LGF and Stars

[Rhino]

Date: 12/3/2005 12:08:29 PM
Author: strmrdr
size of the images depends on the resulution of the monitor so there is no way to controll that using jpg or gif images.

Belle I going to have to respectable disagree with you, the idea that all super-ideals are the same serves vendors not consumers.
As more options are becoming available thanks to the tighter ags0 range and improved cutting technology these options should be explored.

Those that wish to explore it at this level should be allowed to without 50000 lines of warnings repeated in every thread from vendors protecting their own interests saying that it dont matter because to some people it does.
If to no one else it matters to me :} therfore im going to talk about it till I get bored and go back to talking about my beloved asschers :}

True about the size/monitor issue.

Also, having seen many of the flavors that constitute the now ideal grades in both GIA and AGS systems you can bet you fanny that it covers many different appearances which consumers should be encouraged to explore. The one issue of lower facet length is a topic very worthy of discussion and I agree ... people, including vendors, should be able to discuss these issues without fear of being accused of invoking fear in consumers. Truth and knowledge bring light, resulting in greater peace of mind not fear. That's all I'm going to say about that.

With regards to longer lower facets giving more scintillation let me clarify my stance on this.

I don't believe the metric of scintillation can be graded. Why? After alot of the testing we've done with consumers in our store, there are so many flavors that appeal to so many different personality types. Yes there are those stones whom many consumres will pick over others but all of the ideals I've seen (and even some non-ideals) have scintillation that is just fine depending on the lighting environment. I've discussed on the forum in the past some of the optical differences between varying lower facet length. Those of the shorter lgf variety, which has been mentoined produce a good broad flash. You can see this to a greater extreme in your old mine and old european cuts and I know many folks who love this appearance. When you lengthen the lower halves you get more pin flash. Does this = "more scintillation"? In the minds of some yes. In the minds of others no. Who's right? Both and neither. It is the wallet of the one purchasing who decides which his preference is. Some people love the emphasis on broad flash in stones with shorter lower half facets some love the added pin flash of the longer lower half types and then some love the heavy emphasis on pin flash (mixed with broad) in the modifed super ideals with 81, 91 and 129 facets.

My advice to John Q. Public ... see as many of the different ideal flavors as you can. Have fun with it! Pick the appearance you or your fiance enjoys most. You may find your personal preference doesn't necessarily fit into the mold of some folks (including myself).

 

[belle]

Date: 12/3/2005 12:08:29 PM
Author: strmrdr
size of the images depends on the resulution of the monitor so there is no way to controll that using jpg or gif images.

on my 12" screen your images are 15mm. even mara would consider that too big.

half of that is more realistic.

Date: 12/3/2005 12:08:29 PM
Author: strmrdr

Belle I going to have to respectable disagree with you, the idea that all super-ideals are the same serves vendors not consumers.
As more options are becoming available thanks to the tighter ags0 range and improved cutting technology these options should be explored.

i did not say that all superideals are the same.

i''m not sure what part of my comments you are trying to paraphrase, but i did not say that all superideals are the same.

Date: 12/3/2005 12:08:29 PM
Author: strmrdr

Those that wish to explore it at this level should be allowed to without 50000 lines of warnings repeated in every thread from vendors protecting their own interests saying that it dont matter because to some people it does.
If to no one else it matters to me :} therfore im going to talk about it till I get bored and go back to talking about my beloved asschers :}

where are you getting that from?

 

[belle]

Date: 12/3/2005 12:36:54 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 12/3/2005 12:08:29 PM
Author: strmrdr
size of the images depends on the resulution of the monitor so there is no way to controll that using jpg or gif images.

Belle I going to have to respectable disagree with you, the idea that all super-ideals are the same serves vendors not consumers.
As more options are becoming available thanks to the tighter ags0 range and improved cutting technology these options should be explored.

Those that wish to explore it at this level should be allowed to without 50000 lines of warnings repeated in every thread from vendors protecting their own interests saying that it dont matter because to some people it does.
If to no one else it matters to me :} therfore im going to talk about it till I get bored and go back to talking about my beloved asschers :}

True about the size/monitor issue.

