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

[Karl_K]

Date: 1/22/2010 12:46:57 PM
Author: Ella
I would like to gently remind everyone that the topic of this thread is:


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


Please keep it on topic. If anyone has an issue with a particular post please use the REPORT CONCERN button.


Thank you!

Thanks Ella

I have a lot to say one this subject but haven''t been able to word it to avoid self promotion and someone I need to discuss it with is on vacation. Maybe later a journal article will come of it teaming up with Garry and DiaGem.

For now:
The enemies of creative cutting are:
high priced rough/low margins for cutters.
lack of capital for the projects
lack of investor support, VC''s are very leery of investing in the industry in my personal experience.
cutting technology
production capability to cut to plan
production tooling problems
Building a cutting process and training which is big $$$

The Internet helps with the last 4 because it allows experts to better communicate and find one another.
It also allows better inter-company communication.
It may even help with finding capital and investors eventually.

I could not do what I do without the internet.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thanks Dave Atlas.
Given that many comments I''ve made that are somewhat different in perspective than yours, you have continually shown a very open mind, and willingness to discuss principles that affect many diamond buyers.... as have many other professionals- such as Neil.
I am grateful for that.

Clearly the internet is making a huge impact on diamond buying. I can''t see how anyone would debate that. Just look at the vehemence of consumers regurgitating things they''ve learned here on PS.

Cutters are forced to cut to standards that have been developed with the internet in mind.
This has had a large impact on RBC diamond cutting in general.

The changes have been sweeping.
A wholesale buyer needs to consider how a diamond will "look" on the internet.
Cutters must consider the same aspect- sometimes more than the actual appearance of the stone IMO.
Which is part of the point I am making.


It''s rather easy to point to how these advances have benefited consumers- as indeed they have in many cases.

I am merely pointing out that along with the percentage that finds improvement in the type of diamonds on the market, there is a group who feels differently.
Not only people on my side of the counter- but consumers as well.
Personally I believe the group I''m describing is rather large- but even if it''s a small percentage, it''s important to those who are included in it.

I am extremely grateful to the management of PS for allowing me to bring these points to light- and discuss them.

 

[oldminer]

There is a patented, branded cut, the Cushette, which can be a lovely looking diamond. The patent claim is based on a new way to facet diamonds of this configuration so that they reflect back "more light" and a few other cliams of this subjective nature. Also, more hidden in the patent, is the fact that higher weight retention from the rough results from use of this patent protected facet design. This more or less hidden fact is the real reason and benefit of the Cushette as far as the sellers go. It can look fine and it can have nice light return, but most importantly they have found a way to save weight. Now, this has nothing to do with the internet, but creativity is not limited to more light return. It can also be more weight retention. It is a highly creative design concept that was patented for this stone.

Of course, since this stone came into the market, other cutters have seen the benefit and made their own adaptations of this method of cutting. The patent allows the stone to keep a nice girdle thickness from GIA while actually having an extremely thick beltline just below the actual girdle edge with a slight angle, not 90 degrees like the girdle, thus avoiding an extremely thick girdle grade on lab reports. These diamond guys can be very smart about their product.

Innovation is not stopping production of synthetic diamonds, HTHP treated diamonds, coated diamonds, diamond coated CZs, color enhanced diamonds, color treated diamonds, laser drilled diamonds, and glass-infilled diamonds. Creativity cannot be stifled by any force the Internet might exert. For certain, the Internet has stifled some of the lying, cheating, hyperbole and exaggeration once so much more common to selling diamonds. Even so, one must be even more creative to make up new stories to sell defective stones to naive clients. Making this sort of bad creativity more difficult is a good thing that the Internet has brought to us.

 

[Serg]

Date: 1/22/2010 2:58:16 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 1/22/2010 10:45:32 AM

Author: risingsun

Date: 1/22/2010 12:32:12 AM

Author: Kaleigh

You can shoot me for this, but I think you guys need a separate forum. One where vendors and prosumers can talk to their hearts content.

BUT to me, RT is all about consumers asking questions and seeking help and love that we have industry experts that give their time to answer their questions as well as many prosumers.


But threads like this, take away from people who need their questions answered...


Don't shoot me, just a thought...


Maybe have a vendor talk?? You guys can hash things out??


I give of my time here as anyone does, always with the best of intentions. If I get slammed for my thoughts, well there ya have it.

ITA with you Kaleigh. I dip my toe into these threads because I want to present a consumer's POV. I have also stated that the material presented can be confusing to people who are seeking advice about finding a diamond. RT wasn't 'broken' before and these types of threads, in my view, serve to encourage debate and, too often, discord. I agree that a separate forum would be useful for the vendors and those who wish to enter the fray with full knowledge of the nature of the discussion. Before I get taken to task about the positives of debate, I don't think it belongs in a forum where we help others choose diamonds. We need quantifiable guidelines, language, and standards. I believe that these things do exist. We listen to what the consumer is seeking and try to point them in the right direction. If a consumer wants an antique cushion, for example, I wouldn't refer them to a specialist in AGS 0 RB. That's not what we do. We sincerely try to help and it would be great to be respected for what we do.

Yes I agree with you 100%. There is nothing broken with the methodology used in RockyTalky for evaluating RB. If we encoutered a 60/60 modern RB diamond the evaluation would be the same. Enter all data into HCA, request Idealscope images, check symmetry and leakage on Idealscope and then make comments based on this. For any modern round brilliant diamond this is a solid methodology and no changes are necessary. The advice part of this thread for the consumer is highly unlikely to change and certainly won't become the 'trust me' scenario or a lowering of the standard for symmetry or leakage RD is advocating constantly.


Along the same lines this methodology doesn't stifly creativity, in addition greater consumer education and internet sales, and the more widespread use of reflector technologies and technical numberical evaluation of diamonds also does not hurt creativity. RD attempts to call a lower tolerance for cut and acceptance of inferior light return and symmetry to be encouraging creativity. There is nothing creative about diamonds cut for weight retention and not for light performance but this thread is his way of trying to blur the lines between 'creative' cut and diamonds that are less than optimally cut for wieght retention reasons.


If we were knocking down an OEC or an Antique OMC or a branded cut because they didn't have the light performance of an HA round that might be a reason to make this argument but as it stands the PS communicty is too well educated to make such a simple minded claim.


I would be thrilled when the day comes and threads like these are moved to another forum, I do actually learn when the other tradespeople make proper technical presentations that debunk RDs theories but for an average consumer I agree these are contrary to education and are just confusing.


I encourage you to make a post in the suggestion forum for an Technical debate or Tradesperson Debate, where if threads like these start in RT they can quickly be moved over if they are deemed to be of little educational value to novice consumers.

CLL,

re:Enter all data into HCA, request Idealscope images, check symmetry and leakage on Idealscope and then make comments based on this. For any modern round brilliant diamond this is a solid methodology and no changes are necessary.

Could you please use this method for stones 15, 16,17,18 from MSS list?

http://www.octonus.com/oct/mss/table.phtml


Please publish results your grade

 

[Lula]

*Sigh* I agree with Kaleigh and Rising Sun -- we've been there and done that with this topic. I'd link to the threads, but I don't have the three days it would take to do so

First, RD, you're mischaracterizing and misquoting the NPR story. For anyone interested in what the story actually said, Google, Jason Lanier (the author) and/or "You are not a Gadget" (book title).

