1.5 carat VS2 cushion cut - how does it look?

[diamondseeker2006]

It was just strange that a person was posting here for the first time after saying they bought yesterday but the stone was not showing as sold. I have never seen that happen before. But there's a first time for everything, as they say.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Another perfectly happy customer of Enchanted diamonds here. I also happen to be a customer who finds the cut score to be quite useful as opposed to bogus. Certainly for round diamonds at least. I try to limit recommendations to the diamonds that score 97 or better and I don't recall seeing any that scored that high without passing the HCA tool as well. There are people who prefer different "flavors" which won't agree with their cut score, but they admit their cut score is in alignment with their tastes and may not suit everyone the same. I don't see what makes it bogus though. What is bogus is Shane Co. factoring color into their cut grading system. To make the "Shane Classic" cut designation it has to be H or better in color, and I saw one of their "Shane Classic" diamonds the other day that scored poorly on the HCA and 77 on the enchanted cut score. THAT is bogus, but what Enchanted has in place is useful IMO.

Bogus may have been too harsh of a term. Without transparency, it is quite difficult to truly judge the system on its merits.

We can agree that the Shane Co system is bogus, though!

In an attempt to clarify the disagreement on that specific ED Cut-score being 'bogus' or 'not bogus', the choice for the word 'bogus' may be a poor choice, but I would definitely call the score 'misleading' in many ways. My criticism is based upon Joshua testifying that his cut-score is entirely based upon lab-report-numbers.

1. With regards to Fancy Shapes, it is well established here on PS that the info and numbers a lab-report give you are far from revealing with regards to the final light-performance of the diamond. In fact, PS is listing the AGA-charts somewhere on the site, but it is very clear that, at best, these charts are a very broad rejection-tool, and I already have regularly proven with examples that one can easily cut a super-performing fancy shape outside of the 'desired' box of those AGA-charts. So, for Fancy Shapes, and I have the impression that Pfunk agrees with me, I would state any Cut-score based upon report-numbers only as useless.

2. Round brilliants are in essence a more straightforward shape, where the accuracy of any rejection-tool tends to become better. However, there is a huge difference between using a rejection-tool (lab-report, HCA, pictures, sarin-scan, video, ...) and understanding that the nature of these rejection-tools lead you to a reduced number of options to choose from, and on the other hand, designing a rejection-tool (in a 'secret' way based upon lab-numbers only) and presenting it as a definite performance-score for that specific diamond. If a round scores 100 on such tool, it means that there is a PROBABILITY of this specific diamond performing well in real-life-conditions, it does not mean that it DEFINITELY will. Giving such definite score to a particular diamond, bearing in mind that a vendor has a responsibility to give accurate information, I would venture to call the ED cut-score definitely 'misleading'.

With that said, I can understand the ED-fans, happy with their purchase, but that does not make the 'system' valid. On the other hand, I definitely understand other posters, frowning about the cut-score, mainly because of the above-mentioned reasons.

This post is simply to clarify any misinformation or misunderstandings posted above.

Live long,

 

[Mayk]

Yup, there are many many other interesting things about this post and the posters.....

I have been saying this for awhile.

 

[pfunk]

Another perfectly happy customer of Enchanted diamonds here. I also happen to be a customer who finds the cut score to be quite useful as opposed to bogus. Certainly for round diamonds at least. I try to limit recommendations to the diamonds that score 97 or better and I don't recall seeing any that scored that high without passing the HCA tool as well. There are people who prefer different "flavors" which won't agree with their cut score, but they admit their cut score is in alignment with their tastes and may not suit everyone the same. I don't see what makes it bogus though. What is bogus is Shane Co. factoring color into their cut grading system. To make the "Shane Classic" cut designation it has to be H or better in color, and I saw one of their "Shane Classic" diamonds the other day that scored poorly on the HCA and 77 on the enchanted cut score. THAT is bogus, but what Enchanted has in place is useful IMO.

Bogus may have been too harsh of a term. Without transparency, it is quite difficult to truly judge the system on its merits.

We can agree that the Shane Co system is bogus, though!