Also, having seen many of the flavors that constitute the now ideal grades in both GIA and AGS systems you can bet you fanny that it covers many different appearances which consumers should be encouraged to explore. The one issue of lower facet length is a topic very worthy of discussion and I agree ... people, including vendors, should be able to discuss these issues without fear of being accused of invoking fear in consumers. Truth and knowledge bring light, resulting in greater peace of mind not fear. That''s all I''m going to say about that.

With regards to longer lower facets giving more scintillation let me clarify my stance on this.

I don''t believe the metric of scintillation can be graded. Why? After alot of the testing we''ve done with consumers in our store, there are so many flavors that appeal to so many different personality types. Yes there are those stones whom many consumres will pick over others but all of the ideals I''ve seen (and even some non-ideals) have scintillation that is just fine depending on the lighting environment. I''ve discussed on the forum in the past some of the optical differences between varying lower facet length. Those of the shorter lgf variety, which has been mentoined produce a good broad flash. You can see this to a greater extreme in your old mine and old european cuts and I know many folks who love this appearance. When you lengthen the lower halves you get more pin flash. Does this = "more scintillation"? In the minds of some yes. In the minds of others no. Who''s right? Both and neither. It is the wallet of the one purchasing who decides which his preference is. Some people love the emphasis on broad flash in stones with shorter lower half facets some love the added pin flash of the longer lower half types and then some love the heavy emphasis on pin flash (mixed with broad) in the modifed super ideals with 81, 91 and 129 facets.

My advice to John Q. Public ... see as many of the different ideal flavors as you can. Have fun with it! Pick the appearance you or your fiance enjoys most. You may find your personal preference doesn''t necessarily fit into the mold of some folks (including myself).

right right right. lest anyone think i am saying we shouldn''t talk about these things let it be known, i am in agreement...i am all for discussing these options. i just think we need to keep it real. some of these subtlties can be greatly exaggerated in these static and supersized images. we need to keep it all in perspective. (no matter what the monitor size/resolution)

 

[Rhino]

"Keepin it real" says it all my dear.

Just curious belle ... do you prefer a broader bold flash (in direct lighting) or do you like the mix of pin flash in there as well?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 12/3/2005 5:24:13 PM
Author: Rhino


Just curious belle ... do you prefer a broader bold flash (in direct lighting) or do you like the mix of pin flash in there as well?

I am not Belle...

and this may not be in line with ''keep it real'', but...

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 12/3/2005 5:32:46 PM
Author: valeria101

Date: 12/3/2005 5:24:13 PM

Author: Rhino



Just curious belle ... do you prefer a broader bold flash (in direct lighting) or do you like the mix of pin flash in there as well?

I am not Belle...


and this may not be in line with ''keep it real'', but...

kewl cut val.
That one would be awsome in candle/firelight its far enough out there I like it.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 12/3/2005 5:24:13 PM
Author: Rhino
''Keepin it real'' says it all my dear.

Just curious belle ... do you prefer a broader bold flash (in direct lighting) or do you like the mix of pin flash in there as well?

Im not belle either, Im much more fugly.
Whats interesting is that in asschers I love the broad flash of a well cut asscher but the sorry excuse in comparison broad flash from a round diamond does nothing for me.
Ill take the higher brightness and pinfire anyday in them.
Yet I can stand the chaotic tiny sparkes that a lot of princess cut diamonds have. yucky

 

[Rhino]

Date: 12/3/2005 5:32:46 PM
Author: valeria101

Date: 12/3/2005 5:24:13 PM
Author: Rhino


Just curious belle ... do you prefer a broader bold flash (in direct lighting) or do you like the mix of pin flash in there as well?

I am not Belle...

and this may not be in line with ''keep it real'', but...