Nowhere in the book did I see Lanier criticizing knowledge sharing that benefits the end consumer.

As to whether or not the internet has stifled the creativity of the cutters who are cutting steep deep stones with tables as big as landing strips, I don't think so. At least not given the inventory I saw in a few local retail stores last week. And certainly the internet has not stifled the creativity of the store owner I spoke to who "doesn't believe in the internet" and showed me a 2 carat diamond that didn't look a heck of a lot bigger than my 1.0 Infinity because the "stunning stone" (her words) had a 65% depth and a 59% table (her measurements -- she owns a Sarin machine). The crown angle seemed really odd to me -- over 36 and maybe 37 degrees??? Sure, it sparkled in the store lighting and the clarity was VVS2 so it looked clean as a whistle under her scope, but I knew it would most likely have a deep dark black dead center out in the "real world" (I learned this on the internet) and while it weighed 2 carats, no way did it look as big and as nice as an ideal cut 2 carat stone. I left wondering how many customers she had "fooled" in the past and how many would get fooled in the future. She's been in business for over 30 years.

Me think RD doth protest too much and is again using what seems to be a valid topic to start a discussion that quickly veers back into 60/60 territory.

These discussions must be helping somebody, since they're allowed to continue. But they're certainly not helping newbies and I notice a lot of long-time, respected prosumers no longer even bother posting in these threads. But, hey, I'm still pretty new, so I'll stick my neck out.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Sarah,
Yes, another NPR Listener!
I did not read the book, but here's a portion of a review that quotes portions of the book that were discussed, causing me to draw the comparison

A he writes, “Authorship—the very idea from the individual point of view—is not a priority of the new ideology.” Which is pretty well borne out by a quick glance at Wikipedia (an entity to which I am not opposed, by the way). The argument on behalf of the hive mind is that many many people working together will come up with a better answer, and faster, than individuals working alone. Lanier pretty conclusively demonstrates that this is not always the case, even for things to which humanity already knows the answer. And what about novels, of which there is no clear question, let alone a clear answer?

Most interestingly, Lanier talks about how hive mind thinking has interacted with advertising to create an entirely new hierarchy of creativity on the web. He writes:

“The combination of hive mind and advertising has resulted in a new kind of social contract. The basic idea of this contract is that authors, journalists, musicians, and artists are encouraged to treat the fruits of their intellects and imaginations as fragments to be given without pay to the hive mind. Reciprocity takes the form of self-promotion. Culture is to become precisely nothing but advertising.”

The relationship between diamond cutting and the internet seemed to be clear.
If cutters are driven based on internet based perceptions it guides their decision making.
I'm not saying this is bad thing at all.
Just that it has created a one-ness of design on well cut stones.
After a while enough people saying 58% stones are better, cutters of fine makes go for smaller tables.
That is not really about 60/60 or any specific cut- just an observation how the internet had made such a huge impact on cutting of fine makes in general- and the specific aspects I miss from when cutters cut for a different type of beauty as well as the smaller tabled kind.
Taken a step further, I hope it never happens to fancy shapes.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 1/22/2010 3:51:00 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 1/22/2010 2:58:16 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 1/22/2010 10:45:32 AM

Author: risingsun

Date: 1/22/2010 12:32:12 AM

Author: Kaleigh

You can shoot me for this, but I think you guys need a separate forum. One where vendors and prosumers can talk to their hearts content.

BUT to me, RT is all about consumers asking questions and seeking help and love that we have industry experts that give their time to answer their questions as well as many prosumers.


But threads like this, take away from people who need their questions answered...


Don''t shoot me, just a thought...


Maybe have a vendor talk?? You guys can hash things out??


I give of my time here as anyone does, always with the best of intentions. If I get slammed for my thoughts, well there ya have it.

ITA with you Kaleigh. I dip my toe into these threads because I want to present a consumer''s POV. I have also stated that the material presented can be confusing to people who are seeking advice about finding a diamond. RT wasn''t ''broken'' before and these types of threads, in my view, serve to encourage debate and, too often, discord. I agree that a separate forum would be useful for the vendors and those who wish to enter the fray with full knowledge of the nature of the discussion. Before I get taken to task about the positives of debate, I don''t think it belongs in a forum where we help others choose diamonds. We need quantifiable guidelines, language, and standards. I believe that these things do exist. We listen to what the consumer is seeking and try to point them in the right direction. If a consumer wants an antique cushion, for example, I wouldn''t refer them to a specialist in AGS 0 RB. That''s not what we do. We sincerely try to help and it would be great to be respected for what we do.

Yes I agree with you 100%. There is nothing broken with the methodology used in RockyTalky for evaluating RB. If we encoutered a 60/60 modern RB diamond the evaluation would be the same. Enter all data into HCA, request Idealscope images, check symmetry and leakage on Idealscope and then make comments based on this. For any modern round brilliant diamond this is a solid methodology and no changes are necessary. The advice part of this thread for the consumer is highly unlikely to change and certainly won''t become the ''trust me'' scenario or a lowering of the standard for symmetry or leakage RD is advocating constantly.


Along the same lines this methodology doesn''t stifly creativity, in addition greater consumer education and internet sales, and the more widespread use of reflector technologies and technical numberical evaluation of diamonds also does not hurt creativity. RD attempts to call a lower tolerance for cut and acceptance of inferior light return and symmetry to be encouraging creativity. There is nothing creative about diamonds cut for weight retention and not for light performance but this thread is his way of trying to blur the lines between ''creative'' cut and diamonds that are less than optimally cut for wieght retention reasons.


If we were knocking down an OEC or an Antique OMC or a branded cut because they didn''t have the light performance of an HA round that might be a reason to make this argument but as it stands the PS communicty is too well educated to make such a simple minded claim.


I would be thrilled when the day comes and threads like these are moved to another forum, I do actually learn when the other tradespeople make proper technical presentations that debunk RDs theories but for an average consumer I agree these are contrary to education and are just confusing.


I encourage you to make a post in the suggestion forum for an Technical debate or Tradesperson Debate, where if threads like these start in RT they can quickly be moved over if they are deemed to be of little educational value to novice consumers.

CLL,

re:Enter all data into HCA, request Idealscope images, check symmetry and leakage on Idealscope and then make comments based on this. For any modern round brilliant diamond this is a solid methodology and no changes are necessary.

Could you please use this method for stones 15, 16,17,18 from MSS list?

http://www.octonus.com/oct/mss/table.phtml


Please publish results your grade

Serg,

My point about the methodology from above does not compare a modern RB to an OEC so it would not apply to 15 and 16.
I also am not looking for exceptions to the rules which is probably your point in asking the question.

I do have a question though which is why is their an apparent lack of optical symmetry seen in this image for 17 attached below?

1) 15, 16 look strikingly similar to optimized old european cuts. While these look particularly impressive in terms of symmetry and light performance these look like the first two revisions of prototypes that GOG was working on for their August Vintage rounds. I think that the pavillion facets could be optimized better under the table to reflect rather than obstruct more of the direct overhead light over a wider range of tilt angles.
For 16 I don''t understand why the overhead shot has the mains under the table as black under Idealscope lighting and red under ASET 30 black lighting is that an artifact of something in the program???
I beleive GOG has in their 4rth generation OEC round improved upon this cut design example http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/6812/. However these are very different from Modern faceted RB and would have to be marketed as such, and thus HCA scores would not apply.

