Is the internet, and cut grading the enemy of creativity in cutting?

[Ella]

Everyone, once again, please stick to the topic.

This discussion is not about 60/60 diamonds vs. the world.

It is about the internet and creativity in diamond cutting not about personal agendas.

If this veers off topic again it will be closed.

 

[Serg]

Ella,
Are Whatmeworry posts Personal agenda too?
Are My and Garry posts are Personal agenda too?

I see very helpful and peaceful discussion now .
I do not see reason to block this thread even if somebody does not like results this thread

Internet and creative in diamond cutting can not be considered without real examples. Ideal RBC and 60/60 diamonds are perfect historical examples for discussions about Influence internet in diamond business

Internet is one of main reasons why we see less 60/60 diamonds now

 

[Lula]

RD, three points:

1. You were talking to someone who sells to the NY market where far more clients are familiar with H&A, I assume. My hunch is that in the hinterlands in the middle of the USA, where I live, it is a rare client who asks for H&A, and those few get steered to the dealers (all 2 of them in my area) who sell Hearts on Fire.

2. The majority of clients still buy stones in a retail store, based on the appearance of the stone, without the use of reflector technology. The statement that 60-60 stones are being shunned because their beauty can't be "proven" through reflector technology just doesn't hold water, considering that most clients still buy diamonds from a retail store without the aid (or knowledge of reflector technology). I'm saying that I believe that retailers don't know any more about 60-60 stones, and what comprises a good cut with those proportions than they do about what comprises a good cut in an H&A stone. Which brings me to my third point:

3. It's obvious to me that not all small-tabled H&A stones are cut well. We see these all the time on PS, and the prosumers do their best to educate posters about why one H&A stone may be better cut than another H&A. I hope you do not mean to group all H&A small-table stones into one group. Because to me, there are vast differences in the cut quality of the H&A stones offered online.

I do agree with you that there appear to be vendors (and cutters) who are jumping on the H&A bandwagon without understanding that there is more to ideal cut than H&A. I remember several recent threads about H&A stones that appeared to be cut to "game" the AGS or GIA system in order to obtain the AGS 0 or GIA Excellent ratings. In reality, these stones were not properly cut and the reflector images bore this out. (An example of the "trust but verify" philosophy that PS prosumers use).

I am concerned that consumers are getting taken by unscrupulous vendors who either don't understand the complexities of cut (it's more than H&A and small tables) or are intentionally working with cutters to turn out cookie cutter stones cut on an assembly line that appear to be cut well, but upon closer examination turn out to be dogs.

The "closer examination" can be 1) Visual inspection; 2) Reflector technologies; 3) Sarin and Helium reports; 4) AGS/GIA certs; 5) Magnified photos and/or videos; H&A images (if H&A stone); and, 6) preferably a combination of all of the above. Vendors who supply the above information charge more, but in my experience, it is worth it.

If a well-cut 60/60 stone cannot compete with a poorly cut H&A in reflector images, well, then what standard would you (or do you) us to determine what is a well-cut 60/60 vs. a poorly cut 60/60? I've never seen a Sarin or Helium report for a well-cut 60/60 stone (or any 60/60 stone for that matter). Do these exist? Can you post one?

I suggest again that this is not a conflict between a well-cut 60/60 and a well-cut H&A; rather, the issue is cut quality, and if it's ethical for vendors to tell clients their stones are ideal without any proof whatsoever (except their word, which, you must admit, has become an unfortunately unreliable standard these days).

ETA: Just read the moderator's comments. To try to keep this on topic, I do not think the internet is the enemy of creativity; but, like anything else that becomes "hot" in popular culture, diamond cutters need to respond to the press of the market. If the customer wants a small-tabled H&A, and you have beautiful 60-60's to sell, then you and the cutters need to figure out a way to market the cut. You need to work on your own tools. That's the nature of business today, and I don't think it stifles creativity; rather, I believe it opens markets to consumers like me who otherwise would not have known about the many options in diamond cut. But don't just tell me your product is better, beautiful, different, excellent -- whatever. Show me.

 

[Ella]

Date: 1/25/2010 3:22:23 PM
Author: Serg
Ella,

Are Whatmeworry posts Personal agenda too?

Are My and Garry posts are Personal agenda too?


I see very helpful and peaceful discussion now .

I do not see reason to block this thread even if somebody does not like results this thread


Internet and creative in diamond cutting can not be considered without real examples. Ideal RBC and 60/60 diamonds are perfect historical examples for discussions about Influence internet in diamond business


Internet is one of main reasons why we see less 60/60 diamonds now

If everyone keeps it on topic and without personal agenda there will be no need to close it. But when we see things getting heated or veering wildly off topic into territory that has been covered in other heated threads in the past we begin to watch closely.