Awesome example Ana. I just scanned in an OEC with 65% lower halves yesterday. I''ll have to upload it here if I can remember on Tuesday. Makes for a great example of broad flash too. Thanks for posting that.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 12/3/2005 7:03:01 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 12/3/2005 5:24:13 PM
Author: Rhino
''Keepin it real'' says it all my dear.

Just curious belle ... do you prefer a broader bold flash (in direct lighting) or do you like the mix of pin flash in there as well?

Im not belle either, Im much more fugly.
Whats interesting is that in asschers I love the broad flash of a well cut asscher but the sorry excuse in comparison broad flash from a round diamond does nothing for me.
Ill take the higher brightness and pinfire anyday in them.
Yet I can stand the chaotic tiny sparkes that a lot of princess cut diamonds have. yucky

LOL... you should see the 2 chevron princess cuts then strm. Pin flash is reduced over broad flash. When we were showing folks in the store there were a good amount of folks who also preferred it although it was probably a pretty even split. Not many places cutting 2 chevrons though.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Strm, maybe it will help you understand my comments if I illustrate the bigger picture.

Q: Is a 50% star length ‘worse’ than 60%?
A: No. They may both result in beautiful diamonds.

Q: Is a 50% depth ‘worse’ than 60%?
A: Yes. It should STOP you in your tracks.

Newcomers don’t know that one of these ranges is fine and the other is deadly. A new lurker on PS gathering fast info sees a thread titled ‘LGF and Stars,’ opens it and the first post reads:

On the other hand, wouldn't 65% stars give more pop and fire than 55%. So why would some people prefer 55%, in essence reducing the fire and scintillation? Storm- I think of you here.

This lurker, who is taking notes, now avoids any star configuration other than 65%... Why? Because he read a seemingly definitive statement topping a thread without it being put in perspective relative to the whole diamond. 'For the newbies reading such threads someone must point out that hair-splitting is not necessary to everyone. Most people are served well enough without excessive confusion.'

For those who want to read more discussion that's great. I am well documented as appreciating subtle differences in superideals. You must remember the total audience. That includes newbies, and it also includes diamond lovers who are not concerned so much with these things, but could get concerned BY them if taken out of perspective.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 12/4/2005 4:23:20 PM
Author: Rhino

Awesome example Ana. I just scanned in an OEC with 65% lower halves yesterday. I'll have to upload it here if I can remember on Tuesday. Makes for a great example of broad flash too. Thanks for posting that.

Can't wait

The GA file came out of an attempt to kill extinction (=arrows) while keeping the DC scores close to the top range. At some point, something close to my ideal RBC look stood staring at me from the screen... This is it. Honestly, I don't think I would keep this preference for smaller stones though, and I never got to see fine cut old rounds around 1ct or less.


Photography does not do great service to broadflash opal or diamonds - EC should go on strike. Seeing what DC does to compensate came as a nice surprise.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 12/3/2005 12:08:29 PM
Author: strmrdr

size of the images depends on the resulution of the monitor so there is no way to controll that using jpg or gif images.

Belle I going to have to respectable disagree with you, the idea that all super-ideals are the same serves vendors not consumers. As more options are becoming available thanks to the tighter ags0 range and improved cutting technology these options should be explored.

Those that wish to explore it at this level should be allowed to without 50000 lines of warnings repeated in every thread from vendors protecting their own interests saying that it dont matter because to some people it does. If to no one else it matters to me :} therfore im going to talk about it till I get bored and go back to talking about my beloved asschers :}

Strm,

As far as I can see no one is shutting anything down. You're still missing my initial point, and you twisted my examples.

From my first post: “...There are tremendous fans of short LGF, medium LGF and longer LGF alike when debating the subtleties - and far more fans of 'diamonds' in general who just want overall performance - which is available in all of those combinations...” I think this makes it pretty clear that there are differences.