 

[Mrs Mitchell]

Date: 1/22/2010 7:20:46 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Sarah,
Yes, another NPR Listener!
I did not read the book, but here''s a portion of a review that quotes portions of the book that were discussed, causing me to draw the comparison

A he writes, “Authorship—the very idea from the individual point of view—is not a priority of the new ideology.” Which is pretty well borne out by a quick glance at Wikipedia (an entity to which I am not opposed, by the way). The argument on behalf of the hive mind is that many many people working together will come up with a better answer, and faster, than individuals working alone. Lanier pretty conclusively demonstrates that this is not always the case, even for things to which humanity already knows the answer. And what about novels, of which there is no clear question, let alone a clear answer?

Most interestingly, Lanier talks about how hive mind thinking has interacted with advertising to create an entirely new hierarchy of creativity on the web. He writes:

“The combination of hive mind and advertising has resulted in a new kind of social contract. The basic idea of this contract is that authors, journalists, musicians, and artists are encouraged to treat the fruits of their intellects and imaginations as fragments to be given without pay to the hive mind. Reciprocity takes the form of self-promotion. Culture is to become precisely nothing but advertising.”

The relationship between diamond cutting and the internet seemed to be clear.
If cutters are driven based on internet based perceptions it guides their decision making.
I''m not saying this is bad thing at all.
Just that it has created a one-ness of design on well cut stones.
After a while enough people saying 58% stones are better, cutters of fine makes go for smaller tables.
That is not really about 60/60 or any specific cut- just an observation how the internet had made such a huge impact on cutting of fine makes in general- and the specific aspects I miss from when cutters cut for a different type of beauty as well as the smaller tabled kind.
Taken a step further, I hope it never happens to fancy shapes.

I''ve been reading this thread with interest. From what I can see reading the replies here, the internet has been responsible for the move towards a particular style of RB being preferred and therefore being cut, but on the other hand, I''d say it''s also been responsible for some creativity - Octavia springs to mind, and the August vintage cushions. I never saw quirky, cool little cuts like the Daussi horsehead diamonds anywhere except online. I never saw my current favourite cut, the Daussi cushions anywhere else, either. If it makes people aware that there are more options, then more people will maybe want to explore these options, which in turn should lead to more creativity (I think - I''m no expert on business) so I''d say that the internet isn''t entirely the enemy of creativity. Once you know what''s out there, you can make up your own mind about what you like. I suppose the danger would be that an overwhelming consensus on a particular style of cutting would push other styles out completely, which IMO would be a bad thing. It looks like a balance between quality and creativity can be achieved, with respect for individual tastes and preferences.

So, that''s what I took from this as a consumer, and I''ve enjoyed reading the discussion - I''d hate to see this sort of thread disappear from PS.

 

[Serg]

Date: 1/23/2010 2:30:43 AM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 1/22/2010 3:51:00 PM

Author: Serg

Date: 1/22/2010 2:58:16 PM

Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 1/22/2010 10:45:32 AM


Author: risingsun

Date: 1/22/2010 12:32:12 AM


Author: Kaleigh


You can shoot me for this, but I think you guys need a separate forum. One where vendors and prosumers can talk to their hearts content.


BUT to me, RT is all about consumers asking questions and seeking help and love that we have industry experts that give their time to answer their questions as well as many prosumers.



But threads like this, take away from people who need their questions answered...



Don't shoot me, just a thought...



Maybe have a vendor talk?? You guys can hash things out??



I give of my time here as anyone does, always with the best of intentions. If I get slammed for my thoughts, well there ya have it.

ITA with you Kaleigh. I dip my toe into these threads because I want to present a consumer's POV. I have also stated that the material presented can be confusing to people who are seeking advice about finding a diamond. RT wasn't 'broken' before and these types of threads, in my view, serve to encourage debate and, too often, discord. I agree that a separate forum would be useful for the vendors and those who wish to enter the fray with full knowledge of the nature of the discussion. Before I get taken to task about the positives of debate, I don't think it belongs in a forum where we help others choose diamonds. We need quantifiable guidelines, language, and standards. I believe that these things do exist. We listen to what the consumer is seeking and try to point them in the right direction. If a consumer wants an antique cushion, for example, I wouldn't refer them to a specialist in AGS 0 RB. That's not what we do. We sincerely try to help and it would be great to be respected for what we do.

Yes I agree with you 100%. There is nothing broken with the methodology used in RockyTalky for evaluating RB. If we encoutered a 60/60 modern RB diamond the evaluation would be the same. Enter all data into HCA, request Idealscope images, check symmetry and leakage on Idealscope and then make comments based on this. For any modern round brilliant diamond this is a solid methodology and no changes are necessary. The advice part of this thread for the consumer is highly unlikely to change and certainly won't become the 'trust me' scenario or a lowering of the standard for symmetry or leakage RD is advocating constantly.



Along the same lines this methodology doesn't stifly creativity, in addition greater consumer education and internet sales, and the more widespread use of reflector technologies and technical numberical evaluation of diamonds also does not hurt creativity. RD attempts to call a lower tolerance for cut and acceptance of inferior light return and symmetry to be encouraging creativity. There is nothing creative about diamonds cut for weight retention and not for light performance but this thread is his way of trying to blur the lines between 'creative' cut and diamonds that are less than optimally cut for wieght retention reasons.



If we were knocking down an OEC or an Antique OMC or a branded cut because they didn't have the light performance of an HA round that might be a reason to make this argument but as it stands the PS communicty is too well educated to make such a simple minded claim.



I would be thrilled when the day comes and threads like these are moved to another forum, I do actually learn when the other tradespeople make proper technical presentations that debunk RDs theories but for an average consumer I agree these are contrary to education and are just confusing.



I encourage you to make a post in the suggestion forum for an Technical debate or Tradesperson Debate, where if threads like these start in RT they can quickly be moved over if they are deemed to be of little educational value to novice consumers.

CLL,


re:Enter all data into HCA, request Idealscope images, check symmetry and leakage on Idealscope and then make comments based on this. For any modern round brilliant diamond this is a solid methodology and no changes are necessary.


Could you please use this method for stones 15, 16,17,18 from MSS list?


http://www.octonus.com/oct/mss/table.phtml



Please publish results your grade

Serg,


My point about the methodology from above does not compare a modern RB to an OEC so it would not apply to 15 and 16.

I also am not looking for exceptions to the rules which is probably your point in asking the question.


I do have a question though which is why is their an apparent lack of optical symmetry seen in this image for 17 attached below?


1) 15, 16 look strikingly similar to optimized old european cuts. While these look particularly impressive in terms of symmetry and light performance these look like the first two revisions of prototypes that GOG was working on for their August Vintage rounds. I think that the pavillion facets could be optimized better under the table to reflect rather than obstruct more of the direct overhead light over a wider range of tilt angles.

For 16 I don't understand why the overhead shot has the mains under the table as black under Idealscope lighting and red under ASET 30 black lighting is that an artifact of something in the program???

I beleive GOG has in their 4rth generation OEC round improved upon this cut design example http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/6812/. However these are very different from Modern faceted RB and would have to be marketed as such, and thus HCA scores would not apply.