If everyone remembers the topic at hand and keeps it to that we will have no need to close the thread.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Sara- without question, there''s a HUGE problem of vendors using incorrect terminology purposefully to deceive consumers- we agree 100% to that.
Without question, the internet has alleviated some of this through better consumer education- as it''s also exacerbated it- sites like Blue Nile having categories for cut on shapes which are not agreed upon by the trade at large is a glaring example.

In terms of NY market versus the rest of the country/world: A nice percentage of the diamonds being sold in middle America flow through New York City
Most are NOT cut here.
The ones that are generally are higher dollar stones, as the labor rates here are easily double many other places ( if not 4 times higher)
Therefore, many of the stones getting cut here are either finer makes or larger stones. If it''s round finer makes, this conversation is totally relevant.

Part of what I have noticed in commercial goods ( stones without GIA reports in lower qualities, or lesser made goods) is a move towards "imitating" the so called "Ideal Cut"- which involves a smaller table.
Unlike some of the comments made earlier, cutting to smaller tables can also be a technique for weight retention in lesser cut diamonds.
You mentioned this as you''ve seen some badly cut smaller tabled diamonds.
I''m attributing the trend towards smaller tables in lesser cut diamonds, in large part, to the internet.

In terms of how to select finer makes: Again, this points back towards the internet.
Visual inspection is always going to be number one if people in the trade are putting their money down. Nothing will overrule my eyes if I''m buying stones for beauty. If I was buying round diamonds for the web, it would be crazy not to use reflector technology based on the online market for finer makes, as it currently exists.
Again, proving my point- if commercial buyers forgo visual cues and rely more on reflectors, we get a lack of diversity in their selection.

Sarin has been used widely without internet influence.
Reflector technology is not widespread other than the internet- therefore we can trace that part directly back to the internet. Consumers using Reflector technology has something to do with how cutters have responded in round diamonds.

Like other ''elimination" or selection tools, reflectors are biased towards certain types of stones. For someone looking for that type of stone, this can be "proven" on the web effectively.

I agree ( yet again) that this is not about 60/60 exclusively. But as Sergey pointed out, it''s easiest to use round diamonds as an example.
We don''t sell 60/60''s- I have no "franchise" or vested interest on that cut.

I AM very interested in helping consumers find well cut diamonds- and agree it''s a thorny issue as there are technologies in place that seem to do the job. My question is what else are these technologies doing?

 

[Serg]

Date: 1/25/2010 3:37:40 PM
Author: sarap333
RD, three points:


1. You were talking to someone who sells to the NY market where far more clients are familiar with H&A, I assume. My hunch is that in the hinterlands in the middle of the USA, where I live, it is a rare client who asks for H&A, and those few get steered to the dealers (all 2 of them in my area) who sell Hearts on Fire.


2. The majority of clients still buy stones in a retail store, based on the appearance of the stone, without the use of reflector technology. The statement that 60-60 stones are being shunned because their beauty can''t be ''proven'' through reflector technology just doesn''t hold water, considering that most clients still buy diamonds from a retail store without the aid (or knowledge of reflector technology). I''m saying that I believe that retailers don''t know any more about 60-60 stones, and what comprises a good cut with those proportions than they do about what comprises a good cut in an H&A stone. Which brings me to my third point:


3. It''s obvious to me that not all small-tabled H&A stones are cut well. We see these all the time on PS, and the prosumers do their best to educate posters about why one H&A stone may be better cut than another H&A. I hope you do not mean to group all H&A small-table stones into one group. Because to me, there are vast differences in the cut quality of the H&A stones offered online.




I do agree with you that there appear to be vendors (and cutters) who are jumping on the H&A bandwagon without understanding that there is more to ideal cut than H&A. I remember several recent threads about H&A stones that appeared to be cut to ''game'' the AGS or GIA system in order to obtain the AGS 0 or GIA Excellent ratings. In reality, these stones were not properly cut and the reflector images bore this out. (An example of the ''trust but verify'' philosophy that PS prosumers use).


I am concerned that consumers are getting taken by unscrupulous vendors who either don''t understand the complexities of cut (it''s more than H&A and small tables) or are intentionally working with cutters to turn out cookie cutter stones cut on an assembly line that appear to be cut well, but upon closer examination turn out to be dogs.


The ''closer examination'' can be 1) Visual inspection; 2) Reflector technologies; 3) Sarin and Helium reports; 4) AGS/GIA certs; 5) Magnified photos and/or videos; H&A images (if H&A stone); and, 6) preferably a combination of all of the above. Vendors who supply the above information charge more, but in my experience, it is worth it.


If a well-cut 60/60 stone cannot compete with a poorly cut H&A in reflector images, well, then what standard would you (or do you) us to determine what is a well-cut 60/60 vs. a poorly cut 60/60? I''ve never seen a Sarin or Helium report for a well-cut 60/60 stone (or any 60/60 stone for that matter). Do these exist? Can you post one?