You must have skimmed over the example Daniel asked for: Just dif in stars, 52/55/65, all other factors equal. Such a dif in stars only would be very hard to pick out, as opposed to difs in huge tables and chaotic optical symmetry. That is a fact. I used small dialite graphics to illustrate this. Then you blew my example far out of perspective by posting wire-frames of 20% dif in stars and 10% in LGF. That’s nowhere near apples to apples, Strm, and not what I was talking about at all. By exaggerating my illustration you changed the meaning entirely. It is these kinds of exaggerations and overreactions that may cause worry when diamond owners read them. You are not on the receiving end of the PMs and emails so you may not realize the impact some of these threads have had.


I will respond to your ‘vendor’ statements, as they are unjust. You forget that I have been where you are, when I was a consumer. Dig up the archived DT threads and you'll see my position on beautiful configurations at the top levels was the same back then as it is now.

Actually, so far, the vendors here are in agreement. We have both stated difs in stars 52/55/65 isn’t going to make a big dif, and both agree that difs of 75% to 85% in LGF (the 2 diamonds you posted) are observable. I don’t know why you had such a reaction... Nothing was dismissed. Nothing was said to diminish any speculations, just to keep things in perspective. You are the only one who reacted as if something had been 'shut down.' The thread was moving along with no problem.

I don’t intend to shut down. What I do is champion the right for people to appreciate a range of looks in the face of those who would push a narrow range - often privately which I feel is unprofessional. When talking about TOP cuts there is a difference between embracing possibilities to outline positives and criticizing subtle differences/exaggerating them to create bias. Strm, I have seen you criticize 8* diamonds enough to know that you don't go into this with complete objectivity. I understand you prefer configurations at the other side of the scale (81, 82 LGF, etc). That is fine, but you are not objective in that sense.

There is a difference between educating and coaching. If the conversation strays into areas where one look is promoted at the exclusion or condemnation of another of equal beauty you can count on an honestly offered reality check from me. I appreciate your opinions and have not dismissed them. You appear to dismiss mine, but they are supported by input from hundreds of live client viewings during my employment. I also have daily advice from Brian who is a global authority on such cuts and such subtleties. He has assisted in their development for fine-make cutting houses around the world. If you are referring to ACA (I assume you must be), I have no need to ‘protect interests’ (your words) that are based on the widest possible intake of consumer, analyst and manufacturer input. That formula for visual balance has been embraced by thousands of clients who have built the brand. You should know that I am happy to discuss those parameters and others as well. If anything, my input embraces possibilities, it does not exclude them. I would hope you’d treat my statements fairly. I have no problem with continuing conversation so long as it kept in perspective for readers and does not minimize one set of beautiful parameters over another, based on personal bias.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 12/4/2005 5:10:21 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 12/3/2005 12:08:29 PM
Author: strmrdr


... the idea that all super-ideals are the same serves vendors not consumers.

Strm,

As far as I can see no one is shutting anything down. You''re still missing my initial point, and you twisted my examples.

From my first post: “...There are tremendous fans of short LGF, medium LGF and longer LGF alike when debating the subtleties - and far more fans of ''diamonds'' in general who just want overall performance - which is available in all of those combinations...” I think this makes it pretty clear that there are differences.

[...]

What I do is champion the right for people to appreciate a range of looks ... When talking about TOP cuts there is a difference between embracing possibilities to outline positives and criticizing subtle differences/exaggerating them to create bias.

There is a difference between educating and coaching.

Perhaps each poster on this thread has their view on writing, but the general view that this is ''hair splitting'' for fun rather than an attempt to set standards comes through from the beginning (at least in Paul''s first post in not right from post 1).

I can only hope this is not wishful thinking.

Do you think that allowing slightly different ''looks'' in a broader Ideal range would be uselessly confusing? I am mostly thinking of GIA''s new grades here and the departure from a photogenic pattern (H&A or not). To me, choice makes things personal - and this is lovely about jewelry that is meant to be a meaningful possession. But this is just one vote. And I can understand that a strongly standardized quality benchmark may have its practical appeal after all.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 12/4/2005 5:01:44 PM
Author: JohnQuixote
Strm, maybe it will help you understand my comments if I illustrate the bigger picture.


Q: Is a 50% star length ‘worse’ than 60%?