CCL,
Fine, excellent . See what happened.

firstly I need give a some information about these cuts.

re:My point about the methodology from above does not compare a modern RB to an OEC so it would not apply to 15 and 16. .. 15, 16 look strikingly similar to optimized old european cuts.

we did not optimize OEC at all. I even do not know definition of OEC and where boundary between modern RBC and OEC is.
We used ASG0(modern Tolkowsky cut) as starting point and did variation of several parameters ( Crown angles, Pavilion angles, Star facets, LGF, table. We did it 2+years ago and I do not remember all details)
Our goal was to find RBC with high FIRE and reasonable good LR, so we did optimization for FIRE mainly and all these 4 cuts are local Fire maximums .
But in any case we did not optimize OEC and all these 4 cuts are Modern cut( I agree what GOG cuts are more modern

And "your" method does not work even for Modern cut with very good or even excellent level symmetry. You can not grade beauty of these cuts.
In such case why do you think what you can grade beauty of any Other RBC cut?, asymmetrical RBC cuts?
You mixed rejection tools ( as HCA, ASG, ASET, IS) with Beauty evaluation . It is typical mistake from most PS's
And in last years this typical mistake became STANDARD behavior on PS
Advices on PS become too simple for current time. Such advices was progressive 10 years ago, but now SAME advices is regress .

and if for example new beauty cut are coming to market then persons as RD has much more chances than You for well balanced opinion .

what will happened in next 5-10 years with PS if PS community reject RD opinion now and stop discussion with opposite opinion?
What does happened with any political system Which remove opposition?
for my opinion Best way to kill PS is to banned RD and other people with similar opinion

 

[Serg]

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

RD,
Is a knife a enemy of variety in life(variety of animals )?
if you want good answers please think about good question.

 

[clgwli]

Date: 1/23/2010 5:00:58 AM
Author: Mrs Mitchell

Date: 1/22/2010 7:20:46 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Sarah,
Yes, another NPR Listener!
I did not read the book, but here''s a portion of a review that quotes portions of the book that were discussed, causing me to draw the comparison

A he writes, “Authorship—the very idea from the individual point of view—is not a priority of the new ideology.” Which is pretty well borne out by a quick glance at Wikipedia (an entity to which I am not opposed, by the way). The argument on behalf of the hive mind is that many many people working together will come up with a better answer, and faster, than individuals working alone. Lanier pretty conclusively demonstrates that this is not always the case, even for things to which humanity already knows the answer. And what about novels, of which there is no clear question, let alone a clear answer?

Most interestingly, Lanier talks about how hive mind thinking has interacted with advertising to create an entirely new hierarchy of creativity on the web. He writes:

“The combination of hive mind and advertising has resulted in a new kind of social contract. The basic idea of this contract is that authors, journalists, musicians, and artists are encouraged to treat the fruits of their intellects and imaginations as fragments to be given without pay to the hive mind. Reciprocity takes the form of self-promotion. Culture is to become precisely nothing but advertising.”

The relationship between diamond cutting and the internet seemed to be clear.
If cutters are driven based on internet based perceptions it guides their decision making.
I''m not saying this is bad thing at all.
Just that it has created a one-ness of design on well cut stones.
After a while enough people saying 58% stones are better, cutters of fine makes go for smaller tables.
That is not really about 60/60 or any specific cut- just an observation how the internet had made such a huge impact on cutting of fine makes in general- and the specific aspects I miss from when cutters cut for a different type of beauty as well as the smaller tabled kind.
Taken a step further, I hope it never happens to fancy shapes.

I''ve been reading this thread with interest. From what I can see reading the replies here, the internet has been responsible for the move towards a particular style of RB being preferred and therefore being cut, but on the other hand, I''d say it''s also been responsible for some creativity - Octavia springs to mind, and the August vintage cushions. I never saw quirky, cool little cuts like the Daussi horsehead diamonds anywhere except online. I never saw my current favourite cut, the Daussi cushions anywhere else, either. If it makes people aware that there are more options, then more people will maybe want to explore these options, which in turn should lead to more creativity (I think - I''m no expert on business) so I''d say that the internet isn''t entirely the enemy of creativity. Once you know what''s out there, you can make up your own mind about what you like. I suppose the danger would be that an overwhelming consensus on a particular style of cutting would push other styles out completely, which IMO would be a bad thing. It looks like a balance between quality and creativity can be achieved, with respect for individual tastes and preferences.

So, that''s what I took from this as a consumer, and I''ve enjoyed reading the discussion - I''d hate to see this sort of thread disappear from PS.

I admit I have been reading this thread as well with interest and I think Mrs Mitchell echos how I feel. Though I have seen more chunky RB diamonds that aren''t OEC or even some older transition cuts created recently. I have seen a few here listed that I had no idea were made. I also would not have known about Daussi diamonds (I love them) as well as the Christopher Designs that only one of my local store carries. In general branded stones are usually more creative than the traditional cut and without the internet I wouldn''t know about them.

However has the internet helped with this or not I cannot say. I am just a consumer who looks for what my eye finds beautiful. For a consumer the internet has helped me find what is out there and I appreciate that since I am not a fan of the traditional modern RB. That seems to be promoted both online and in stores of all caliber. Even my dinky "maul store" promotes getting good cut. Though their definition of good and mine may not be the same.

Hopefully the internet can help create and promote more niche type stones and grand creations like the Octavia and make sure that there are plenty of options out there for those like me who want more than an ideal RB.

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 1/23/2010 7:54:02 AM
Author: Serg


Advices on PS become too simple for current time. Such advices was progressive 10 years ago, but now SAME advices is regress .



and if for example new beauty cut are coming to market then persons as RD has much more chances than You for well balanced opinion .

Sergey with all due respect your being insulting and down right wrong.
PS is about consumers sharing their experience and knowledge it is not a trade playground.
New cuts have no problem getting accepted here as long as they are explained and make sense!
PS is not your playground or mine it is for the consumers by the consumers they are far more important than me or you.
RD's love of 60/60s is not wrong how he goes about it here sure is.

The trades Job at PS is to educate and provide support.
Being insulting and time after time being disruptive does neither of those things.

Take this thread... interesting topic.... turned into another bs rant about 60/60s by the person who started it.
Then he wonders why he does not get any respect.
If you want to be seen in the same light keep it up.

Myself I would rather help and support the people of PS rather than tear them down.
You really do care about PS so provided more educational material as you have done in the past.
Share your knowledge and explain your vision and educate, do not insult.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thanks everyone.
I would be interested to know how people feel about the results of this- easy for me to identify:
To summarize my points:
1)AGS and GIA Cut grading tells us that a 60% table, combined with 60% depth, and the correct CA/PA/LGF and girdle, can be every bit as well cut as a stone of 58% table 62% depth and correct CA/PA/LGF and girdle. Every expert here agrees on this.
2) Although the preference in the general population is likely more evenly divided, the most vocal experts on the internet have a clear preference for the smaller table stones. This is my opinion- however no expert here on PS has effectively disputed it.
3) The effects of this can be seen in the production of diamonds- especially those houses specializing in "fine make"
This can be seen if you do a search here on PS.
I have found that there''s approximately 7 times more diamonds cut to 58% table 62% depth, as compared to 60/60 using the PS search feature set to 1.01-1.05 G-H/ VS2-SI1

That''s not a clear representative example- but it mirrors what I see looking at the productions of large cutting houses we deal with.

