SCIENCE vs BEUATY: Take 2

[mintve]

I found a thread that was posted a few years ago about the differences between science and beauty. I tried to figure out how to bump that thread, but I don''t know how, so i thought I would start a 2nd edition and link the first one:

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/science-vs-beauty.20987/

I am interesed in your thoughts. If you are buying online, the science becomes very important. If you are shopping at a B&M, how vital does the science become? Do you foucs on basic data and use your knowledge from this site as well as your eye to determine the best stone for you?

The reason this appeals to me it that I have seen a few stones that are considered ideal or cut to Tolkowsky''s science. When I saw this stone next to one that was well cut, but not the tolkowsky ideal proportions, I liked the way it sparkled better. It had more fire and my eyes love the fire of a diamond. Its nearly impossible to see the fire, or the life of a diamond, online. I know I may be able to get a better price if I shop online and use the science of the diamond, but I may be willing to sacrifice cost and science to get the stone I deem most beautiful in my eyes.

What are your thoughts on science vs beauty and online vs in person???

 

[minicat]

A tough one to answer for me anyway. I have been looking for a while and the most beautiful one i have SEEN was an EGL Antwerp cert. In the end i had to turn it down. I know thats not quite the same as the question you asked, however, my point is that i have decided to put my trust in the certs/specs more than my own eyes. The reason is that I can rely more on an experts (with pedigree) opinion should that differ from my own. However, I suppose it gets tricky when cut comes down to more detail than a 000 or exexex. I dont know enough yet to comment on that. But for now with what i know, Im looking for the very best cut i can get, and if buying from the usual names on here, id be happier buying online than i was with the EGL i saw.

 

[shel]

I got lost with the pronouns. Which did you think sparkled more, the Tolkowsky or the non-Tolkowsky diamond?

 

[togal]

Date: 11/27/2007 4:28:30 PM
Author: shel
I got lost with the pronouns. Which did you think sparkled more, the Tolkowsky or the non-Tolkowsky diamond?

He liked the non-Tolkowsky better.

 

[mintve]

Date: 11/27/2007 4:28:30 PM
Author: shel
I got lost with the pronouns. Which did you think sparkled more, the Tolkowsky or the non-Tolkowsky diamond?

sorry about that

I thought the non-tolkowsky had more fire. I actually looked at multiple sets (tolkowsky cut and others) of stones on two occasions and both times i ended up choosing the same stone as my favorite. It was NOT an ideal cut, but it was well cut and the only specs I have off hand are very baisic: 1.23 carats, I SI1 at $7155

 

[togal]

I think if you have an opportunity to see the diamond in person and compare it with other diamonds -- and have an opportunity to view it in a variety of lighting environments, IMO you should go with the one that looks better to your eyes. The numbers don't mean much if you like one better than the other. Many GIA "Excellents" are outside of Tolkowsky ideal, but the GIA "Excellent" range was derived using human observation testing. Jonathan, a research gemologist at Good Old Gold has written several articles based on research he's conducted about human observation testing vs. technology, which are very interesting. Here is a link to some articles in the "Technologies" section of their website. http://www.goodoldgold.com/Technologies/

ETA: When purchasing on-line in order to get a good price, understanding the science is important, ALONG with a trusted vendor, who's experienced eyes can help you pick the prettiest stone. I have never made a major diamond purchase on-line, but if I were to do so, I would feel confident going with one of the PriceScope recommended vendors to assist me with my decision.

 

[milton333]

On Good Old Gold, there are videos about diamond selection. In one that compared several cushions, although "ideal" cut does not apply to cushion cuts, I have to admit that I thought the "dog" (poorly cut cushion) was lovely

I don''t know, there is something about the sparklies

Part of seeing them in person is the effect of particular kinds of lighting designed to pull out the most optical performance, whereas most rings are worn in environments that are much less forgiving. Part may be that we prefer a slightly different look ("crushed ice" v. chunky faceting, e.g.). I think many who shop from specs worry, however, that it is the magic of the particular jewelry store environment that makes them lean toward a stone that will turn out to be a poor performer in everyday conditions, rather than an honest preference for less-than-ideal stones.