A: No. They may both result in beautiful diamonds.


Q: Is a 50% depth ‘worse’ than 60%?

A: Yes. It should STOP you in your tracks.


Newcomers don’t know that one of these ranges is fine and the other is deadly. A new lurker on PS gathering fast info sees a thread titled ‘LGF and Stars,’ opens it and the first post reads:

On the other hand, wouldn''t 65% stars give more pop and fire than 55%. So why would some people prefer 55%, in essence reducing the fire and scintillation? Storm- I think of you here.

This lurker, who is taking notes, now avoids any star configuration other than 65%... Why? Because he read a seemingly definitive statement topping a thread without it being put in perspective relative to the whole diamond.
find where I said that please, I have said in some combos i like to open the stars up on another thread.


''For the newbies reading such threads someone must point out that hair-splitting is not necessary to everyone. Most people are served well enough without excessive confusion.''

vendors or consumers are served? what is excessive consfusion those that want to explore this level can those that want to ignore it and go by the WF guarantee can do so. If they love the results they were well served by either method

For those who want to read more discussion that''s great. I am well documented as appreciating subtle differences in superideals. You must remember the total audience. That includes newbies, and it also includes diamond lovers who are not concerned so much with these things, but could get concerned BY them if taken out of perspective.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 12/4/2005 6:06:36 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 12/4/2005 5:01:44 PM
Author: JohnQuixote


Strm, maybe it will help you understand my comments if I illustrate the bigger picture.

Q: Is a 50% star length ‘worse’ than 60%?
A: No. They may both result in beautiful diamonds.

Q: Is a 50% depth ‘worse’ than 60%?
A: Yes. It should STOP you in your tracks.

Newcomers don’t know that one of these ranges is fine and the other is deadly. A new lurker on PS gathering fast info sees a thread titled ‘LGF and Stars,’ opens it and the first post reads:

On the other hand, wouldn't 65% stars give more pop and fire than 55%. So why would some people prefer 55%, in essence reducing the fire and scintillation? Storm- I think of you here.

This lurker, who is taking notes, now avoids any star configuration other than 65%... Why? Because he read a seemingly definitive statement topping a thread without it being put in perspective relative to the whole diamond.
find where I said that please, I have said in some combos i like to open the stars up on another thread.

'For the newbies reading such threads someone must point out that hair-splitting is not necessary to everyone. Most people are served well enough without excessive confusion.'

vendors or consumers are served? what is excessive consfusion those that want to explore this level can those that want to ignore it and go by the WF guarantee can do so. If they love the results they were well served by either method

For those who want to read more discussion that's great. I am well documented as appreciating subtle differences in superideals. You must remember the total audience. That includes newbies, and it also includes diamond lovers who are not concerned so much with these things, but could get concerned BY them if taken out of perspective.

Strm you still misunderstand.

1. You never said that. The first post by Daniel did. Re-read what I said above.

2. The quote in blue is not attributable to me. A wise lady of mutual acquaintance gave you and I this advice.

3. In this instance the excessive confusion came from coaching of these things to somone who didn't even know what lgf/stars are before trying to analyze numbers. Everyone is welcome to attend 'minor facets 210,' but they have to pass 'facets 101' first. The first thing in Daniel’s education about technical cut details should have been diamond parts (where stars and lower girdles appear on the diamond, for instance - see halfway down page 1 where he comes to understand that after trying to do advanced analysis) before explaining the effects they have on diamond performance.

You can continue to try and make this a vendor issue, but it isn't one.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 12/4/2005 5:10:21 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 12/3/2005 12:08:29 PM

Author: strmrdr


size of the images depends on the resulution of the monitor so there is no way to controll that using jpg or gif images.


Belle I going to have to respectable disagree with you, the idea that all super-ideals are the same serves vendors not consumers. As more options are becoming available thanks to the tighter ags0 range and improved cutting technology these options should be explored.