Whether or not the internet has had this effect is clearly an interesting subject.
No one need feel insulted.

Stones like Karl''s designs, and Daussi or Crisscut - and other really cool stuff that''s become more popular due to the internet show the other side of this discussion clearly.
Another point I''m making is the danger that other fancy shapes might fall victim to the same narrow parameters as rounds in the internet''s eye. That could have a terrible effect on Pear Shapes, Marquises- and Cushions.
Not that I see it happening- but it''s one reason I am vocal in my disagreement with the cut parameters for Fancy Shapes devised by Dave Atlas.
They have a sound basis and are well designed- but that''s not the point

 

[Serg]

Date: 1/23/2010 10:19:21 AM
Author: Karl_K

Date: 1/23/2010 7:54:02 AM

Author: Serg



Advices on PS become too simple for current time. Such advices was progressive 10 years ago, but now SAME advices is regress .





and if for example new beauty cut are coming to market then persons as RD has much more chances than You for well balanced opinion .

Sergey with all due respect your being insulting and down right wrong.

PS is about consumers sharing their experience and knowledge it is not a trade playground.

New cuts have no problem getting accepted here as long as they are explained and make sense!

PS is not your playground or mine it is for the consumers by the consumers they are far more important than me or you.

RD's love of 60/60s is not wrong how he goes about it here sure is.


The trades Job at PS is to educate and provide support.

Being insulting and time after time being disruptive does neither of those things.


Take this thread... interesting topic.... turned into another bs rant about 60/60s by the person who started it.

Then he wonders why he does not get any respect.

If you want to be seen in the same light keep it up.


Myself I would rather help and support the people of PS rather than tear them down.

You really do care about PS so provided more educational material as you have done in the past.

Share your knowledge and explain your vision and educate, do not insult.

Karl,

re:New cuts have no problem getting accepted here as long as they are explained and make sense!

Did I say what new cuts have problem on PS?
I am speaking about well balanced opinion based on experience with different real diamonds Instead opinion based on ASET, IS.

Do you see difference?

re:Share your knowledge and explain your vision and educate, do not insult.

My knowledge what IS/ASET can not be used to grade Beauty of cut. For some PS persons such my statement is insult.
I publish many post in last 5 years with my explanations why ASET/IS is just rejection tools. Do many on PS happy see such explanations? I do not see so.
Main part of PS happy see support only for ASET,AGS0, etc. Other opinions do not welcome from prosumers community on PS.

It is very difficult share knowledge if interlocutor perceive only information what support his vision and reject any other information.
RD gives perfect illustration this problem, but unfortunately exactly same happened with most PS prosumers . Unfortunately I do not see principal main difference between SOURCE of RD advices and PS prosumers advices. Advices are different of course.

reS is about consumers sharing their experience and knowledge it is not a trade playground.

It is very long dispute what PS is, what is bad and what is good for PS.
I remember your opinion, I hope you know and remember my opinion .

 

[Serg]

re:RD''s love of 60/60s is not wrong how he goes about it here sure is.

Karl,
It is also very long story too. I do not remember all this story now( and most probably I did not see all this story) but I saw a lot of Critical mistakes( technical and cultured mistake ) from both sides during these "disputes ".
I remember several obnoxious attacks against RD . Both sides did not listen each other sometimes and did wrong statements.
I am disagree and agree with sides in same time. I am happy see more peaceful and constructive discussions about RD 60/60 diamonds

But to do it in more constructive way We need develop Objective system for measuring subjective Human grade.

 

[Serg]

Date: 1/23/2010 12:49:52 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Thanks everyone.

I would be interested to know how people feel about the results of this- easy for me to identify:

To summarize my points:

1)AGS and GIA Cut grading tells us that a 60% table, combined with 60% depth, and the correct CA/PA/LGF and girdle, can be every bit as well cut as a stone of 58% table 62% depth and correct CA/PA/LGF and girdle. Every expert here agrees on this.

2) Although the preference in the general population is likely more evenly divided, the most vocal experts on the internet have a clear preference for the smaller table stones. This is my opinion- however no expert here on PS has effectively disputed it.

3) The effects of this can be seen in the production of diamonds- especially those houses specializing in ''fine make''

This can be seen if you do a search here on PS.

I have found that there''s approximately 7 times more diamonds cut to 58% table 62% depth, as compared to 60/60 using the PS search feature set to 1.01-1.05 G-H/ VS2-SI1


That''s not a clear representative example- but it mirrors what I see looking at the productions of large cutting houses we deal with.


Whether or not the internet has had this effect is clearly an interesting subject.

No one need feel insulted.


Stones like Karl''s designs, and Daussi or Crisscut - and other really cool stuff that''s become more popular due to the internet show the other side of this discussion clearly.

Another point I''m making is the danger that other fancy shapes might fall victim to the same narrow parameters as rounds in the internet''s eye. That could have a terrible effect on Pear Shapes, Marquises- and Cushions.

Not that I see it happening- but it''s one reason I am vocal in my disagreement with the cut parameters for Fancy Shapes devised by Dave Atlas.

They have a sound basis and are well designed- but that''s not the point

re:I have found that there''s approximately 7 times more diamonds cut to 58% table 62% depth, as compared to 60/60 using the PS search feature set to 1.01-1.05 G-H/ VS2-SI1

Spread is explanation

examples for Diameter 6.4 mm
1) Total Depth 60% Table 60% Cr34_4, P40_6,G1.7%(valley) mass is 0.9667ct
2)Total Depth 62% Table 58% Cr34_4, P40_85,G2.8%(valley) mass is 1.0160ct

Both diamonds could be AGS0,
I did not find maximum mass neither for 60/60 nor 58/62
But of course total depth 62% give more opportunity for bigger mass.

AGSO and 60/60 rules together is more strict limitation then either just AGS0 or 60/60
But just 60/60 diamond can have any mass( much bigger than 1.02ct or much less than 0.96)
just 60/60 is not strict limitation , but 60/60 for AGS0 is very strict limitation and AGS0 is very strict limitation for 60/60 diamonds. So ASG0 &60/60 is quite rare and niche diamonds

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 1/23/2010 7:54:02 AM
Author: Serg

Date: 1/23/2010 2:30:43 AM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 1/22/2010 3:51:00 PM

Author: Serg

Date: 1/22/2010 2:58:16 PM

Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 1/22/2010 10:45:32 AM


Author: risingsun

Date: 1/22/2010 12:32:12 AM


Author: Kaleigh


You can shoot me for this, but I think you guys need a separate forum. One where vendors and prosumers can talk to their hearts content.


BUT to me, RT is all about consumers asking questions and seeking help and love that we have industry experts that give their time to answer their questions as well as many prosumers.



But threads like this, take away from people who need their questions answered...



Don't shoot me, just a thought...



Maybe have a vendor talk?? You guys can hash things out??



I give of my time here as anyone does, always with the best of intentions. If I get slammed for my thoughts, well there ya have it.