In an attempt to clarify the disagreement on that specific ED Cut-score being 'bogus' or 'not bogus', the choice for the word 'bogus' may be a poor choice, but I would definitely call the score 'misleading' in many ways. My criticism is based upon Joshua testifying that his cut-score is entirely based upon lab-report-numbers.

1. With regards to Fancy Shapes, it is well established here on PS that the info and numbers a lab-report give you are far from revealing with regards to the final light-performance of the diamond. In fact, PS is listing the ACA-charts somewhere on the site, but it is very clear that, at best, these charts are a very broad rejection-tool, and I already have regularly proven with examples that one can easily cut a super-performing fancy shape outside of the 'desired' box of those ACA-charts. So, for Fancy Shapes, and I have the impression that Pfunk agrees with me, I would state any Cut-score based upon report-numbers only as useless.

2. Round brilliants are in essence a more straightforward shape, where the accuracy of any rejection-tool tends to become better. However, there is a huge difference between using a rejection-tool (lab-report, HCA, pictures, sarin-scan, video, ...) and understanding that the nature of these rejection-tools lead you to a reduced number of options to choose from, and on the other hand, designing a rejection-tool (in a 'secret' way based upon lab-numbers only) and presenting it as a definite performance-score for that specific diamond. If a round scores 100 on such tool, it means that there is a PROBABILITY of this specific diamond performing well in real-life-conditions, it does not mean that it DEFINITELY will. Giving such definite score to a particular diamond, bearing in mind that a vendor has a responsibility to give accurate information, I would venture to call the ED cut-score definitely 'misleading'.

With that said, I can understand the ED-fans, happy with their purchase, but that does not make the 'system' valid. On the other hand, I definitely understand other posters, frowning about the cut-score, mainly because of the above-mentioned reasons.

This post is simply to clarify any misinformation or misunderstandings posted above.

Live long,

Paul, you are correct in that we are in agreement upon shapes other than round. I find the cut score quite useful on rounds, but would love to hear from enchanted more information on how it is used to evaluate the other shapes. Like you said, there is little information on the GIA report alone that can be used to come to a confident conclusion on the performance probability of a fancy shape. On a forum such as this, with very experienced and knowledgable members, I think it would help Enchanted develop credibility if they were to share how the cut score evaluates fancy shapes.

As far as rounds go, does enchanted make a guarantee somewhere that any diamond scoring 100 will DEFINITELY perform well in real life? And is there a definition on the enchanted website of what "performing well" is? I'm just curious as to how you feel it is "misleading"? I know that when I bought from them, they assured me that the gemologist would confirm everything they had shared with me about the diamond that they had obtained from the supplier. I guess I am failing to see why this is considered misleading to be used as a rejection tool while the HCA is perfectly acceptable. Is it because they haven't shared the exact way in which the score is calculated, and as such, it is misleading?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I don't care what their formula is for rating fancies, because it doesn't work. Pictures and ASETs work when buying online. I'd take off cut scores on all the fancies unless someone is actually looking at the stones with ASETs and ranking those based on visual inspection.

I also don't think they have to reveal their formula for rounds. James Allen doesn't. They have really bad stones thrown into their "ideal" category and it is a pain in the neck going stone by stone trying to find the few with the best potential. (Not picking on them..most of the vendors with virtual stones don't have a great way of ranking stones.) So I, also, have found the many of the rounds rating 97 and up to have potential and not so many below that. I also check them on the HCA, and I only search stones that at least have a picture and I prefer an ASET or idealscope. I can see leakage in some of the diamond photos alone. I guess the only misleading thing to someone new to diamond shopping is that a top cut H&A stone should technically be reserved for a 100 rating, and those usually are not found in virtual inventories.