Those that wish to explore it at this level should be allowed to without 50000 lines of warnings repeated in every thread from vendors protecting their own interests saying that it dont matter because to some people it does. If to no one else it matters to me :} therfore im going to talk about it till I get bored and go back to talking about my beloved asschers :}

Strm,


As far as I can see no one is shutting anything down. You''re still missing my initial point, and you twisted my examples.


From my first post: “...There are tremendous fans of short LGF, medium LGF and longer LGF alike when debating the subtleties - and far more fans of ''diamonds'' in general who just want overall performance - which is available in all of those combinations...” I think this makes it pretty clear that there are differences.


You must have skimmed over the example Daniel asked for: Just dif in stars, 52/55/65, all other factors equal. Such a dif in stars only would be very hard to pick out, as opposed to difs in huge tables and chaotic optical symmetry. That is a fact. I used small dialite graphics to illustrate this. Then you blew my example far out of perspective by posting wire-frames of 20% dif in stars and 10% in LGF. That’s nowhere near apples to apples, Strm, and not what I was talking about at all. By exaggerating my illustration you changed the meaning entirely. It is these kinds of exaggerations and overreactions that may cause worry when diamond owners read them. You are not on the receiving end of the PMs and emails so you may not realize the impact some of these threads have had.

no John I used the wireframes to clear up his confusion and to illistrate the physical effect on the diamond of changing the lgf% and star% which is the first step to understanding what changing them does to the personality of a diamond.
You are total missing the boat on that one.
You answered the question on the stars with the DC diamond images I answered the LGF% part with mine once I showed what on a diamond changed when you changed them





I will respond to your ‘vendor’ statements, as they are unjust. You forget that I have been where you are, when I was a consumer. Dig up the archived DT threads and you''ll see my position on beautiful configurations at the top levels was the same back then as it is now.


Actually, so far, the vendors here are in agreement. We have both stated difs in stars 52/55/65 isn’t going to make a big dif, and both agree that difs of 75% to 85% in LGF (the 2 diamonds you posted) are observable. I don’t know why you had such a reaction... Nothing was dismissed.

again your missing it and misstating my intent

Nothing was said to diminish any speculations, just to keep things in perspective. You are the only one who reacted as if something had been ''shut down.'' The thread was moving along with no problem.

yea its the same group of vendors and consumers as always the other interested consumers are well scared off by now


I don’t intend to shut down. What I do is champion the right for people to appreciate a range of looks in the face of those who would push a narrow range - often privately which I feel is unprofessional.

hmmmmm just who are you talking about?
cant be me I like a far greater range of diamonds than fits into the WF mold.




When talking about TOP cuts there is a difference between embracing possibilities to outline positives and criticizing subtle differences/exaggerating them to create bias.

What bias?
I have stated my preferces and everyone who reads here for long knows the diamonds I prefere.


Strm, I have seen you criticize 8* diamonds enough to know that you don''t go into this with complete objectivity.

8* attitude and me dont get along thats true, the diamonds dont live up to the hype thats true too in my opinion.

I understand you prefer configurations at the other side of the scale (81, 82 LGF, etc). That is fine, but you are not objective in that sense.

really? and you are? do I have to be? I missed that rule

There is a difference between educating and coaching.

only vendors are allowed to coach? Is that what you see me as stepping on your toes on that you have to flood threads?

If the conversation strays into areas where one look is promoted at the exclusion or condemnation of another of equal beauty you can count on an honestly offered reality check from me.

anything that doesnt fit what you offer isnt to be talked about got it

I appreciate your opinions and have not dismissed them. You appear to dismiss mine, but they are supported by input from hundreds of live client viewings during my employment.

how much coaching was there? by the time they get in the door they are well coached into the WF line of thinking

I also have daily advice from Brian who is a global authority on such cuts and such subtleties. He has assisted in their development for fine-make cutting houses around the world. If you are referring to ACA (I assume you must be), I have no need to ‘protect interests’ (your words) that are based on the widest possible intake of consumer, analyst and manufacturer input. That formula for visual balance has been embraced by thousands of clients who have built the brand.

i havent said the ACA''s are bad but there are other combos out there as good or better in some areas, I give Brian credit for well balanced designs but they dont suit everyone.