ITA with you Kaleigh. I dip my toe into these threads because I want to present a consumer's POV. I have also stated that the material presented can be confusing to people who are seeking advice about finding a diamond. RT wasn't 'broken' before and these types of threads, in my view, serve to encourage debate and, too often, discord. I agree that a separate forum would be useful for the vendors and those who wish to enter the fray with full knowledge of the nature of the discussion. Before I get taken to task about the positives of debate, I don't think it belongs in a forum where we help others choose diamonds. We need quantifiable guidelines, language, and standards. I believe that these things do exist. We listen to what the consumer is seeking and try to point them in the right direction. If a consumer wants an antique cushion, for example, I wouldn't refer them to a specialist in AGS 0 RB. That's not what we do. We sincerely try to help and it would be great to be respected for what we do.

Yes I agree with you 100%. There is nothing broken with the methodology used in RockyTalky for evaluating RB. If we encoutered a 60/60 modern RB diamond the evaluation would be the same. Enter all data into HCA, request Idealscope images, check symmetry and leakage on Idealscope and then make comments based on this. For any modern round brilliant diamond this is a solid methodology and no changes are necessary. The advice part of this thread for the consumer is highly unlikely to change and certainly won't become the 'trust me' scenario or a lowering of the standard for symmetry or leakage RD is advocating constantly.



Along the same lines this methodology doesn't stifly creativity, in addition greater consumer education and internet sales, and the more widespread use of reflector technologies and technical numberical evaluation of diamonds also does not hurt creativity. RD attempts to call a lower tolerance for cut and acceptance of inferior light return and symmetry to be encouraging creativity. There is nothing creative about diamonds cut for weight retention and not for light performance but this thread is his way of trying to blur the lines between 'creative' cut and diamonds that are less than optimally cut for wieght retention reasons.



If we were knocking down an OEC or an Antique OMC or a branded cut because they didn't have the light performance of an HA round that might be a reason to make this argument but as it stands the PS communicty is too well educated to make such a simple minded claim.



I would be thrilled when the day comes and threads like these are moved to another forum, I do actually learn when the other tradespeople make proper technical presentations that debunk RDs theories but for an average consumer I agree these are contrary to education and are just confusing.



I encourage you to make a post in the suggestion forum for an Technical debate or Tradesperson Debate, where if threads like these start in RT they can quickly be moved over if they are deemed to be of little educational value to novice consumers.

CLL,


re:Enter all data into HCA, request Idealscope images, check symmetry and leakage on Idealscope and then make comments based on this. For any modern round brilliant diamond this is a solid methodology and no changes are necessary.


Could you please use this method for stones 15, 16,17,18 from MSS list?


http://www.octonus.com/oct/mss/table.phtml



Please publish results your grade

Serg,


My point about the methodology from above does not compare a modern RB to an OEC so it would not apply to 15 and 16.

I also am not looking for exceptions to the rules which is probably your point in asking the question.


I do have a question though which is why is their an apparent lack of optical symmetry seen in this image for 17 attached below?


1) 15, 16 look strikingly similar to optimized old european cuts. While these look particularly impressive in terms of symmetry and light performance these look like the first two revisions of prototypes that GOG was working on for their August Vintage rounds. I think that the pavillion facets could be optimized better under the table to reflect rather than obstruct more of the direct overhead light over a wider range of tilt angles.

For 16 I don't understand why the overhead shot has the mains under the table as black under Idealscope lighting and red under ASET 30 black lighting is that an artifact of something in the program???

I beleive GOG has in their 4rth generation OEC round improved upon this cut design example http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/6812/. However these are very different from Modern faceted RB and would have to be marketed as such, and thus HCA scores would not apply.

CCL,
Fine, excellent . See what happened.

firstly I need give a some information about these cuts.

re:My point about the methodology from above does not compare a modern RB to an OEC so it would not apply to 15 and 16. .. 15, 16 look strikingly similar to optimized old european cuts.

we did not optimize OEC at all. I even do not know definition of OEC and where boundary between modern RBC and OEC is.
We used ASG0(modern Tolkowsky cut) as starting point and did variation of several parameters ( Crown angles, Pavilion angles, Star facets, LGF, table. We did it 2+years ago and I do not remember all details)
Our goal was to find RBC with high FIRE and reasonable good LR, so we did optimization for FIRE mainly and all these 4 cuts are local Fire maximums .
But in any case we did not optimize OEC and all these 4 cuts are Modern cut( I agree what GOG cuts are more modern

And 'your' method does not work even for Modern cut with very good or even excellent level symmetry. You can not grade beauty of these cuts.
In such case why do you think what you can grade beauty of any Other RBC cut?, asymmetrical RBC cuts?
You mixed rejection tools ( as HCA, ASG, ASET, IS) with Beauty evaluation . It is typical mistake from most PS's
And in last years this typical mistake became STANDARD behavior on PS
Advices on PS become too simple for current time. Such advices was progressive 10 years ago, but now SAME advices is regress .

and if for example new beauty cut are coming to market then persons as RD has much more chances than You for well balanced opinion .

what will happened in next 5-10 years with PS if PS community reject RD opinion now and stop discussion with opposite opinion?
What does happened with any political system Which remove opposition?
for my opinion Best way to kill PS is to banned RD and other people with similar opinion

Serg,

The reason why I would rather put 15 and 16 into the OEC category is the shorter LGF (62% and 62%) and Lower Half Percentages (67% for 15 and 69% for 16).
To me the appearance of these change dramatically from a Modern RB and I put them in another category altogether. If I did leave them the Modern Round Brilliant category you already know what grades they would have received(not ideal) that is precisely why you are asking the loaded question.

Gia uses the following criteria to decide on whether a round outline stone is an OEC or RB.
(3 Out of 4 must be satisfied in order for a stone to be considered OEC)

Table Under or Equal to 53%
Culet Equal to or Larger than Slightly Large
Crown Angles Equal to or Larger than 40 Degrees
Lower Half Length % Equal to Or smaller than 60%

I don't agree with that list of criteria (AGS uses different) but then again I'm not a grader and don't look at round diamonds all day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So your point is these 4 diamonds are beautiful but would not receive top grades?
And your other point Cut Grading and Light Performance doesn't equate to Beauty?

Sorry but you didn't ask for my opinion on the beauty of these, (they are all beautiful and that is rather useless) I don't like answering a purely subjective question, you asked how would I grade their cut.

I found the real Idealscope images in one of the html file on that page you linked to and 17 and 18 and this along with looking at the .gem files under Idealscope, ASET 30 and various other lighting lead me to beleive these are not worthy of top grades either and I don't find anything unique about them.
---------------------

I think you have to put advice and methodology on modern rounds and its its applicability into proper context you have stated I am not doing that and my opinion is unbalanced I disagree with you:


In my opinion:

Should it apply to to cuts that vary greatly from Near Tolkowsky Parameters? No
Should it apply to 57 facet rounds with LGF less than 70%? No
Should it apply to Cushion shapes? No otherwise only the Square Cushion H&A will receive the top grade. (I've never said it should though not in 700 posts)
Should it apply to another stone with more or less facets or one that deviates farther from the Tolkowsky ranges? No


The same criteria and methodology would not apply to the evaluation of the new 4 main cushions that Garry had a poll for in the top thread in RT. If I were to require edge to edge brilliance than my comments would be quite disparaging and if cut grading based on light performance was the only important thing with cushions than every single one would fail to receive top grade and no newly designed cushion would top grades based on that criteria. This couldn't be farther from the truth as you know I spoke positively about 3 of the new cuts in that poll and they were the least popular of the series.