 

[ismaiL92]

I don't know why this thread turned into a pissing match, but I stand by my original statements. I'll keep you guys posted on the ring.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

2. Round brilliants are in essence a more straightforward shape, where the accuracy of any rejection-tool tends to become better. However, there is a huge difference between using a rejection-tool (lab-report, HCA, pictures, sarin-scan, video, ...) and understanding that the nature of these rejection-tools lead you to a reduced number of options to choose from, and on the other hand, designing a rejection-tool (in a 'secret' way based upon lab-numbers only) and presenting it as a definite performance-score for that specific diamond. If a round scores 100 on such tool, it means that there is a PROBABILITY of this specific diamond performing well in real-life-conditions, it does not mean that it DEFINITELY will. Giving such definite score to a particular diamond, bearing in mind that a vendor has a responsibility to give accurate information, I would venture to call the ED cut-score definitely 'misleading'.

With that said, I can understand the ED-fans, happy with their purchase, but that does not make the 'system' valid. On the other hand, I definitely understand other posters, frowning about the cut-score, mainly because of the above-mentioned reasons.

This post is simply to clarify any misinformation or misunderstandings posted above.

Live long,

Paul, you are correct in that we are in agreement upon shapes other than round.

As far as rounds go, does enchanted make a guarantee somewhere that any diamond scoring 100 will DEFINITELY perform well in real life? And is there a definition on the enchanted website of what "performing well" is? I'm just curious as to how you feel it is "misleading"? I know that when I bought from them, they assured me that the gemologist would confirm everything they had shared with me about the diamond that they had obtained from the supplier. I guess I am failing to see why this is considered misleading to be used as a rejection tool while the HCA is perfectly acceptable. Is it because they haven't shared the exact way in which the score is calculated, and as such, it is misleading?

Pfunk,

I may be old-fashioned, but my position that when a vendor describes 'material' aspects of a product, this needs to be absolutely correct, especially in the presentation of a score, where the maximum apparently is 100, and a lot of stones get a 100-score.

Fact is that, based on what has been revealed about the basics of the score-calculation, the score only gives a probability of that specific stone possibly being worthy of that score. It says nothing about that specific stone.

If one would use this score as a rejection-tool, as you are stating, that is OK. But the presentation is such that a consumer is led to believe the score being a definite assessment of the cut-quality of that specific diamonds, which not. What is misleading for an average educated consumer is not for one like you, who seems to use the score with a grain of salt.

Live long,

 

[pfunk]

2. Round brilliants are in essence a more straightforward shape, where the accuracy of any rejection-tool tends to become better. However, there is a huge difference between using a rejection-tool (lab-report, HCA, pictures, sarin-scan, video, ...) and understanding that the nature of these rejection-tools lead you to a reduced number of options to choose from, and on the other hand, designing a rejection-tool (in a 'secret' way based upon lab-numbers only) and presenting it as a definite performance-score for that specific diamond. If a round scores 100 on such tool, it means that there is a PROBABILITY of this specific diamond performing well in real-life-conditions, it does not mean that it DEFINITELY will. Giving such definite score to a particular diamond, bearing in mind that a vendor has a responsibility to give accurate information, I would venture to call the ED cut-score definitely 'misleading'.

With that said, I can understand the ED-fans, happy with their purchase, but that does not make the 'system' valid. On the other hand, I definitely understand other posters, frowning about the cut-score, mainly because of the above-mentioned reasons.

This post is simply to clarify any misinformation or misunderstandings posted above.

Live long,

Paul, you are correct in that we are in agreement upon shapes other than round.

As far as rounds go, does enchanted make a guarantee somewhere that any diamond scoring 100 will DEFINITELY perform well in real life? And is there a definition on the enchanted website of what "performing well" is? I'm just curious as to how you feel it is "misleading"? I know that when I bought from them, they assured me that the gemologist would confirm everything they had shared with me about the diamond that they had obtained from the supplier. I guess I am failing to see why this is considered misleading to be used as a rejection tool while the HCA is perfectly acceptable. Is it because they haven't shared the exact way in which the score is calculated, and as such, it is misleading?

Pfunk,

I may be old-fashioned, but my position that when a vendor describes 'material' aspects of a product, this needs to be absolutely correct, especially in the presentation of a score, where the maximum apparently is 100, and a lot of stones get a 100-score.

Fact is that, based on what has been revealed about the basics of the score-calculation, the score only gives a probability of that specific stone possibly being worthy of that score. It says nothing about that specific stone.