You should know that I am happy to discuss those parameters and others as well. If anything, my input embraces possibilities, it does not exclude them.

again its fine to talk about stuff that fits your mold.

I would hope you’d treat my statements fairly.

as fair as you treated mine

I have no problem with continuing conversation so long as it kept in perspective for readers and does not minimize one set of beautiful parameters over another, based on personal bias.

so again I have a bias, where was that bias when just a bit ago I said an aca (or the thousands of other time iv said it) was kicken and it isnt the combo you acuse me of pushing

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 12/4/2005 5:26:21 PM
Author: valeria101

Date: 12/4/2005 5:10:21 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 12/3/2005 12:08:29 PM
Author: strmrdr


... the idea that all super-ideals are the same serves vendors not consumers.

Strm,

As far as I can see no one is shutting anything down. You''re still missing my initial point, and you twisted my examples.

From my first post: “...There are tremendous fans of short LGF, medium LGF and longer LGF alike when debating the subtleties - and far more fans of ''diamonds'' in general who just want overall performance - which is available in all of those combinations...” I think this makes it pretty clear that there are differences.

[...]

What I do is champion the right for people to appreciate a range of looks ... When talking about TOP cuts there is a difference between embracing possibilities to outline positives and criticizing subtle differences/exaggerating them to create bias.

There is a difference between educating and coaching.

Perhaps each poster on this thread has their view on writing, but the general view that this is ''hair splitting'' for fun rather than an attempt to set standards comes through from the beginning (at least in Paul''s first post in not right from post 1).

I can only hope this is not wishful thinking.

Do you think that allowing slightly different ''looks'' in a broader Ideal range would be uselessly confusing? I am mostly thinking of GIA''s new grades here and the departure from a photogenic pattern (H&A or not). To me, choice makes things personal - and this is lovely about jewelry that is meant to be a meaningful possession. But this is just one vote. And I can understand that a strongly standardized quality benchmark may have its practical appeal after all.

As long as people realize the hair-splitting is what it is, I am a fan. My reaction on this page was a response to a former action (Newton).

Your point about ''ideal'' is similar to the one I am making about subtleties among superideals. For a minute let''s forget star and LGF configurations and back up to just plain ‘ideal.’ Even experts take varying positions: GIA’s software goes in a certain direction. AGS takes a somewhat different position. Imagem, BS and Isee have been developed to tell you what is ‘best,’ but they give different results depending on what company designed them.

Some people are fanatical about certain branded superideal configurations, others go a different route. All of them can be beautiful. I have always been a superideal fan, since my discovery of and appreciation for them, and yet I understand that many others believe the H&A fascination relies on ''subtle insight'' (I like that term).

I am into watching discussions and participating too, but once we’re at the top of the cut pyramid the differences can easily become matters of taste. That is why ''keeping it real'' (thank you Belle, you understood the page 1 scenario completely) is paramount.

 

[ecf8503]

I just scanned in an OEC with 65% lower halves yesterday. I''ll have to upload it here if I can remember on Tuesday.

(impatient toe tapping..........)

You''ll remember. I''ll make sure of it.

Do you / will you be carrying OMC/OEC/transitional''s???????

Puh-leeeeez?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 12/4/2005 7:33:03 PM
Author: ecf8503

Do you / will you be carrying OMC/OEC

Wouldn''t that be nice!

I don''t know if anyone cuts OEC today. Old Mine - style cushions are done, but not OEC. My hunch is that the cut is too wasteful - much like the Royal Asscher type.

Whether the cut has absolute merit over modern brilliants outside my ''book''... no idea.

 

[ecf8503]

Date: 12/4/2005 9:06:43 PM
Author: valeria101

Date: 12/4/2005 7:33:03 PM

Author: ecf8503


Do you / will you be carrying OMC/OEC

Wouldn''t that be nice!