I suggest again that this is not a conflict between a well-cut 60/60 and a well-cut H&A; rather, the issue is cut quality, and if it''s ethical for vendors to tell clients their stones are ideal without any proof whatsoever (except their word, which, you must admit, has become an unfortunately unreliable standard these days).


ETA: Just read the moderator''s comments. To try to keep this on topic, I do not think the internet is the enemy of creativity; but, like anything else that becomes ''hot'' in popular culture, diamond cutters need to respond to the press of the market. If the customer wants a small-tabled H&A, and you have beautiful 60-60''s to sell, then you and the cutters need to figure out a way to market the cut. You need to work on your own tools. That''s the nature of business today, and I don''t think it stifles creativity; rather, I believe it opens markets to consumers like me who otherwise would not have known about the many options in diamond cut. But don''t just tell me your product is better, beautiful, different, excellent -- whatever. Show me.

Sarra,


re:If a well-cut 60/60 stone cannot compete with a poorly cut H&A in reflector images,

Do you see any problems in below 60/60 diamonds?
why this diamond could be worse for consumer than Ideal cut with T57?


I see three reasons why such diamonds become very rare now
1) Not good yield for first(biggest) diamond from rough
2) such diamond is too close to boundary best cutting grades in main Labs. what means very high risk for cutters specially if Lab has not machine to measure Table size with high accuracy
3) Diamond business could use Internet now mainly for commodity( when paper or images in Internet are enough to make safe decision ) products or for very bad diamonds. Diamond industry has not yet tools too sell well cutting customized solution in Internet.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 1/25/2010 3:01:07 PM
Author: Ella
Everyone, once again, please stick to the topic.

This discussion is not about 60/60 diamonds vs. the world.

It is about the internet and creativity in diamond cutting not about personal agendas.

If this veers off topic again it will be closed.

Ella,

The reason why I feel these comments and this thread is still on topic is by looking at the nuances of what is discussed here:

1) We started off with a general statement and opinion made by RD about cut grading and internet technology affecting the variety of cuts favored in today's market.
2) RD brough up once again the 60/60 diamond and how in general it is not often sought after in the marketplace nor are there many examples of 60/60 diamonds in the marketplace as compared to smaller table diamonds.
3) The discussion of 60/60 led to the technical aspects of the 60/60 diamond considering all proportions and how some proportions are acceptable but those are a much narrow range and than those with greater depth and a smaller table.
4) RD claimed that the general tools and criteria we use to evaluate diamonds on PS limit the number of choices that will be reccomended here and that cut grading ultimately limits the freedom of cutters to develop diamonds that look different than an ideal H&A.
5) Myself and others responded that the methodology used here and cut grading does not limit creativity there are other aspects that are more important.
6) Sergey agreed with RD that there are issues with cut grading and the rejection tools we use and that these things when used improperly would hinder new diamond designs. To illustrate his point he asked me to grade 4 diamonds with paramaters that are signicantly different from the ideal near Tolkowsky parameters, from the MSS "fire series" on his website and he later explained that these diamonds were optimized for fire, and that using rejection tools to evaulate them and reject them based on leakage in an idealscope is a mistake. In addition he feels that the current models of cut grading being used by the industry would penalize these and other diamonds like them unfairly in his opinion and that rejection tools and cut grading as it stands cannot judge beauty.
7) Sergey's comments led to a continued technical analysis by Garry and others on diamonds that exhibit more fire and that have steeper crowns than a TIC. A debate has arisen on whether leakage is noticeable or acceptable in steep crown diamonds within the limits of stereovision and within a 5 degree tilt range.

This entire discussion is related to cut grading and internet technology and even though each poster is not directly relating it to the main theme of the thread it still seems relevant.
I will open a new thread because now because I have a particular interest in FIC diamonds with steeper crowns and exploring the limits and tradeoffs of such diamonds from TICs but I do see the how relevant the posts within this thread.

Sincerely,
CCl

 

[Serg]

Date: 1/25/2010 4:04:06 PM
Author: Ella

Date: 1/25/2010 3:22:23 PM

Author: Serg

Ella,


Are Whatmeworry posts Personal agenda too?


Are My and Garry posts are Personal agenda too?



I see very helpful and peaceful discussion now .


I do not see reason to block this thread even if somebody does not like results this thread



Internet and creative in diamond cutting can not be considered without real examples. Ideal RBC and 60/60 diamonds are perfect historical examples for discussions about Influence internet in diamond business



Internet is one of main reasons why we see less 60/60 diamonds now

If everyone keeps it on topic and without personal agenda there will be no need to close it. But when we see things getting heated or veering wildly off topic into territory that has been covered in other heated threads in the past we begin to watch closely.