 

[mintve]

Good points. I will have to read the articles and view the video. The particular B&M at which we will likely shop has an atrium area with natrual light, so I would think that would help with the effect of store/display lights versus natural/normal conditions.

 

[mintve]

anyone have any suggestions on how science can meet beauty? I watched the GOG videos and they were fascinating! Do you think its wise to perhaps make a trip to NY to see what these online stones look like in person??? Any other ideas???

 

[JohnQuixote]

Here are some reads for those seriously interested in this topic:

American Cut, the first 100 Years by Al Gilbertson. It documents the efforts of some of the first diamond cutters who started cutting with beauty as a priority over weight; among them notable pioneers like David Jeffries, Henry Morse and Marcel Tolkowsky. The amount of resistance encountered early on is pretty remarkable. The book is available through GIA. I penned a review for the PS Journal here (trying to recapture my university book report days).

This publicly-available report, Evaluation of brilliance, fire and scintillation in round brilliant gemstones, appeared in the September issue of Optical Engineering, the monthly journal of SPIE. Any science professional is familiar with this journal, which publishes peer-reviewed papers reporting on R&D in optical science and engineering and practical applications in those areas. From the abstract: "The report discusses illumination effects in gemstones and presents maps to evaluate them. The matrices and tilt views of those maps permit one to find the stones that perform best in terms of illumination properties..."

The fact that SPIE published this paper is groundbreaking recognition and backing by the scientific community. It is a must-read for those interested in technical scientific evaluation of illumination effects and why some of the early pioneers were right-on in developing the main cutter's line (now seen in every modern RB assessment metric that exists, including the HCA).

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 11/28/2007 10:48:21 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

This publicly-available report, Evaluation of brilliance, fire and scintillation in round brilliant gemstones, appeared in the September issue of Optical Engineering, the monthly journal of SPIE.

Now there''s a sleepy little piece.

Has it been mentioned before here?

My favorite line in the abstract:

"By using the concepts of the main cutter’s line, and the anti-cutter’s line, the problem of finding the best stones is reduced by one dimension in the cutter’s space."

That anti-cutter space...kind of like antimatter they talked about in Startrek? Fire up the anti-Heisenbergs!!

I haven''t gotten past the abstract yet...but did speed to acknowledgements. Many friends to this board...so much that...this is science, right...not just patronage?

The problem may be...there''s so much science in Pricescope...it''s hard to find a non-participating check for it.

 

[oldminer]

1. It is quite possible for a novice to believe they prefer a diamond which the experts would not prefer. Not only do experts have their own developed taste in beauty, but some experts have a greater sensitivity to the components of what is considered beautiful. It is much like the vast difference between those who visit an art museum a few times in a lifetime and those who have spent a lifetime as trained art critics. We have to agree that trained eyes are superior to untrained eyes when it comes to expert knowledge. You can still have your own opinion, but you better not conclude you know more about the subject because your own taste differs from the acknowledged and accepted norms.

2. You are somewhat correct that science helps Internet shoppers more than B&M shoppers, but only to a point. There are many highly trained "engineer" types who rely a lot more on numbers and data than they do on their vision and apparent logic. Trained engineers learn not to make conclusions on logic or appearances, but on hard data. While they may trust a salesman, they remain less than convinced without facts. Many salespeople just don''t have facts. Smoke and mirrors may work for lots of retailers, but there are many well educated, fact oriented people out there looking for the perfect diamond. To them, "perfect" means factually perfect, not visually acceptable. I see the failure of B&M retailers to be their belief that providing little in the way of facts is somehow going to keep them in business. Those who are keeping up and delivering factual data are doing reasonably well.

3. We see a cultural bias of sort where "perfection" is sought after regardless of its visibility. You may or may not be one of those folks, but they are very important in the market for fine diamonds. These people do appreciate beauty, but they want scientific evidence to back up their choices.

4. Beauty is limited to human observation. Science can measure attributes which are invisible, but undoubtedly present. A Flawless diamond is visually identical to a VVS2 with the human eye, but to specific people, and to the market price, they are far from the same. A D color and an E color diamond of 1/2ct is not different to the human eye when it is in a ring, but for those specific people who want D, an E is not good enough. This is "diamonds" and the diamond business. The same rules apply for what creates Light Behavior and the beauty we are able to see.

