SCIENCE VS BEAUTY

[moosewendy]

There''s a focus on pricescope on using as much "science" as possible to compare diamonds and determine which is better. For a scientific measurement to be meaningful, you need to be gathering the correct data, and then interpreting it correctly. Does anybody know whether a diamond that "performs" better on these "scientific" tests actually looks nicer. If, for example, 100 people who knew nothing about diamonds looked at two diamonds and there was 80% agreement diamond A was nicer, it would be fair to say that, by the only standard that matters, the subjective taste of real people, diamond A is indeed nicer. Does anyone know whether any studies have been done correlating "performance" to beauty?

The Brilliancescope people (Gemex) for example, have told me that they are not even attempting to measure beauty. They are simply "providing a scientific measure of certain optical characteristics." I submit that if these "scientific" tests do not correlate to beauty, they are really just marketing gimmicks with no real substance.

Does anybody know whether, particularly with fancy shapes, any studies have been done to determine whether the "scientific" results actually correlate to beauty?

 

[laney]

Isn''t what you are asking what Marcel Tolkowsky did? Take a look at the story here..

http://diamonds.pricescope.com/tolk.asp

 

[lmurden]

I don''t know the answer, but when my finance and I were looking for diamonds we wanted to get the very best cut diamond that we could and still get a nice size diamond. I didn''t even bother to get the sarin because I knew when I opened up the ring box that my eyes would be the ultimate judge as to whether the diamond was beautiful. Many here on pricescope would not buy a diamond without a sarin but for me all of the science was not that necessary.

 

[fortheloveofdiamonds]

Lmurden:

My thoughts exactly. I think that the scientific data is a great tool for people buying a diamond sight unseen. It puts their mind to rest in some manner. However, I would not poo-poo anyone''s diamond choice. To me all that matters is that the diamond speaks to me and that is not overly-yellow or too included. I''ll look at the scientific data, but I don''t think a layperson can tell the difference in any diamond that has a 61.8% depth, 34.9 crown angle, and 40.8 pav angle vs one that has 62.5% depth, 35.2 degree crown angle, and 40.9 pav angle.

Make sure that you are not getting *taken*, get an appraisal, get a certificate, evaluate the diamond in diffused light, but in the end, science can''t make your decision for you.

fortheloveofdiamonds

 

[moosewendy]

It''s not what Tolkowski did. Tolkowski created a mathematical model to determine what he subjectively considered to be the best balance of fire and brilliance. He did not do any studies to see whether his conclusions were consistent with human preferences unjaded by pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo. Many people prefer a 60/60 round to an ideal cut based purely on esthetic preferences. Are those people wrong because $25 piece of pink plastic marketed as an "idealscope" says so?

 

[oldminer]

Even fifty years ago, and even more so 100 or 200 years ago, people spent a great deal of time looking at fine art and learning to appreciate it. The craft of making jewelry hit a zenith during the time of Faberge' and with all the creativity and effort since that time, the arts have not gotten to a higher level in many respects. Look what passes as art compared today compared to the art of 100, 200 or 300 years ago.

Today's people spend very little time with art and appreciation. There is such a huge body of factual knowledge to gather in order to get out of high school and onward to vocational college courses that most people find science their natural reality and very few find the appreciation of beauty their life's work. People today tend to quantify what they appreciate as they are educated in the sciences. They believe the output of devices, not their eyes or minds in many cases. We rely on facts, not feelings.

Diamonds are going through a period of change in society. These little stones are no longer the safest place to put one's money, a place to secure one's wealth if you had to bribe a border guard or start your life over in a strange land. Now they have become much more a commodity of wealth and a sign of affluence. They are important in new ways and less important in their old ways.

Science can explain diamonds to the finest degree, but science does not look upon diamonds as beautiful the quest and appreciation of beauty is a human, built in program, not an external program. It is hard-wired into our being, but we have to allow ourselves to shift from junior scientists and engineers into art appreciation students to understand why diamonds are unusual and wonderful.....There is room for both, but each part alone does not do the whole job.