If everyone remembers the topic at hand and keeps it to that we will have no need to close the thread.

Ella,

re:If everyone keeps it on topic and without personal agenda there will be no need to close it. But when we see things getting heated or veering wildly off topic into territory that has been covered in other heated threads in the past we begin to watch closely.

Past Hot 60/60 threads were not so close to roots of problem as this thread is.

there are strong connections between Internet, PS biases , creativity in cutting and RD 60/60 diamonds issue.
Creativity is not possible without changing Paradigms. Pluralism is very important for smoothly changing Paradigms in Internet communities.
Dialog is very important for Pluralism

In this thread I see dialog between RD and some PS prosumers(?) in first time. Early I saw only Hot monologs . Did I miss anything?

 

[Lula]

Okay, RD, so it sounds like you and I agree that there are certain cutters (and vendors) who may use the "hype" around H&A (whether the internet alone created that hype, I don't quite agree) to cut diamonds to that standard.

But I don't agree that reflector images have created the demand for small-tabled H&A, nor do I think they've stifled creativity in cutters.

That argument is a red herring.

Advertising "hype" has been around a lot longer than the internet; the premise of the "You are not a Gadget" book is that the internet is the latest tool used by marketing people to generate hype. The author says that if we are not careful, we can become a part of that hype. But anyone who watches TV or listens to the radio is exposed to the same hype (and, if I remember right, books were written on the dangers to children's health by their exposure to commercials for candy and sugary cereals that aired during Saturday morning cartoons). It's not an original argument.

I think greed has stifled creativity. Again, not a new argument.

Just as an example of the power of "hype," internet or otherwise, I suspect that if a well-known celebrity suddenly endorsed 60/60 diamonds over small-tabled H&A's, then clients would be standing in invisible internet lines, buying from vendors who sell them, despite the lack of reflector images! In this scenario, reflector images would go the way of the horse and the buggy, maybe?

On the other hand, I think the internet has given consumers the opportunity to choose goods and services they never would have known about (and has allowed the suppliers of those goods and services to prosper because they don't have to depend on the whims of the local market). The internet is the reason artisan cheese makers in my rural state are able to sell their products all over the world. If they had to survive on just the local market for sales, there's no way they'd be making the variety of cheeses they make and no way they'd be able to sell them in any kind of quantity. This is an example of the internet increasing creativity.

By the same token, the internet is the reason I was able to buy my diamond from a skinny guy from Antwerp, who happens to use reflector images in marketing his stones, but let me tell you, if his stones didn't "perform" in real life, there's no way I would have kept the stone, despite how "good" the reflector images were.

I don't think you give consumers enough credit. PS is full of threads started by people who buy stones and later return them because visually the stone didn't speak to them -- and this is after the stone's angles and images had been okayed by the prosumers.

I never would have heard of Paul Slegers or Infinity or Wink if it were not for PS and the internet. True creatives, like Karl K and Paul Slegers, along with the award-winning artisan cheese makers in my state, just to name a few examples, create products that meet their own high standards, and then market them. Without marketing, no one would know how to find their products.

Again, I say, if you think certain "fine makes" are becoming scarce (and I have no knowledge one way or the other) then what you have is a marketing problem, not an internet problem or a reflector problem or a creativity problem.

And if reflector images don't help market your fine makes, then work with the many experts in this field to design a tool that will demonstrate their beauty. Or find a celebrity client that will wear them, and market their scarcity.

 

[Lula]

Date: 1/25/2010 4:09:52 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 1/25/2010 3:37:40 PM

Author: sarap333

Sarra,



re:If a well-cut 60/60 stone cannot compete with a poorly cut H&A in reflector images,


Do you see any problems in below 60/60 diamonds?

why this diamond could be worse for consumer than Ideal cut with T57?



I see three reasons why such diamonds become very rare now

1) Not good yield for first(biggest) diamond from rough

2) such diamond is too close to boundary best cutting grades in main Labs. what means very high risk for cutters specially if Lab has not machine to measure Table size with high accuracy

3) Diamond business could use Internet now mainly for commodity( when paper or images in Internet are enough to make safe decision ) products or for very bad diamonds. Diamond industry has not yet tools too sell well cutting customized solution in Internet.

Thank you, Serg,
The image you included is very helpful. I can now see what a well-cut 60/60 looks like and what the reflector image and angles would be. Your points about the rough support my point that it is greed that is stifling creativity, not the internet and not reflector images.

In fact, a skilled vendor could use those images to sell a well-cut 60/60 over a poorly cut, small table H&A, right? So how are reflector images the enemy of creativity in the diamond cutting world? And why couldn't I use that image (generated on a computer and posted on an internet forum) to help me choose that stone over another? Or am I missing something.