 

[mintve]

Date: 11/28/2007 12:33:17 PM
Author: oldminer
1. It is quite possible for a novice to believe they prefer a diamond which the experts would not prefer. Not only do experts have their own developed taste in beauty, but some experts have a greater sensitivity to the components of what is considered beautiful. It is much like the vast difference between those who visit an art museum a few times in a lifetime and those who have spent a lifetime as trained art critics. We have to agree that trained eyes are superior to untrained eyes when it comes to expert knowledge. You can still have your own opinion, but you better not conclude you know more about the subject because your own taste differs from the acknowledged and accepted norms.

2. You are somewhat correct that science helps Internet shoppers more than B&M shoppers, but only to a point. There are many highly trained ''engineer'' types who rely a lot more on numbers and data than they do on their vision and apparent logic. Trained engineers learn not to make conclusions on logic or appearances, but on hard data. While they may trust a salesman, they remain less than convinced without facts. Many salespeople just don''t have facts. Smoke and mirrors may work for lots of retailers, but there are many well educated, fact oriented people out there looking for the perfect diamond. To them, ''perfect'' means factually perfect, not visually acceptable. I see the failure of B&M retailers to be their belief that providing little in the way of facts is somehow going to keep them in business. Those who are keeping up and delivering factual data are doing reasonably well.

3. We see a cultural bias of sort where ''perfection'' is sought after regardless of its visibility. You may or may not be one of those folks, but they are very important in the market for fine diamonds. These people do appreciate beauty, but they want scientific evidence to back up their choices.

4. Beauty is limited to human observation. Science can measure attributes which are invisible, but undoubtedly present. A Flawless diamond is visually identical to a VVS2 with the human eye, but to specific people, and to the market price, they are far from the same. A D color and an E color diamond of 1/2ct is not different to the human eye when it is in a ring, but for those specific people who want D, an E is not good enough. This is ''diamonds'' and the diamond business. The same rules apply for what creates Light Behavior and the beauty we are able to see.

Thank you for your input. I really like your art analogy, I can relate to that one!
I do not think I am seeking perfection, but excellence and beauty. I am at that point where my knowledge is dangerous. When you are ignorant, ignorance is bliss. You are knowledgeable or an expert you can find what you need, explain what you want, look for flaws, imperfections etc and get the best price. I am not ignorant nor am I an expert. I am armed with elementary knowledge that I have learned from this and other sites. I know some of what to look for and what to avoid, but I am not a trained eye. I am that dangerous in between stage where you have some knowledge, but you may not be able to use to the best of your ability. Therefore, I am going to try to keep learning and when time comes, I will do my best to balance the two in my quest for my ideal diamond!

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 11/28/2007 11:52:52 AM
Author: Regular Guy

Date: 11/28/2007 10:48:21 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

This publicly-available report, Evaluation of brilliance, fire and scintillation in round brilliant gemstones, appeared in the September issue of Optical Engineering, the monthly journal of SPIE.

Now there''s a sleepy little piece.

...
I haven''t gotten past the abstract yet...but did speed to acknowledgements. Many friends to this board...so much that...this is science, right...not just patronage?

Actually, Ira, I only found time this week to look at this article. And like you, I checked the acknowledgements, and was surprised but proud to be mentioned there. And not for any idea, but just for cutting.

Life is good,

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 11/28/2007 11:52:52 AM
Author: Regular Guy

Date: 11/28/2007 10:48:21 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

This publicly-available report, Evaluation of brilliance, fire and scintillation in round brilliant gemstones, appeared in the September issue of Optical Engineering, the monthly journal of SPIE.

Now there's a sleepy little piece.

Has it been mentioned before here?

Aye. here).

I haven't gotten past the abstract yet...but did speed to acknowledgements. Many friends to this board...so much that...this is science, right...not just patronage?

You may not be familiar with SPIE? Check what they stand for. I suggest their publishing of this paper represents the strongest handshake between our researchers and legitimate science to date.