 

[Rhino]

We demonstrate the correlation between light measuring techonologies vs human eye observation multiple times each day. The answer to your question is a resounding YES. However there is such a thing as being TOO ridiculous too. There are certain minimums to look for but since beauty is subjective your preference may lie with the technical results of one stone rather than others. For example, while 3 very highs on the BrillianceScope are the rarest results (and when people are observing these the overwhelming majority do pick those with the highest results without knowing them at first), there are some people who prefer results that are "high, very high, high" (which still happen to be very good results as well). The same can be said with the Isee2 technology which more accurately reflects diamond appearance in diffuse & ambient light conditions. The optical technologies available (including photographs of optical symmetry and light return/leakage) are the best ways to accurately present diamond cut quality both via the net and live. One of my personal favorites however are the virtual models which are generated from actual scans of the diamond itself, especially for online comparisons. While I don''t record hard copies of how many people personally pick those with the highest results via the technologies I''m constantly making *mental notes* and there is definitely a consistent pattern of people picking those bearing the highest results who have the opportunity to make the comparisons for themselves. My apologies if this answer sounded too "self promotional" but your question relates directly to things we do each day here in our store.

 

[laney]

Hmm.

Maybe you have not seen a lot of poor performing diamonds? I have had the opportunity to see both - scientifically "better" and "worse" diamonds side by side. And, as a consumer, there is a differerence. I am not saying that I can see the difference between a 60.7 % and a 61.8 % depth.. but I dare say I CAN see it if it was 70%, and had light leakage.

As you will see - most people use the science to help, reduce, select and define a range to pick from. And YES, I do believe that math matters. I am one that thinks a diamond is beautiful if it is sparkly - and returns a lot of light. And YES, certain mathmatical proportions are going to be visibly different EVEN to the passerby. Things like the Idealscope, I2See, brillancescope help give a "quantitative" measure to what the eye sees.

What happens if, say I see a particular diamond and like how this one "sparkles". How do I describe that? Can you Mr. Jeweler get one that sparkles like this? It''s the science that let''s us put a measurement on that sparkle so it can be described.

And for anyone that wouldn''t notice a well cut diamond to the numbers. Let me share a layman example of this. Was having lunch with another also recently engaged bride. She commented several times about how "sparkly" and bright my ring was. She commented that she has tried all kinds of cleaners to get hers to look like mine.. and asked "which" did I use? Now of course I did tell her - however, I did not mention that cleaned my ring in quite some time. It was clear by a quick look at her ring - that it wasn''t necessarily cut to ideal proportions. She was able to tell across the table that "something" was different.

I say it''s all in the numbers.

 

[Rhino]

Well said Dave.

 

[laney]

Date: 11/5/2004 4

4:14 PM
Author: moosewendy
It''s not what Tolkowski did. Tolkowski created a mathematical model to determine what he subjectively considered to be the best balance of fire and brilliance. He did not do any studies to see whether his conclusions were consistent with human preferences unjaded by pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo. Many people prefer a 60/60 round to an ideal cut based purely on esthetic preferences. Are those people wrong because $25 piece of pink plastic marketed as an ''idealscope'' says so?

I''m sorry I must have read this wrong :

YOU SAID
If, for example, 100 people who knew nothing about diamonds looked at two diamonds and there was 80% agreement diamond A was nicer, it would be fair to say that, by the only standard that matters, the subjective taste of real people, diamond A is indeed nicer. Does anyone know whether any studies have been done correlating "performance" to beauty?

Tolkswki:
It is said he asked passers by, in the streets of London, to select the most appealing diamond from a small group. From these casual observer opinions, together with those of the diamond cutters in his family''s Belgian business, he had a good idea of the proportions of the best looking diamonds. He applied math and physics to prove why.

How is that NOT what he did again? He asked for an opinion and quantified it. Was he not supposed to quantify it - then it would just have been "nicer"?

 

[Hest88]

I don''t think they''re mutually exclusive. The "science" measures light return in various degrees. I do think there comes a point when the human eye can''t distinguish between what science says is ideal, but as long as we''re maximizing brilliance, fire, scintillation then we''ve covered a large requirement of most of the diamond-buying population. You can measure other factors of course--such as preference for shape--but if the average buyer is looking for something that sparkles the most, then that''s where the science and the art coincide.