It's the vendor's job to find out what kind of client he/she is working with. And the vendors most often recommended here on PS take the time to get to know what their clients want and educate them. For example, I suspect that I could call Wink tomorrow and ask me to find the best cut 60/60 out there for me, and he would. And he'd be able to explain to me why it was a good stone, using concrete terms, not just adjectives like "it's stunning." And if well-cut 60/60's are scarce, I expect he'd tell me that too, and I'd either wait until he found me one or I'd have to choose another stone or pay the $$ it would take to have one cut.

Then I could go to lunch with my friends and tell them all about the rare 60/60 I'm wearing. Guess what? Some of them may want one, too.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Regarding a trend for preference for smaller tables, which I will separate from 60% depth, in my opinion the smaller table trend started a decade ago when AGS first started cut grading. This started a new set of standards set for rounds (along with Dave’s AGA, GIA’s earlier research and Japanese labs).

Diamond manufacturers who knew absolutely nothing about these matters, and mostly sold their diamonds via middle men on bourses in Antwerp and NYC, were all of a sudden confronted with rough diamond planning scanners in the early 1990’s and onwards. These scanners came programmed with AGS and Japanese cut grade standards – at that time GIA had no standards at all. As recently as the 3 years ago I have been asked by very manufacturers who produce 100’s of millions of dollars a year why it is that a diamond with excellent symmetry and excellent polish could get a grade of Good for GIA Cut Quality. Many never really understood much about cut grades – they just work the rough to get the most money to stay in biz. Remember that GIA was very late to this party, so there was no GIA cut grade to speak of that was ever communicated via scanners.

Sure this info was picked up by internet vendors who pretty early on realized that the easiest way to sell diamonds over the web was to use technical data to sell to the mainly nerdy early adopters who also happen to avoid shops with real people because salespeople may have some sort of contagious infectious plague (in their view).

I do not believe the Internet was the main catalyst. I believe it was labs and scanner technology.
I also agree with Sergey that this caused a huge problem that we here on Pricescope perpetuate. People buy rounds because it has the least risk, so cutters are loath to invest in new cuts. But the biggest factor is not the internet – it is the labs inability to develop effective cut grade systems. Especailly systems that reverse engineer back to aid in designing beautiful cuts.

As a simple e.g. Try to find BIC diamond with a shallow crown and slightly deep pavilion and shortish lower girdles? Or a FIC diamond with a small table, steep crown and shallow pavilion (and long lower gridles).

If these round diamonds were commonly available then there would be a lot less wastage as the FIC type often have good yields from the larger stone from a rough, and BIC from the smaller sawn tops. If we were really able to address even just this issue with our advice to consumers then we on Pricescope could raise efficiency in the cutting business. These stones are now accepted as having top cut grades by AGS & GIA – but try to find them!

And lets assume that the efficiency or cutting was such that very small tables were more profitable from a yield point of view (which can be the case), and the trade had historically favoured tables smaller than 50% (as was the case before saw’s were invented)- then RD might be recommending 45% tables to his clients and complaining that the new wave of large tables was a child of the devil and the Internet.

 

[Serg]

Date: 1/25/2010 5:23:47 PM
Author: sarap333

Date: 1/25/2010 4:09:52 PM

Author: Serg

Date: 1/25/2010 3:37:40 PM


Author: sarap333

Sarra,




re:If a well-cut 60/60 stone cannot compete with a poorly cut H&A in reflector images,



Do you see any problems in below 60/60 diamonds?


why this diamond could be worse for consumer than Ideal cut with T57?




I see three reasons why such diamonds become very rare now


1) Not good yield for first(biggest) diamond from rough


2) such diamond is too close to boundary best cutting grades in main Labs. what means very high risk for cutters specially if Lab has not machine to measure Table size with high accuracy


3) Diamond business could use Internet now mainly for commodity( when paper or images in Internet are enough to make safe decision ) products or for very bad diamonds. Diamond industry has not yet tools too sell well cutting customized solution in Internet.

Thank you, Serg,

The image you included is very helpful. I can now see what a well-cut 60/60 looks like and what the reflector image and angles would be. Your points about the rough support my point that it is greed that is stifling creativity, not the internet and not reflector images.


In fact, a skilled vendor could use those images to sell a well-cut 60/60 over a poorly cut, small table H&A, right? So how are reflector images the enemy of creativity in the diamond cutting world? And why couldn''t I use that image (generated on a computer and posted on an internet forum) to help me choose that stone over another? Or am I missing something.


It''s the vendor''s job to find out what kind of client he/she is working with. And the vendors most often recommended here on PS take the time to get to know what their clients want and educate them. For example, I suspect that I could call Wink tomorrow and ask me to find the best cut 60/60 out there for me, and he would. And he''d be able to explain to me why it was a good stone, using concrete terms, not just adjectives like ''it''s stunning.'' And if well-cut 60/60''s are scarce, I expect he''d tell me that too, and I''d either wait until he found me one or I''d have to choose another stone or pay the $$ it would take to have one cut.