If one would use this score as a rejection-tool, as you are stating, that is OK. But the presentation is such that a consumer is led to believe the score being a definite assessment of the cut-quality of that specific diamonds, which not. What is misleading for an average educated consumer is not for one like you, who seems to use the score with a grain of salt.

Live long,

Paul, from what I have gathered in my admittedly short time here, you are an absolute perfectionist when it comes to diamond cutting. You strive to cut the very best diamonds possible, and therefore see the GREAT GREAT majority of diamonds on the market as being imperfect with room for improvement. Because of this, a cut score of 100 just doesn't seem right to you when you know these diamonds aren't at the pinnacle of possible performance. Perhaps there isn't a diamond on the earth that you feel is worthy of a score of 100 (perfection), which is fine.

But, for the average consumer who is seeking a beautiful diamond, do you think most would find a diamond scoring 100 to be beautiful? What would you guess is the probability that a diamond scoring 100 would be viewed as inadequate by the consumer? Would you rather there be NO sort of guidance on their website to help customers narrow down the stones based on cut? Just leave it like most other vendors and recommend these average consumers buy idealscopes and learn how to use them? Or hope like heck the supplier has an image they can obtain (most won't). Or hope like heck they stumble across pricescope and can get input from people much more knowledgeable? Their cut score certainly helps prevent people from ending up with stones cut to the edges of GIA excellent, which still are flooding the market from what I have seen. It would destroy those stones and caution people against them. I don't think the intent of the cut score was to help consumers who are crazy about absolute cut perfection like we find here on pricescope. I think it is more geared towards protecting average consuers, which it does very well. I still think it is useful even for people who take cut more seriously than the average consumer, but knowing how demanding of perfection you are I won't try to convince you of that.

It's just funny to me how much people complain that GIA excellent is FAR to broad, but then turn around and criticize a system that helps consumers navigate the expanses of the GIA excellent cut grade. Also, I feel the word "misleading" carries a very negative connotation that isn't deserved in this case. The cut score for round diamonds certainly seems pretty accurate and helpful to me, not misleading.

 

[RockyRacoon]

2. Round brilliants are in essence a more straightforward shape, where the accuracy of any rejection-tool tends to become better. However, there is a huge difference between using a rejection-tool (lab-report, HCA, pictures, sarin-scan, video, ...) and understanding that the nature of these rejection-tools lead you to a reduced number of options to choose from, and on the other hand, designing a rejection-tool (in a 'secret' way based upon lab-numbers only) and presenting it as a definite performance-score for that specific diamond. If a round scores 100 on such tool, it means that there is a PROBABILITY of this specific diamond performing well in real-life-conditions, it does not mean that it DEFINITELY will. Giving such definite score to a particular diamond, bearing in mind that a vendor has a responsibility to give accurate information, I would venture to call the ED cut-score definitely 'misleading'.

With that said, I can understand the ED-fans, happy with their purchase, but that does not make the 'system' valid. On the other hand, I definitely understand other posters, frowning about the cut-score, mainly because of the above-mentioned reasons.

This post is simply to clarify any misinformation or misunderstandings posted above.

Live long,

Paul, you are correct in that we are in agreement upon shapes other than round.

As far as rounds go, does enchanted make a guarantee somewhere that any diamond scoring 100 will DEFINITELY perform well in real life? And is there a definition on the enchanted website of what "performing well" is? I'm just curious as to how you feel it is "misleading"? I know that when I bought from them, they assured me that the gemologist would confirm everything they had shared with me about the diamond that they had obtained from the supplier. I guess I am failing to see why this is considered misleading to be used as a rejection tool while the HCA is perfectly acceptable. Is it because they haven't shared the exact way in which the score is calculated, and as such, it is misleading?

Pfunk,

I may be old-fashioned, but my position that when a vendor describes 'material' aspects of a product, this needs to be absolutely correct, especially in the presentation of a score, where the maximum apparently is 100, and a lot of stones get a 100-score.