My mom knows diddly about diamonds, but she likes stones that will "blind you." I bought her a nice, but by-the-numbers non-ideal some years ago. Later, I bought her a much smaller H&A, complete with a very nice BS profile. Guess which one she likes better? She said she had never seen a diamond that bright before. Granted, this is rather non-scientific, but it does show that in at least one example the numbers didn''t lie.

 

[moosewendy]

I''m not saying that there isn''t such a thing as an ugly diamond. Of course there is, and we don''t need a machine to tell us what it is. The difference between a 60 depth and a 70 is obvious, the difference between a 57 table and a 61 is not. For years, many people preferred a larger table because it creates the optical illusion of a larger stone. The "science" we''re talking about is being used to drive consumer preferences artificially toward smaller tables, for example, when unbiased consumer preferences did not neceassarily lead in that direction. For the science to be meaningfull, the starting point should be determining what people like, and the goal of science should be to determine how to quantify what specs lead to that result. To start with a scientific result and then use it to change consumer preferences is, in my opinion, backwards.

 

[moosewendy]

Showing a group of diamonds to a small group of "passersby" in London is not exactly scientific method. Do you know what the proportions were of the stones Tolkowsky used in this "study." Unless a study like that is done using scientific method, it means absolutely nothing. Do you know for, example, whether one of Tolkowsky''s sample stones was a 60/60 stone with a 33 top and a 41 bottom? If not, then why do you think this "research" is credible. It might represent a starting point, but nothing more.

I am not saying a Tolkowski ideal is not a beautiful stone, I''m just suggesting that many consumers, without the benefit of "science" have chosen other proportions after looking at both, because they thought a 60/60 stone was more beautiful. There choice is not wrong because someone''s idea of science says so. It could be, for example, that light return is not the only component relevant to beauty, and until we can determine what all the proper factors are, and weight them accordingly, the "science" is not particularly meaningfull.

 

[lmurden]

The average consumer who goes to a jewelry store doesn''t even get told about the importance of cut. At a well known mall jewelry store the sales person showed me and my fiance a
H/VS1 or VS2 AGS000 and it was gorgeous when I told my fiance see how important cut is if not the most important thing the sales person told me that cut is not that important but rather color is. I did not bother to argue with him because I already knew the importance of cut via pricescope.

If you go to the mall jewelry store they tell you about color and clarity and then they go for the kill to try to get you to buy a diamond ring. One thing for sure is that I think the next time I buy a diamond that I might go for a slightly smaller table because my eyes don''t like large tables. My ring has a 57 table and I could never go larger, but that is just my preference.

Rember beauty is in the eye of the beholder! /idealbb/editor/cute/images/emsmile.gif

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

MooseWendy if you are in the trade then you could get some good education here.
If you are a consumer then please enjoy.

I have put up a chart here that would show the comparisons on many studies (MSU Q,Tolkowsky,GIAWLR and DCLR) compared to mine which was done for HCA with predominatley the $25 cheap pink plastic thingy. All are in basic agreement - and now we have AGS also coming out with predictable (by HCA) results.

But it seems your education should start with reading Tolkowsky and the proportions of the diamonds he used.http://www.folds.net/diamond/software_help.html

There are links there that allow you to play with Tolkowsky and use a number of proportions - change girdle thickness etc and you can see how I plotted the Tolkowsky best fit line.

The body of agreement of science and human perception of beauty is considerable.

If you wish to know more another good read is the IDCC proceedings available for $40 +P at www.ideal-scope.com and www.cutstudy.com

 

[Hest88]

Damn, now you''ve got Garry going, so this math-challenged gal is going to check out before her brain explodes. And Garry''s got me close to the brink many times before!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

imagining girl with exploding head

 

[canuk-gal]

Hi:

I''ll second that this isn''t an "and or/versus" kind of thing--do we need make it so? Qualitative (descriptors) and quanitiative measures work well together to describe, approximate and define beauty--as evidenced in the scholarily work of PS forum members and others before them.

cheers

Sharon

 

[fortheloveofdiamonds]

No! That is not what I meant! I know that you can tell the difference between a well-cut stone and a poorly cut stone.