Then I could go to lunch with my friends and tell them all about the rare 60/60 I''m wearing. Guess what? Some of them may want one, too.

Sara,

re;And why couldn''t I use that image (generated on a computer and posted on an internet forum) to help me choose that stone over another? Or am I missing something.

Internet( what include e-mails, Skype,bank transfers,etc) , airplanes, fast trains and banks support globalization and increase speed of globalization. Globalization improve average quality of goods from on side, and reduce variety even for real good goods. You have good example with cheese makers. Lets consider it from other sides too. Thanks for globalization I can easy buy 10-20 types good SERIAL cheese from France.
But in same I see much less local handmade cheese. they can not compete with better business model .I won ability eat French cheese in any time but I lost in variety to test delicious handmade cheeses in France.
McDonalds and Starbucks are perfect business machines . I even happy see these Brands in India when I need drink coffee . But I am very unhappy see new and new McDonalds and Starbucks in EU, because I have less and less ability to eat and drink what I like. France has biggest number McDonalds in EU( of course we need account what France is one of biggest EU countries)

I think the 60/60 was progressive rejection and sales tool 20 years .

Reflector technology reduce cost for selection good goods and increase safety( for trade and consumer). The 60/60 sales technology needs more training staff

Reflector technology is better sales model specially due Internet( do i need give detail explanation Why?). without Internet the 60/60 sales technology had chance compete with reflector sales technology long time.
People like simplification and safety. Internet&ReflectorTecnology gives better level of simplification ( what reduce price) and safety( what reduce price again), but in same time its kill variety

 

[Karl_K]

good point Garry PS''ers would love to see more FICs available.

 

[Serg]

re:Internet( what include e-mails, Skype,bank transfers,etc) , airplanes, fast trains and banks support globalization and increase speed of globalization.

All these 4 tools shorten distance and time

 

[Serg]

Date: 1/26/2010 1:25:24 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Regarding a trend for preference for smaller tables, which I will separate from 60% depth, in my opinion the smaller table trend started a decade ago when AGS first started cut grading. This started a new set of standards set for rounds (along with Dave’s AGA, GIA’s earlier research and Japanese labs).


Diamond manufacturers who knew absolutely nothing about these matters, and mostly sold their diamonds via middle men on bourses in Antwerp and NYC, were all of a sudden confronted with rough diamond planning scanners in the early 1990’s and onwards. These scanners came programmed with AGS and Japanese cut grade standards – at that time GIA had no standards at all. As recently as the 3 years ago I have been asked by very manufacturers who produce 100’s of millions of dollars a year why it is that a diamond with excellent symmetry and excellent polish could get a grade of Good for GIA Cut Quality. Many never really understood much about cut grades – they just work the rough to get the most money to stay in biz. Remember that GIA was very late to this party, so there was no GIA cut grade to speak of that was ever communicated via scanners.


Sure this info was picked up by internet vendors who pretty early on realized that the easiest way to sell diamonds over the web was to use technical data to sell to the mainly nerdy early adopters who also happen to avoid shops with real people because salespeople may have some sort of contagious infectious plague (in their view).


I do not believe the Internet was the main catalyst. I believe it was labs and scanner technology.

I also agree with Sergey that this caused a huge problem that we here on Pricescope perpetuate. People buy rounds because it has the least risk, so cutters are loath to invest in new cuts. But the biggest factor is not the internet – it is the labs inability to develop effective cut grade systems. Especailly systems that reverse engineer back to aid in designing beautiful cuts.


As a simple e.g. Try to find BIC diamond with a shallow crown and slightly deep pavilion and shortish lower girdles? Or a FIC diamond with a small table, steep crown and shallow pavilion (and long lower gridles).


If these round diamonds were commonly available then there would be a lot less wastage as the FIC type often have good yields from the larger stone from a rough, and BIC from the smaller sawn tops. If we were really able to address even just this issue with our advice to consumers then we on Pricescope could raise efficiency in the cutting business. These stones are now accepted as having top cut grades by AGS & GIA – but try to find them!


And lets assume that the efficiency or cutting was such that very small tables were more profitable from a yield point of view (which can be the case), and the trade had historically favoured tables smaller than 50% (as was the case before saw’s were invented)- then RD might be recommending 45% tables to his clients and complaining that the new wave of large tables was a child of the devil and the Internet.