You're right about friends to this board. We are fortunate that they recognize the vehicle for communication that PS is. Pursuant to that, I hope we never see such friends back away from interacting with us because they feel this familiarity has somehow compromised their effectiveness... It's easy to take people for granted, like the group of friends who questions whether that guy they grew up with really should have won the Pulitzer - simply because he is too everyday and human to them.

The problem may be...there's so much science in Pricescope...it's hard to find a non-participating check for it.

My first major was science and, in a puritanical sense, I'd say the opposite is true. We have much that's interesting, compelling and has roots in science here. But few modern assessment metrics have followed a true scientific method in terms of independence, objectivity and legitimate peer-review from groups like SPIE or the NIST - and almost none give the full disclosure that is a premise of the true scientific method.

This is in no way a criticism - and it doesn't stop what we discuss from being instructional, engaging and useful - but it does make the disclosure and peer-review being done by AGSL stand out in terms of legitimate science... Even if you think of those guys like the ones you grew up with.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 11/28/2007 3:33:17 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

Date: 11/28/2007 11:52:52 AM
Author: Regular Guy

Date: 11/28/2007 10:48:21 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

This publicly-available report, Evaluation of brilliance, fire and scintillation in round brilliant gemstones, appeared in the September issue of Optical Engineering, the monthly journal of SPIE.

Now there''s a sleepy little piece.

...
I haven''t gotten past the abstract yet...but did speed to acknowledgements. Many friends to this board...so much that...this is science, right...not just patronage?

Actually, Ira, I only found time this week to look at this article. And like you, I checked the acknowledgements, and was surprised but proud to be mentioned there. And not for any idea, but just for cutting.

Life is good,

Paul, I like your new website, too...have signed up for your newsletter. This, too, will read more as time allows.

Also, congrats on adding retailers. Look out South Carolina...hello Nice Ice.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/27/2007 4:07:36 PM
Author:mintve
I found a thread that was posted a few years ago about the differences between science and beauty. I tried to figure out how to bump that thread, but I don''t know how, so i thought I would start a 2nd edition and link the first one:

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/science-vs-beauty.20987/

I am interesed in your thoughts. If you are buying online, the science becomes very important. If you are shopping at a B&M, how vital does the science become? Do you foucs on basic data and use your knowledge from this site as well as your eye to determine the best stone for you?

The reason this appeals to me it that I have seen a few stones that are considered ideal or cut to Tolkowsky''s science. When I saw this stone next to one that was well cut, but not the tolkowsky ideal proportions, I liked the way it sparkled better. It had more fire and my eyes love the fire of a diamond. Its nearly impossible to see the fire, or the life of a diamond, online. I know I may be able to get a better price if I shop online and use the science of the diamond, but I may be willing to sacrifice cost and science to get the stone I deem most beautiful in my eyes.

What are your thoughts on science vs beauty and online vs in person???

Leonid disabled some threads after someone maybe posted something abusive. I think that might have happened on that one M.

Re the cutters line - I think someone else might have thought of it earlier?

 

[cara]

Date: 11/28/2007 11:52:52 AM
Author: Regular Guy

I haven''t gotten past the abstract yet...but did speed to acknowledgements. Many friends to this board...so much that...this is science, right...not just patronage?

The problem may be...there''s so much science in Pricescope...it''s hard to find a non-participating check for it.

This is a peer-reviewed science paper, meaning the authors submitted it to the journal editiors, who then forwarded it to "experts in the field" for anonymous peer review. Often they will send it to your competition to pick apart and decide if you have data to back up your claims, etc. The proper way to attack the integrity of the process would be to claim that the reviewers were friends of the authors and approved a shoddy paper, or that the editor had an improper relationship with the authors (and forwarded it to non-expert reviewers or something.) There is nothing inherently wrong or suspicious with what you point out - many of the people in the acknowledgements are professionally associated with one another and with pricescope.

Not to say that every peer-reviewed paper is gospel, stuff still slides through especially at the less rigorous journals, but the process is supposed to suppress the first level of hackery! And provide a forum for more serious scientific "discussions", as science often goes in jigs and jags. If you disagreed with the methods, results, etc. of this work you could write a reply paper on the subject, presumable with some of your own models and discussion, and submit it for publication, and it would also be subject to peer-review.