In addition for 15,16,17,18 almost all the information is available and a full appreciation of these cuts can be made with the relevant data, (Idealscope, Helium etc.). Most of the time all we have is a certificate with a small fraction of the required numbers on it. I'm not going to start commenting on cut based on a photograph with misleading lighting as RD wants us to do, but thats really not a balanced viewpoint either its an uninformed one.

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 1/23/2010 1:40:28 PM
Author: Serg

re:Share your knowledge and explain your vision and educate, do not insult.


My knowledge what IS/ASET can not be used to grade Beauty of cut. For some PS persons such my statement is insult.

I publish many post in last 5 years with my explanations why ASET/IS is just rejection tools. Do many on PS happy see such explanations? I do not see so.

Main part of PS happy see support only for ASET,AGS0, etc. Other opinions do not welcome from prosumers community on PS.

We must be reading a different PS then because the pro-sumers point out that IS/ASET is for rejection all the time.
If you want them to stop using IS/ASET which has worked for years then give them something better.
Until that time they will use it along with video when they can get them.
You can not tear down what works without re-building with something better.
You will get rejected.

 

[Serg]

CCL,
Re;"So your point is these 4 diamonds are beautiful but would not receive top grades?
And your other point Cut Grading and Light Performance doesn't equate to Beauty"

-----

No,My points are:
1) Cut Performance include Brilliancy , Fire, Scintillation . Well balanced opinion about cut(diamond) should include at least evaluation all these 3 parts of cut performance
2) Beauty is not only Brilliancy , Fire, Scintillation.
3) "Your" method can not give balanced opinion for any new cut and any new proportions even for Cut Performance( and Even for Light return). IS/ASET can give big mistake even when you want grade just Light Return.
4) For these 4 cuts you can not grade at least Fire what is very important part of Diamond Performance
5) I do not know ANY Cut Grading system. GIA, AGS and "your or PS " methods are just simple rejections systems . Nothing more, nothing less.
6) very often Advices from PS prosumers about RBC are quite misleading for new PS consumers ( new consumers and most PS prosumers Think what they discuss about Cut Grading( even about Cut beauty ) but really they discuss about cut rejection only.


re:"In my opinion:

Should it apply to to cuts that vary greatly from Near Tolkowsky Parameters? No
Should it apply to 57 facet rounds with LGF less than 70%? No
Should it apply to Cushion shapes? No otherwise only the Square Cushion H&A will receive the top grade. (I've never said it should though not in 700 posts)
Should it apply to another stone with more or less facets or one that deviates farther from the Tolkowsky ranges? No"
-----

SO you have a lot of rejections rules and even when you work Near MODERN Tolkowsky Parameters you are doing just rejection instead grading.

re:he reason why I would rather put 15 and 16 into the OEC category is the shorter LGF (62% and 62%) and Lower Half Percentages (67% for 15 and 69% for 16).

GIA uses one List, ASG uses other list, you use third list, etc.
you need all this separations only because you have not grading system for Cut Performance neither for diamonds Near Tolkowsky cut nor for any other cut
I think these cuts are far from OEC for several reasons.
BTW. Did you read below thread?


https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/pick-the-round-you-like-best.129610/

 

[Serg]

Date: 1/23/2010 8:52:03 PM
Author: Karl_K

Date: 1/23/2010 1:40:28 PM

Author: Serg


re:Share your knowledge and explain your vision and educate, do not insult.



My knowledge what IS/ASET can not be used to grade Beauty of cut. For some PS persons such my statement is insult.


I publish many post in last 5 years with my explanations why ASET/IS is just rejection tools. Do many on PS happy see such explanations? I do not see so.


Main part of PS happy see support only for ASET,AGS0, etc. Other opinions do not welcome from prosumers community on PS.

We must be reading a different PS then because the pro-sumers point out that IS/ASET is for rejection all the time.

If you want them to stop using IS/ASET which has worked for years then give them something better.

Until that time they will use it along with video when they can get them.

You can not tear down what works without re-building with something better.

You will get rejected.

re:We must be reading a different PS then because the pro-sumers point out that IS/ASET is for rejection all the time.

Garry, Was IS just rejection tool for you all the time?
For whom except Karl were IS/ASET just rejections tools all the time?

re:You will get rejected.
. I am barbarian . I never was inside ...

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/24/2010 2:55:41 AM
Author: Serg


re:We must be reading a different PS then because the pro-sumers point out that IS/ASET is for rejection all the time.

Garry, Was IS just rejection tool for you all the time?
For whom except Karl were IS/ASET just rejections tools all the time?

re:You will get rejected.
. I am barbarian . I never was inside ...

Ideal-scope is still a primary selection tool for me for (near Tolkowsky) rounds, with loupe for girdle inspection etc.
I use ASET for fancy shapes, and depending on the buying environment, I use eyes in different lighting.

For buying where the diamond is not present, I use DiamCalc to show IS and/or ASET white plus DiamCalc quality factors.

I agree that judging fire (even with DiamCalc which does now have a fire image a little bit like an ASET image - and DCPro has fire numeric data) is difficult for me and probably impossible for most.

Below is a 5ct cushion compared to the same sized round with an indication that this is a diamond I would reject for light return and excessive darkzones, yet it should have very good fire (look at the scale for the colors in the upper right in the stone image window).

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 1/24/2010 3:37:21 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Ideal-scope is still a primary selection tool for me for (near Tolkowsky) rounds, with loupe for girdle inspection etc.

I use ASET for fancy shapes, and depending on the buying environment, I use eyes in different lighting.

Similar to what PS PRo-sumers do they no more would recommend a diamond just by the IS/ASET image than you would buy one.
Ok - its near tolk with good hca score, consider AGS/GIA grade - check
ok - the IS looks good - check
ok - no serious durability issues - check
ok - passed inspection by a trusted vendor - check
ok - sanity check comparing the regular image to IS and expected results from angle combo.
It just passed 4-6 rejection tools and a sanity check.
It is now time to consider other factors than cut to make the final selection.

 

[Serg]

Date: 1/24/2010 5:00:28 AM
Author: Karl_K

Date: 1/24/2010 3:37:21 AM

Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Ideal-scope is still a primary selection tool for me for (near Tolkowsky) rounds, with loupe for girdle inspection etc.


I use ASET for fancy shapes, and depending on the buying environment, I use eyes in different lighting.

Similar to what PS PRo-sumers do they no more would recommend a diamond just by the IS/ASET image than you would buy one.

Ok - its near tolk with good hca score, consider AGS/GIA grade - check

ok - the IS looks good - check

ok - no serious durability issues - check

ok - passed inspection by a trusted vendor - check

ok - sanity check comparing the regular image to IS and expected results from angle combo.

It just passed 4-6 rejection tools and a sanity check.

It is now time to consider other factors than cut to make the final selection.

Karl,

re:Similar to what PS PRo-sumers do they no more would recommend a diamond just by the IS/ASET image than you would buy one.
NO MORE is important reference in your statement

When did it( NO MORE) happened and Why?

 

[Serg]

Date: 1/24/2010 3:37:21 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 1/24/2010 2:55:41 AM

Author: Serg



re:We must be reading a different PS then because the pro-sumers point out that IS/ASET is for rejection all the time.