Garry,

very good post except last assumption . Because small tables are better for yield ( for biggest diamond) but RD promote big table, you virtual example is not fair attack
You missed point what RD could promote RBC with smaller yield than typical in PS. Of course 60/60 diamonds could have any yield but for balanced information you need show in your Tutorial what 60/60 could be nice too

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 1/26/2010 1:36:26 AM
Author: Karl_K
good point Garry PS''ers would love to see more FICs available.

i would love to own one.

are there more available today?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/26/2010 1:57:07 AM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 1/26/2010 1:36:26 AM
Author: Karl_K
good point Garry PS''ers would love to see more FICs available.

i would love to own one.

are there more available today?

Most have lower girdles that are too short.
They must be very long to reduce table darkness

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/26/2010 1:52:57 AM
Author: Serg

Date: 1/26/2010 1:25:24 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Regarding a trend for preference for smaller tables, which I will separate from 60% depth, in my opinion the smaller table trend started a decade ago when AGS first started cut grading. This started a new set of standards set for rounds (along with Dave’s AGA, GIA’s earlier research and Japanese labs).


Diamond manufacturers who knew absolutely nothing about these matters, and mostly sold their diamonds via middle men on bourses in Antwerp and NYC, were all of a sudden confronted with rough diamond planning scanners in the early 1990’s and onwards. These scanners came programmed with AGS and Japanese cut grade standards – at that time GIA had no standards at all. As recently as the 3 years ago I have been asked by very manufacturers who produce 100’s of millions of dollars a year why it is that a diamond with excellent symmetry and excellent polish could get a grade of Good for GIA Cut Quality. Many never really understood much about cut grades – they just work the rough to get the most money to stay in biz. Remember that GIA was very late to this party, so there was no GIA cut grade to speak of that was ever communicated via scanners.


Sure this info was picked up by internet vendors who pretty early on realized that the easiest way to sell diamonds over the web was to use technical data to sell to the mainly nerdy early adopters who also happen to avoid shops with real people because salespeople may have some sort of contagious infectious plague (in their view).


I do not believe the Internet was the main catalyst. I believe it was labs and scanner technology.

I also agree with Sergey that this caused a huge problem that we here on Pricescope perpetuate. People buy rounds because it has the least risk, so cutters are loath to invest in new cuts. But the biggest factor is not the internet – it is the labs inability to develop effective cut grade systems. Especailly systems that reverse engineer back to aid in designing beautiful cuts.


As a simple e.g. Try to find BIC diamond with a shallow crown and slightly deep pavilion and shortish lower girdles? Or a FIC diamond with a small table, steep crown and shallow pavilion (and long lower gridles).


If these round diamonds were commonly available then there would be a lot less wastage as the FIC type often have good yields from the larger stone from a rough, and BIC from the smaller sawn tops. If we were really able to address even just this issue with our advice to consumers then we on Pricescope could raise efficiency in the cutting business. These stones are now accepted as having top cut grades by AGS & GIA – but try to find them!


And lets assume that the efficiency or cutting was such that very small tables were more profitable from a yield point of view (which can be the case), and the trade had historically favoured tables smaller than 50% (as was the case before saw’s were invented)- then RD might be recommending 45% tables to his clients and complaining that the new wave of large tables was a child of the devil and the Internet.

Garry,

very good post except last assumption . Because small tables are better for yield ( for biggest diamond) but RD promote big table, you virtual example is not fair attack it was not an attack, it was an anaylysis of events and history and a hypothetical
You missed point what RD could promote RBC with smaller yield than typical in PS. Did not understand sergey? The 60:60 discussion should go to Dave''s thread if it is about quality, but I think you mean that 60/60 often has a smaller yeild - I think that is not the main reason we see so few, since it is good from sawn tops. Of course 60/60 diamonds could have any yield but for balanced information you need show in your Tutorial what 60/60 could be nice too It does say there are some worth considering and that AGS and GIA have a smaller number but do have some in their top grades. Do you wish to suggest additions or re-edits?

 

[Ella]

To clarify, if I had seen anything that had gone overboard this thread would have been closed. It appeared like it was veering off track again, and we merely wanted to make sure it stayed focused so the thread was not closed. Our intentions are not to close threads, but simply to keep them on their educational track. Thank you for understanding.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 1/26/2010 2:06:00 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 1/26/2010 1:57:07 AM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 1/26/2010 1:36:26 AM
Author: Karl_K
good point Garry PS''ers would love to see more FICs available.

i would love to own one.

are there more available today?

Most have lower girdles that are too short.
They must be very long to reduce table darkness

Garry
what would be a good LG # for a FIC?

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 1/26/2010 2:26:07 AM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 1/26/2010 2:06:00 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 1/26/2010 1:57:07 AM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 1/26/2010 1:36:26 AM
Author: Karl_K
good point Garry PS''ers would love to see more FICs available.

i would love to own one.

are there more available today?

Most have lower girdles that are too short.
They must be very long to reduce table darkness

Garry
what would be a good LG # for a FIC?