Fact is that, based on what has been revealed about the basics of the score-calculation, the score only gives a probability of that specific stone possibly being worthy of that score. It says nothing about that specific stone.

If one would use this score as a rejection-tool, as you are stating, that is OK. But the presentation is such that a consumer is led to believe the score being a definite assessment of the cut-quality of that specific diamonds, which not. What is misleading for an average educated consumer is not for one like you, who seems to use the score with a grain of salt.

Live long,

It's just funny to me how much people complain that GIA excellent is FAR to broad, but then turn around and criticize a system that helps consumers navigate the expanses of the GIA excellent cut grade.

That's the point though - it doesn't help consumers navigate the GIA XXX.

All it does is use the rounded angles to make predictions about performance. Some of these predictions will be wrong, because they are based on limited information. There is just not enough info available to provide this type of assessment, which is what many experts are taking issue with.

This does not address the rounding issues that still make buying GIA by paper anything but a science.

The 100-point cut system is a marketing tool and shouldn't be seen as anything other than a sales tactic (not saying there is anything inherently wrong with this, but as a consumer, I try to ensure other consumers aren't buying into the smoke and mirrors).

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Pfunk,
I’m sure Josh appreciates your consistent and energetic support but I think you have to realize that the skepticism here is largely a result of his own questionable statements and etiquette.

When you come on to a public forum of knowledgeable participants and say things like “To me Hearts and Arrows has always been a marketing shtick” you are going to raise some eyebrows. When you make clearly incorrect statements about eye-clean, you are going to have people questioning your experience. The credibility level then drops to a point where people begin to question everything you say. When you claim that a trade member is providing misinformation and misguidance, yet you disappear without explaining your accusations or apologizing, you are not going to enhance your stature in the community.

Regarding the cut score criticism, I think that also goes back to the way it is being represented by Josh. Here is the statement about the score from the ED website:

Enchanted Diamonds Cut Score
The Enchanted Diamonds Cut Score was created to simplify the diamond search process and help customers find the best cut stones effortlessly. Our Cut Score grades diamonds on a scale from 0 to 100, with 100 being a perfect cut diamond.
We’ve used our years of experience and analyzed millions of diamonds to create our Diamond Cut Score. Every angle, dimension, proportion, and ratio is analyzed to determine the light return and cut quality of a given diamond.
Our advanced formula takes into account more factors than any single grading laboratory or certificate on the market. All diamonds are not created equally, our Diamond Cut Score makes it simple and easy to find the best cut diamond matching your search criteria.

Wow.

And optical precision is ”marketing shtick”?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Uh-oh. 100 is a "perfect cut score"? Then that is a blatantly false statement.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Uh-oh. 100 is a "perfect cut score"? Then that is a blatantly false statement.

"perfect cut diamond"

 

[Jonathan_Las-Diamond_Expert]

Hey Everyone,

I really enjoy this discussion and the feedback provided from all sides. It's also encouraging to hear such enthusiasm from past and prospective customers.

Paul, I appreciate your viewpoint, however, we have never made any claims that our cut score is the end-all be-all of diamond analysis and evaluation. We certainly never claim that it is definite or absolute.

Much to the contrary, we ALWAYS tell our customer's that our score reflects OUR preferences for what make's a stone visually beautiful. We ALWAYS encourage customers to weigh their own personal preferences and take advantage of whatever additional information (ASET's, Idealscopes, Hearts & Arrows, HCA) may be available before making any buying decision.

We completely agree with the issues created by the GIA's rounding, and actively seek to work with suppliers who provide more detailed information.


Thank you guy's for pointing out the wording in our text, we will make the necessary changes immediately. Bryan, I appreciate your continued interest in helping us improve and navigate the PS world.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Uh-oh. 100 is a "perfect cut score"? Then that is a blatantly false statement.

"perfect cut diamond"

Thanks, Bryan! When I went back to edit that, it was too late!

I am really glad that it may be corrected on the ED site even more.

 

[Jonathan_Las-Diamond_Expert]

We take feedback and constructive criticism very seriously at Enchanted Diamonds, regardless of the source. You spoke, we listened.

