who snub their noses at something below ideal.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 4/9/2010 5:43:22 PM
Author: LisaRN

Date: 4/9/2010 2:49:38 PM
Author: clgwli

Date: 4/9/2010 1:12:44 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover
Your initial post and title is funny RD, good sense of humour.

On a more serious note,

In ~30+ years in the diamond business do you still claim you have never seen a round diamond with a lifeless ring where no light is returned around the edge of the table?

Forget getting hung up with photographs, ASET, Crown Angles, Pavillion angles, this thread appeals to those who don't embrace the technical tools or want to understand diamond proportions and how they translate to real world performance.

How can you be leading a discussion on colorless diamonds and leakage when in real life you acknolwedge you haven't seen this lack of liife appearance?
Have you ever used Karl's red paper or red cloth underneath pavillion test on loose diamonds to look at your own inventory and see more clearly where the leakage is?

I've seen maybe a few hundred 1ct and above round diamonds up close in my lifetime and I can easily spot stones with leakage at the edge of the table when viewing away from the bright jewelry store lights.
My wife has a cushion cut with a modern round brilliant style of pavillion and I see a fair sized ring on the outside of the table which is never dark, it just doesn't show brightness or fire in any lighting or any tilt angle.
The pictures of her ring are in the SMTR thread and you won't see some glaring ring of death in those photographs either, it doesn't mean we can't see the areas where it performs poorly in real life especially in low light conditions.

Ignorance is bliss RD, especially for the 'trust your eyes' types and boy do you play up the ignorance of the novice posters. A consumer can very easily if not shown the comparison between an 'ideal' and one with moderate to severe leakage choose a larger or less expensive per carat stone just by the stats on paper, a photograph, and then a limited viewing of a small number of non ideal stones in person. That is NOT an informed decision by any stretch of the imagination.

For those who really care about the cut of diamonds the PS community often advocates making thorough comparisons and then making an informed decision. I don't feel we need to remind the consumer that Superideals cost more, that part is pretty obvious, but pretending that all modern RB are equally beautiful and advocating ignoring the flaws of diamonds like leakage as trivial is simply wrong.

Expressing concern over leakage highlights the fact that there are diamonds in the same cutting style that have better light return and the customer should be aware of this and then make their own subjective judgement on what they feel is most important.

About your bolding part. I am newer here. Been lurking almost a year but only posted about 6 months ago give or take. One thing I will say is that the community here should be doing that, but I do not feel it is always done.

I have seen time and time again someone post a decent stone (not super ideal) and posters come in here and say that they'd pass because it is not super ideal. Unless asked, they do not explain why they pass on the stone. Sometimes posters here even ignore that the person is saying they want one of the 3 other Cs other than cut and tell people to sacrifice what they want just to get a super ideal diamond.

No one is ever going to say that an average cut is the same as a super ideal, but in the fairness of being a consumer, don't you think it is right to acknowledge that a diamond that is not a super ideal can be beautiful too? I have been given the impression from many that unless it is a RB AGS0 that a diamond is not worth purchasing.

I found this forum to learn even more about gems. And something I think that is forgotten is that not everyone finds cut to be #1 on their list. It may be 2 or 3 and honestly that SHOULD be fine. Yes you can show the differences in diamonds, but if that is what the person is looking for then pushing an ideal or saying 'Lower you color, clarity and carat size and you can get X ideal cut' is not helpful either.

I am sure that will not be a popular post here, but really it does bug me when I see it time and time again. Especially when someone says they have some other criteria that is important first.

I will add I am really attempting to learn about diamonds in general now and some day hope to accept a job in the gem world (I am currently a stay at home mother and cannot work outside the home until my child is older) and I hope to be able to educate consumers myself some day. I am not a fan of modern RB diamonds as I have said many times, but this argument intrigues me as someone who really doesn't really have a personal investment in it. I personally see both sides as valid and think that somewhere in between lies the correct answer and way to educate people. Forcing ideal cut to everyone is not any more right than saying that mathematical equations to find a great stone is absolute bunk.