Good question the discussion could be moved here https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/optimizing-fire-in-the-modern-rb-fiery-ideal-cut-fic-how-far-can-we-go-without-serious-detracting.134805/ (New Thread about FICs)

 

[Rockdiamond]

Sergey- thank you so much as you clearly get the point.
I can have a Big Mac in Paris- which may solve some problems, while creating new ones.


Garry- thank YOU for finally addressing the point.
I do need to clarify something: I''m not "recommending" 60% tables- we have none in stock.
It''s important as my motivation has nothing at all to do with us selling 60/60''s. I feel it''s important because the potential effects are far reaching.
I''ve felt this way for along time- this is a very old debate between you and I.
I agree that the roots of our discussions are based in trends which started in the ''80s. I attribute part of it to Lazaare Kaplan coining the term "Ideal Cut"
I disagree that diamond manufacturers, as a group knew, ( know) nothing about fine makes back before "Ideal Cut", GIA or AGS was issuing cut grades.
There have been stones cut to what we would consider modern "fine makes" dating back from the ''50s.

I agree that the technology to maximize yield, and help cutters plot the most effective ways to use the rough made a huge difference in the stones they were cutting. But it''s not accurate to say that there were not cutters polishing extremely fine makes prior to the advent of the new scanners, and plotting technology ( if that''s what you were saying).

While you attribute the changes mainly to the new technology, my point is that it was the combination of the new technology with the increased flow of information that has caused the current status quo.
I could not agree more with Sergey that the "60/60 tutorial" is biased, and does not give an accurate picture of what we''re discussing here.

IN addition to all the other aspects we have brought to light here, I''d like to point out that it''s been agreed that the larger table stones were not cut solely for weight retention- in fact smaller tables might be better for that goal.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 1/26/2010 2:35:10 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Sergey- thank you so much as you clearly get the point.
I can have a Big Mac in Paris- which may solve some problems, while creating new ones.


Garry- thank YOU for finally addressing the point.
I do need to clarify something: I''m not ''recommending'' 60% tables- we have none in stock.
It''s important as my motivation has nothing at all to do with us selling 60/60''s. I feel it''s important because the potential effects are far reaching.
I''ve felt this way for along time- this is a very old debate between you and I.
I agree that the roots of our discussions are based in trends which started in the ''80s. I attribute part of it to Lazaare Kaplan coining the term ''Ideal Cut''
I disagree that diamond manufacturers, as a group knew, ( know) nothing about fine makes back before ''Ideal Cut'', GIA or AGS was issuing cut grades.
There have been stones cut to what we would consider modern ''fine makes'' dating back from the ''50s.

I agree that the technology to maximize yield, and help cutters plot the most effective ways to use the rough made a huge difference in the stones they were cutting. But it''s not accurate to say that there were not cutters polishing extremely fine makes prior to the advent of the new scanners, and plotting technology ( if that''s what you were saying).

While you attribute the changes mainly to the new technology, my point is that it was the combination of the new technology with the increased flow of information that has caused the current status quo.
I could not agree more with Sergey that the ''60/60 tutorial'' is biased, and does not give an accurate picture of what we''re discussing here.

IN addition to all the other aspects we have brought to light here, I''d like to point out that it''s been agreed that the larger table stones were not cut solely for weight retention- in fact smaller tables might be better for that goal.

Do a search of on PS and with your suppliers for 60/60 stones determine and by % how many of them have propotions that could obtain AGS0 or GIA Excellent grades. I am willing to bet the percentage will be quite low.

You will find most of them just by proportions would not receive a top grade (see charts above). In order to cut them for ideal light performance (as its currently graded) this requires specific careful planning and precision cutting and may require slightly lower yields . So what is the default priority for these stones that happen to be cut? Weight Retention.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 1/26/2010 1:25:24 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)


And lets assume that the efficiency or cutting was such that very small tables were more profitable from a yield point of view (which can be the case).....

CCL- in the interest of keeping a civil conversation, I have not responded to your rants, and accusations- which have no basis in reality whatsoever.
Clearly, you are welcome to do all the searching you want.
I am here discussing issues, not trying "promote 60/60", discredit anyone, or make false accusations.

 

[purrfectpear]

The post above yours by CCL was a "rant"? ORLY

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/26/2010 2:35:10 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

I could not agree more with Sergey that the ''60/60 tutorial'' is biased, and does not give an accurate picture of what we''re discussing here.

The Tutorials are constantly reviewed and edited.
Suggestions are welcome

 

[Rockdiamond]

Purrfect- you''re right.
CCL- I apologize for harshly characterizing your words.
We disagree- but that''s no reason not to have a civil discourse.

That''s a good point Garry- I have mentioned this tutorial enough times.
I might have to actually cut a stone, as Karl suggested. Heck, I''d love to have one for myself.
We could photograph it for the tutorial