However, the thing is that, from what I have gathered here, there is no one magical formula. There are supposedly infinite combinations of angles and depths that make a diamond sparkle.

It is mostly the depth thing that confuses me because different people say different things.

Some people say don''t go over 61% total depth and don''t really focus on any other measurements.

Others say it is best to go between 59% total depth and 61.8% total depth and keep the table under 57.5% and no less than 53%. Well there is 2.8 % difference between these total depth percentages. So I guess the question is, what is the difference between 61.8% and 62.4% total depth?

Others say it is the crown and pavillion angles in relation to the total depth that matter.

It is all so confusing. How do you choose?

 

[Nicrez]

Dave, that is such a wonderful answer. I actually made me realize that the ART of diamonds is lost to the SCience of it, and as much as I want to learn more about the science, I don't want to lose my appreciate for the art of it...

I guess because I am obsessed with shaped stones, but what I read from Moosewendy's question was about Fancy stones... not rounds.

I agree that on a fancy stone, there is more contention on "beauty and mnumbers' correlation, as opposed to rounds, because as we all know rounds are (or SHOULD be) perfectly symmetrical, and that is what pleases the eye in a round stone.

Not to be a dork, but in class we where doing a lab on symmetry and appearance of stones, and the ones that people didn't like where the DEEP stones, the SHALLOW stones, the out-of-rounds, and the ones with tables, culets off, etc... You can't hide from a non-symmetrical mirror image round stone. It's either symmetrical and pretty or NOT.

As with shapes, you have A LOT more going on that does not really allow for PERFECT 360 degree symmetry. Maybe there are two planes of symmetry, but even then, I think there is a lot left to the taste of the individual.

I don't like princess cuts, and Gary doesn't like my radiant cuts. Preference. Most people like Radiants with more depth to have more fire and that soft ring in the center of a rectangular stone. I like Square Brilliant stones with shallower pavillions. Preference in cut.

Hey Gary, out of curiousity what's your beef with Radiants? I bought your Idealscope, I have touted it's second use as a camera lense zoom option for macro settings, the least you can do is explain your radiant dislike...

Also can you explain the graph you posted. I am learning

, but that's a WEEEE bit over my head...

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Hey Nic I love them to bits for fancy yellow diamonds

They just leave me cold in whites

 

[Bagpuss]

Moosewendy

I think that do understand what you''re trying to say. Sometimes I feel that the science is taking over from the joy of looking at a beautiful diamond. In the attempt to quantify those diamonds that have the absolute best light return, ideal cut tolerances have become the b-and-end-all and in the process many types of diamonds are being discarded as not ideal or ignored because they don''t quite fit the accepted (present) norms.

Some people actually like the warmer colours, some people prefer bigger tables, some people (like me

) love the look of old cut stones. To someone all these diamonds are beautiful but the ''science'' would have us see them as inferior. That''s a shame in my opinion.

 

[Racer811]

Moosewendy,
I think you should buy a diamond that is cut "poorly" according to these silly math models and that shows poorly in that $25 pink plastic toy. In fact, you should become a crusader for bad cuts!! Please do it! And leave the good quality diamonds for those of us who appreciate them. I can recommend some mall stores that are right up your alley.

I can''t believe how patient everyone here is with such a fatuous question.

 

[Nicrez]

Aren''t you glad we are so patient Racer?

If it wasn''t for our infinite patience, I would have asked what your post actually contributed to the discussion other than pure childish retort...

But we are patient, and I actually think there is a valid point being made within the posts of this thread...

 

[moosewendy]

Garry - thank you very much for your offer to educate me, and your graph is quite impressive looking, but I think you miss my point. Science is only as good as the assumptions that it makes. Your assumption is that maximum light return is the only proper measure of beauty. My point is that this assumption is not necessarily correct. Many very rational people who fully understand the importance of cut prefer proportions that you do not consider optimal. These people are not stupid, ill informed or irrational, they are simply making a different fully informed choice. Light return is certainly an important component of beauty, but it is not the only component, and, in the case of fancy cuts, it is not necessarily the most important. I don''t question the value of light performance analysis, I question the overreliance on it. When buying a diamond sight unseen on the internet, something I would never do, it would obviously be prudent to gather all the information you can so that your choice is as informed as it can be. There is, however, no substitute for viewing the diamond and appying your own subjective sense of beauty.