Cowering back into my cave now

I wonder the same things. I understand that a diamond with a great amount of leakage will not for the most part be attractive. I think I have seen that one example of leakage used a few times where there is a picture of a diamond laying on somebodys finger and you can see the ring of flesh underneath the diamond. But surely there is some leakage that will not usually be seen by the naked eye - but would still be excluded for leakage by many because of the numbers.

We happen to have at least four niche ideal HA diamond vendors who actively post and sell on pricescope, naturally we see a lot of "superideal" diamonds being reccomended.

For me a very important question for each consumer to ask themself is the 'Probable Premium Appropriate' for choosing a branded line versus a generic round brilliant.

I can't answer that question for the consumer so I'd prefer that they knew the merits of both options and could make a comparison. I think all consumers coming to pricescope can understand the price difference between these two and have probably been offered an average diamond, but they may not understand or be aware of the visual differences. I'd rather err on the side of highlighting visual differences than sweep it under the rug and leave it to the subjective vendor. I am sure vendors who don't sell Superideals like RD would prefer you did sweep all suttle differences under the rug, naturally this thinking helps their businesses a lot more.

I also see no reason to accept an overly steep pavillion, there isn't a significant premium to select a generic diamond with a near tolk pavillion/crown combo with the appopriate complimentary angles, if one looks careully(and we pricescopers are happy to do this) there may be no premium at all.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Sara- by eye I''d say 64% table

Charmy- my intent is an informative discussion.
Hopfully your post was not aimed at me.
1) There is leakage in EVERY diamond.
2) if a photo of a diamond depicts a problem, I''d describe what I saw

 

[cara]

Yeah, the idea that the HCA shouldn't exist because it hurts people's feelings is ridiculous... what if someone buys an uncerted stone at a pawn shop that they love, sends it off to GIA and find out its only 'good' cut - not even very good or excellent like they thought? Or they buy an EGL F/SI1 stone and for some reason send it off to GIA - should GIA misgrade the stone because the poor person's feelings might get hurt when they discover GIA doesn't agree with EGL and thinks the stone is an H/I1?

The tools don't hurt people's feelings just like the grading lab's opinions don't hurt people's feelings - they just spit out a number or a grade or two. What people do with that information is up to them. This is coming from someone whose engagement ring stone did not score particularly well on the HCA. Diamonds are often an emotional purchase and I get that. But people do have to take a little bit of responsibility for their own feelings and purchasing decisions. I mean, we have to occasionally remind people that they are purchasing the stone not a piece of paper, how is an HCA score any different in that regard? (Even if both do usually mean *something* about the diamond, lab reports and HCA scores both aren't *perfect* tools at predicting diamond beauty or anything.)

I am all for explaining the limitations of the HCA and how it was intended to be used. But some people do show up here after purchase and get a greater than 2 HCA score for their stone and get some benefit from the process - maybe like jngy of the horrible leakage example they manage to arrange a return of a recently purchased and poorly cut stone. Maybe they learn about superideals and decide they want one, and return their not-bad but not superideal cut stone so they can get something more to their new preferences. Maybe they decide they like their stone just fine but like the environment on pricescope and use it to help them in the purchase of additional diamonds, superideal or not, or maybe, like me, they keep their stone and just lust after new ones.

 

[Lula]

Date: 4/9/2010 6:36:50 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Sara- by eye I'd say 64% table


Charmy- my intent is an informative discussion.

Hopfully your post was not aimed at me.

1) There is leakage in EVERY diamond.

2) if a photo of a diamond depicts a problem, I'd describe what I saw

That is a big table. I guess that explains the large white circle in the middle -- table reflection?

RD, I think Charmy may have been referring to some other threads, too, where someone posts the specs of their already purchased diamond and then becomes upset when they get honest feedback on the stone. Sometimes posters are between a rock and a hard place, trying to figure out if the OP wants help critiquing the stone or just reassurance.

 

[Dreamer_D]

..not worth it...