We updated the text on our cut score information page to better align with the goal and purpose of this tool. I'm unable to post a link to that page, as it's in violation of forum policy's. I'm confident those of you interested in reading the revised text are more than capable of discovering this page.

Our goal has never been to be be misleading, make false claims, or create a marketing shtick. The sole purpose since day one has been helping customers select the perfect diamond given their unique needs and preferences. We have and will never waiver from this mission.

I thank all of you for constructive criticism and feedback. Bryan, Rocky, and DiamondSeeker I especially appreciate your continued and diligent efforts in helping us improve our product.

 

[pfunk]

Rocky, I think you missed my point. When I talk about helping navigate the GIA excellent cut grade, I am not talking about the perils of rounding. I am talking about preventing a customer from buying a diamond cut to the edges of GIA excellent or somewhere near to it. The cut score would kill those stones. Everyone here is much more knowledgeable and wants diamonds cut to more precise numbers that result in repeatable, predictable performance. That is great, and is immensely helpful to everyone who stumbles across PS. But for the world of online shoppers who don't find pricescope, the cut score does indeed help you distinguish one GIA excellent from the next with a pretty good degree of confidence. That is why I see it having a real use for a lot of people.

Bryan, I was happy with my experience at Enchanted and am happy to recommend them, but my comments in this thread are my true and honest opinions. I am not taking time out of my day to simply defend them at all costs. I see their cut score calculator as VERY useful for average consumers. Here at PS you aren't typically hearing from the people who simply want to purchase a pretty stone. You hear from the folks who take great pride in their purchases and want to research diamonds to the nth degree before pulling the trigger. The culture here is to meticulously break down every diamond with as many forms of information as possible. That is wonderful, but I think people lose sight of the fact that for every person that asks help on pricescope, there are 5, 10, 100? others who never come here. Do you really think the cut score is in place to mislead those people? Do you think it helps their chances of getting one of the better GIA excellents? I sure hope so, and I can definitely see it helping.

Having said that, the wording is absolutely over the top and should be changed. I completely agree with that. Did you really analyze millions of stones? Also, if the cut score only uses information from the GIA grading reports, how can it take into account more factors? It can certainly see how the measurements on a GIA report work together with each other, but the whole of the cut score is only as good as the input which comes from the GIA report.

 

[RockyRacoon]

Rocky, I think you missed my point. When I talk about helping navigate the GIA excellent cut grade, I am not talking about the perils of rounding. I am talking about preventing a customer from buying a diamond cut to the edges of GIA excellent or somewhere near to it. The cut score would kill those stones. Everyone here is much more knowledgeable and wants diamonds cut to more precise numbers that result in repeatable, predictable performance. That is great, and is immensely helpful to everyone who stumbles across PS. But for the world of online shoppers who don't find pricescope, the cut score does indeed help you distinguish one GIA excellent from the next with a pretty good degree of confidence. That is why I see it having a real use for a lot of people.

I did not miss your point.

How do you know if it's really cut to the edge of XXX, or if it is just rounding, from the report? Answer is, you don't. You need more info. Saying anything else, which is exactly what this 'cut score' does, is disingenuous.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

We take feedback and constructive criticism very seriously at Enchanted Diamonds, regardless of the source. You spoke, we listened.

We updated the text on our cut score information page to better align with the goal and purpose of this tool. I'm unable to post a link to that page, as it's in violation of forum policy's. I'm confident those of you interested in reading the revised text are more than capable of discovering this page.

Our goal has never been to be be misleading, make false claims, or create a marketing shtick. The sole purpose since day one has been helping customers select the perfect diamond given their unique needs and preferences. We have and will never waiver from this mission.

I thank all of you for constructive criticism and feedback. Bryan, Rocky, and DiamondSeeker I especially appreciate your continued and diligent efforts in helping us improve our product.

Jonathan,
That's a very smart approach to take. The Pricescope community can serve as an invaluable "focus group" to help you evolve your business if you look at it as such.