I don''t know if anyone cuts OEC today. Old Mine - style cushions are done, but not OEC. My hunch is that the cut is too wasteful - much like the Royal Asscher type.


Whether the cut has absolute merit over modern brilliants outside my ''book''... no idea.

Wasteful... - depends on who you ask! If a RA is wasteful, why cut it? Because people like it and will pay $$$ for it. Why couldn''t OEC''s be the same? Even if no one cuts new OECs I''d still like to see them - in fact I may PREFER an old one with some history and art in it; and just to quell my curiosity I''d like to see how they stack up against modern cuts under the same mechanical scrutiny (IS, BS, etc). From a purely marketing standpoint, it seems there is such an unfamiliarity with them that reintroducing them may create a new niche market, as it seems there are always people out there looking for something unique. As beauty, perhaps "absolute merit" is also in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I have let this thread go till now - but here is a small contribution.

Minor facets will have a small effect on Diamcalc light return and contrast - you will finfd they are not easily predicted.
But you can not predict the effects on fire and scintilation - but this link can help you imagibne what is going on
http://www.cutstudy.com/cut/english/comp/scint1.htm there is a screen shot of the tool here - you can not change star ratios - but lower girdle facets are cause at least 10 times more variance anyway.

there is a little here worth reading too:
http://ideal-scope.com/manuf_fine_tuning.asp

The biggest relationship impact is table size:lower girdle.

Finally, I am seeing a lot more stones with painted and dug out lower girdles than ever before - I think this is more of an issue today than the small number of stones I see with bad lower gridle or star problems.

Am I on my Pat Malone?

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 12/4/2005 11:58:08 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
I have let this thread go till now - but here is a small contribution.

Minor facets will have a small effect on Diamcalc light return and contrast - you will finfd they are not easily predicted.
But you can not predict the effects on fire and scintilation - but this link can help you imagibne what is going on
http://www.cutstudy.com/cut/english/comp/scint1.htm there is a screen shot of the tool here - you can not change star ratios - but lower girdle facets are cause at least 10 times more variance anyway.

there is a little here worth reading too:
http://ideal-scope.com/manuf_fine_tuning.asp

The biggest relationship impact is table size:lower girdle.

Finally, I am seeing a lot more stones with painted and dug out lower girdles than ever before - I think this is more of an issue today than the small number of stones I see with bad lower gridle or star problems.

Am I on my Pat Malone?

No, I'm with you.

Great look at effective total angular spectrum, and a look-see at MSU scintillation metric? Fab. Must play.

Not surprised at all regarding table and lower girdle relationships. Maybe you'll recall that's why I was fussing about GIA rounding nigh on a year ago. For those keeping score at home, note in my reply to Val (2 posts below the linked one) that I talk about these minor difs (78 or 82 LGF) being "a question of the character of the beauty, not the overall beauty. NONE of the above considerations would influence the IdealScope footprint and NONE should qualify either for a better or worse grade from any lab."

Thanks for lobbing in.

 

[ecf8503]

Date: 12/4/2005 5:05:27 PM
Author: valeria101
The GA file came out of an attempt to kill extinction (=arrows) while keeping the DC scores close to the top range. At some point, something close to my ideal RBC look stood staring at me from the screen... This is it. Honestly, I don't think I would keep this preference for smaller stones though, and I never got to see fine cut old rounds around 1ct or less.

Valeria - this is for you. Through H&A viewer:

 

[ecf8503]

As compared to my ideal cut through the same viewer:

 

[strmrdr]

Just ignore this post its not even worth the hassle.
Carry on....

 

[valeria101]

Date: 12/5/2005 1:02:45 AM
Author: ecf8503

Valeria - this is for you. Through H&A viewer:

Yay! Thanks

sorry for missing this thread for a while...

 

[Rhino]

Didn''t have time to read through this entire thread but I saw it raised and I knew I promised Ana a gem file.

You''ll like this one too ecf.

Chunky broad flash. Put it in disco lighting.

 

[valeria101]

Thanks Jonathan!

... dind''t know you are a mind reader.

 

[ecf8503]