 

[Nicrez]

If light return and brilliance where the sole determining factors for beauty, that would render the Emerald or Asscher cuts absolete. Also, throw out all Old Miner Stones, Old European Cuts, and antique cushions...

Sometimes the eyes have it, fancy shapes or round, but I am glad that the technological have their "super ideal" round stones to obsess about. That leave more shaped stones for me!!

Moosewendy, you remind me a lot of our friend DiamondsByLauren. He too had a similar argument over quantifying taste and beauty in measurements (over 60/60 stones), and basically had the same sort of argument. When it comes down to it though, there will always be those who buy things for their technical aspects and those who simply buy things for the pleasing effect it has on their senses...

I also noticed that the more technical and "educated" I became, the more I found fault in my stone, since it hadn''t fallen perfectly within parameters set on this board. But the more I wore it out, the more compliments I got from people who knew nothing about diamonds, as well as those in the industry. Heck I had one guy look at it under the microscope and tell me that my stone was GORGEOUS. Coming from a pro that felt good, but my cut was only a 2A... In the end does it matter? If I like it and it seems to be general consensus I got a great stone, do I really care that it doesn''t "grade" well in some people''s books. Nope.

 

[moosewendy]

Nicrez - Your point about being disappointed because your diamond is only a 2A on the AGA chart illustrates my point perfectly. You purchased your stone because you thought it was beautiful, but because of the oversimplified information contained in a chart, you could not feel as good about your diamond as you should have. For what its worth, I''ve been told that since the AGA charts give no guidance as to pavilion depth or angles, it is quite possible to have a 1A radiant which looks worse than a 3B. You were right to trust your own judgement. I believe in cut quality and proper proportioning, but relying on oversimplified models is a dangerous thing. What looks nicer to you is nicer, no matter what the charts say.

 

[moremoremore]

I think the eyes have it for the most part! The eyes do need to be somewhat educated! With my stone, I needed no stones to confirm anything. I think the Bscope is interesting but not necessary. For example, I had the priv. of seeing an eighternity. I think they score very high in the scope. But personally, I like the "regular'' ol H& A better. It''s a brighter stone...So despite BScope, my eyes tell me what''s nice! I do think the idealscope is very useful...more useful than the BScope....

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/5/2004 9:20:46 PM
Author: moosewendy
Garry - thank you very much for your offer to educate me, and your graph is quite impressive looking, but I think you miss my point. Science is only as good as the assumptions that it makes. Your assumption is that maximum light return is the only proper measure of beauty. My point is that this assumption is not necessarily correct. Many very rational people who fully understand the importance of cut prefer proportions that you do not consider optimal. These people are not stupid, ill informed or irrational, they are simply making a different fully informed choice. Light return is certainly an important component of beauty, but it is not the only component, and, in the case of fancy cuts, it is not necessarily the most important. I don''t question the value of light performance analysis, I question the overreliance on it. When buying a diamond sight unseen on the internet, something I would never do, it would obviously be prudent to gather all the information you can so that your choice is as informed as it can be. There is, however, no substitute for viewing the diamond and appying your own subjective sense of beauty.

MooseWendy you really should find out a little more about mine and others work and assumptions before offering sage advice about the distinction between light return and diamond beauty.

Light return is but one tiny bit of the science, and the science we are involved in, is as much and more about the likes and dislikes of human perception as it is about the diamond.

Your 600 years ago your opinion may have been that Chris Columbus ought not waste his time finding a faster way to get pepper-corns back to Europe.

 

[moosewendy]

Garry- I really don''t understand why my posts have created such controversy. It seems to me that the subjective nature of beauty is a pretty established concept. I don''t think that the fact that I believe that, within the range of finely cut stones, there is room for individual choice, qualifies me for membership in the flat earth society. Perhaps if you responded to my posts with intelligent discussion instead of with patronizing insults, we could have a true exchange of views.