Garry, Was IS just rejection tool for you all the time?

For whom except Karl were IS/ASET just rejections tools all the time?


re:You will get rejected.

. I am barbarian . I never was inside ...

Ideal-scope is still a primary selection tool for me for (near Tolkowsky) rounds, with loupe for girdle inspection etc.

I use ASET for fancy shapes, and depending on the buying environment, I use eyes in different lighting.


For buying where the diamond is not present, I use DiamCalc to show IS and/or ASET white plus DiamCalc quality factors.


I agree that judging fire (even with DiamCalc which does now have a fire image a little bit like an ASET image - and DCPro has fire numeric data) is difficult for me and probably impossible for most.


Below is a 5ct cushion compared to the same sized round with an indication that this is a diamond I would reject for light return and excessive darkzones, yet it should have very good fire (look at the scale for the colors in the upper right in the stone image window).

Garry,

re:Ideal-scope is still a primary selection tool for me for (near Tolkowsky) rounds, with loupe for girdle inspection etc.
I agree that judging fire (even with DiamCalc which does now have a fire image a little bit like an ASET image - and DCPro has fire numeric data) is difficult for me and probably impossible for most.

How Is about diamond P(41.2-41.4)Cr34.5?
Lets suppose what such diamonds have bigger Fire than P40.75Cr34.5 diamonds( what is difficult for you judging) > In such case should such diamonds had been rejected due relative low additional Leakage ?
Even in last year I saw a many of advices on PS to reject such diamonds and I did not see any advice to compare Fire( for RBC new Tolkowsky) before make decision .
Now Many PS Prosumers agree what minor Leakage does not mean anything for Fancy cuts. But until now they use old rules for RBC near Tolkowsky,
One rules for Fancy cuts, other rules for RBC
"Death ring Theory " gave strong shift advices on PS what broke balance . Advices for "Zero" Leakage were too popular on PS

 

[Rockdiamond]

Sergey- thank you for keeping an open mind- and reminding us that the mark of a truly open discussion is airing of an opinion that might not agree with me "popular" one.
The alternative is not pretty.
But guys, rather than turn this into a highly technical discourse, how do you feel about my point?
The evidence is on the PS db.
Serg, you mentioned spread, and that stones that met AGS0 grade.
However this situation is pervasive- including GIA stones as well.
Plus- there''s all the stone that "don''t make it"- where the cutter was going for EX, but failed to make the grade.
The result of all this is a mass of smaller tables being cut ignoring the possibilities of larger ( 59-60%) tables in general.
AS Serg pointed out it''s likely that the larger tables would also produce "spreadier" stones.

Bottom line is a diminution of variety which I am saying has to do with the way information is presented online.

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 1/24/2010 5:11:35 AM
Author: Serg

Karl,


re:Similar to what PS PRo-sumers do they no more would recommend a diamond just by the IS/ASET image than you would buy one.

NO MORE is important reference in your statement


When did it( NO MORE) happened and Why?

You read what I said wrong but that is ok I will answer.
It has never been just IS images since I have been here.
It started out as hca + is + hearts if h&a.
There never has been a one factor selection tool.

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 1/24/2010 9:34:29 AM
Author: Rockdiamond
Sergey- thank you for keeping an open mind- and reminding us that the mark of a truly open discussion is airing of an opinion that might not agree with me 'popular' one.

The alternative is not pretty.

But guys, rather than turn this into a highly technical discourse, how do you feel about my point?

The evidence is on the PS db.

Serg, you mentioned spread, and that stones that met AGS0 grade.

However this situation is pervasive- including GIA stones as well.

Plus- there's all the stone that 'don't make it'- where the cutter was going for EX, but failed to make the grade.

The result of all this is a mass of smaller tables being cut ignoring the possibilities of larger ( 59-60%) tables in general.

AS Serg pointed out it's likely that the larger tables would also produce 'spreadier' stones.


Bottom line is a diminution of variety which I am saying has to do with the way information is presented online.

producing 60/60s is not creative so off topic and again if you want them on the market have them cut.
There is nothing stopping you from doing so other than not being willing to put up.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Karl- the reason I started this thread had to do with creativity- and diversity- in this example, my point is that they are fruit of the same tree.
While you have been so busy defending your turf, you''re simply ignoring the implication of what I am saying.
It''s NOT about 60/60.
It''s about the way a single minded discussion, taken to the extreme, as the internet has the ability to do, can change the actions of cutters.
Besides the clear benefits, such as consistency, is the loss of diversity which can be seen in the cutting of round diamonds.

I agree- it IS a challenge to question widely held beliefs without insulting the people who hold those beliefs.
As trade members, I believe that the onus is on us to set a higher standard
Karl, now that you''re posting as a member of the trade isn''t it time to stop the insulting and pejorative tone?

 

[Serg]

Date: 1/24/2010 10:57:21 AM
Author: Karl_K

Date: 1/24/2010 5:11:35 AM

Author: Serg


Karl,



re:Similar to what PS PRo-sumers do they no more would recommend a diamond just by the IS/ASET image than you would buy one.


NO MORE is important reference in your statement



When did it( NO MORE) happened and Why?

You read what I said wrong but that is ok I will answer.

It has never been just IS images since I have been here.

It started out as hca + is + hearts if h&a.

There never has been a one factor selection tool.

re:It started out as hca + is + hearts if h&a

Does it change anything for diamonds near Tolkowsky with minor leakage as diamond P41.4P34.5 has ?
For such diamonds HCA score is just consequence of IS image in DC . H&A is mainly for symmetry grade .
So for "grading" Light Performance of symmetrical diamonds near Tolkowsky cut you ( and PS prosumers and Garry) used really only IS technology( reflector technology ) .
Did you mind about Fire? Did you compare LR lost and Fire win in your advices?

Now few professionals and prosumers on PS just become change mind about Leakage and become understand what Reflector technology has a lot of limitation (what reflector technologies can not been used for grading Light Performance )

 

[Serg]

Date: 1/24/2010 3:37:21 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 1/24/2010 2:55:41 AM

Author: Serg



re:We must be reading a different PS then because the pro-sumers point out that IS/ASET is for rejection all the time.


Garry, Was IS just rejection tool for you all the time?

For whom except Karl were IS/ASET just rejections tools all the time?


re:You will get rejected.

. I am barbarian . I never was inside ...

Ideal-scope is still a primary selection tool for me for (near Tolkowsky) rounds, with loupe for girdle inspection etc.

I use ASET for fancy shapes, and depending on the buying environment, I use eyes in different lighting.


For buying where the diamond is not present, I use DiamCalc to show IS and/or ASET white plus DiamCalc quality factors.


I agree that judging fire (even with DiamCalc which does now have a fire image a little bit like an ASET image - and DCPro has fire numeric data) is difficult for me and probably impossible for most.


Below is a 5ct cushion compared to the same sized round with an indication that this is a diamond I would reject for light return and excessive darkzones, yet it should have very good fire (look at the scale for the colors in the upper right in the stone image window).

Garry,

re:even with DiamCalc which does now have a fire image a little bit like an ASET image

It is not very helpful yet because we account all outgoing rays.
I want remove Pavilion rays( leakage) a soon( but may be we should not remove all pavilion rays and need account Pavilion leakage from upper hemisphere )