 

[pfunk]

Rocky, I think you missed my point. When I talk about helping navigate the GIA excellent cut grade, I am not talking about the perils of rounding. I am talking about preventing a customer from buying a diamond cut to the edges of GIA excellent or somewhere near to it. The cut score would kill those stones. Everyone here is much more knowledgeable and wants diamonds cut to more precise numbers that result in repeatable, predictable performance. That is great, and is immensely helpful to everyone who stumbles across PS. But for the world of online shoppers who don't find pricescope, the cut score does indeed help you distinguish one GIA excellent from the next with a pretty good degree of confidence. That is why I see it having a real use for a lot of people.

I did not miss your point.

How do you know if it's really cut to the edge of XXX, or if it is just rounding, from the report? Answer is, you don't. You need more info. Saying anything else, which is exactly what this 'cut score' does, is disingenuous.

Let me rephrase then. Any stone that is cut close to the edge of GIA excellent will get banged up pretty badly by the enchanted cut score. There will be no question that it is a stone you should pass on, if it is close enough to the edge of GIA excellent that rounding has any effect whatsoever. Better?

Should we just consider the HCA as completely useless too right away? People plug rounded GIA numbers into there like they are following the 11th commandment here. A score below 2 rules out a large number of known poor performing proportion sets right? The cut score is used the same way by average consumers and IS helpful. Whether you want to agree to that doesn't make any difference to me, but the fact remains that a lot of people are going to like it and for good reason.

It's not a trap. It's not misleading consumers and it is silly to say that. Play with it for awhile and see if you find any diamonds over 95 that are cut to a point they could fall out of GIA excellent after averaging/rounding. Like I said earlier, cut grades set by jewelers like Shane Co ARE traps. They ARE misleading. I just found another stone yesterday (GIA XXX) that scored over 5 on the HCA and 66 on enchanted cut score that received their top grade of "Shane Classic". Until I see a diamond cut to the edges of excellent while scoring highly on the ED cut score, I am not going to say it doesn't have some usefullness to a lot of consumers. Whether it is useful to cut nuts here at PS is a different argument completely different from what I am talking about.

 

[RockyRacoon]

Rocky, I think you missed my point. When I talk about helping navigate the GIA excellent cut grade, I am not talking about the perils of rounding. I am talking about preventing a customer from buying a diamond cut to the edges of GIA excellent or somewhere near to it. The cut score would kill those stones. Everyone here is much more knowledgeable and wants diamonds cut to more precise numbers that result in repeatable, predictable performance. That is great, and is immensely helpful to everyone who stumbles across PS. But for the world of online shoppers who don't find pricescope, the cut score does indeed help you distinguish one GIA excellent from the next with a pretty good degree of confidence. That is why I see it having a real use for a lot of people.

I did not miss your point.

How do you know if it's really cut to the edge of XXX, or if it is just rounding, from the report? Answer is, you don't. You need more info. Saying anything else, which is exactly what this 'cut score' does, is disingenuous.

Let me rephrase then. Any stone that is cut close to the edge of GIA excellent will get banged up pretty badly by the enchanted cut score. There will be no question that it is a stone you should pass on, if it is close enough to the edge of GIA excellent that rounding has any effect whatsoever. Better?

Should we just consider the HCA as completely useless too right away? People plug rounded GIA numbers into there like they are following the 11th commandment here. A score below 2 rules out a large number of known poor performing proportion sets right? The cut score is used the same way by average consumers and IS helpful. Whether you want to agree to that doesn't make any difference to me, but the fact remains that a lot of people are going to like it and for good reason.

It's not a trap. It's not misleading consumers and it is silly to say that. Play with it for awhile and see if you find any diamonds over 95 that are cut to a point they could fall out of GIA excellent after averaging/rounding. Like I said earlier, cut grades set by jewelers like Shane Co ARE traps. They ARE misleading. I just found another stone yesterday (GIA XXX) that scored over 5 on the HCA and 66 on enchanted cut score that received their top grade of "Shane Classic". Until I see a diamond cut to the edges of excellent while scoring highly on the ED cut score, I am not going to say it doesn't have some usefullness to a lot of consumers. Whether it is useful to cut nuts here at PS is a different argument completely different from what I am talking about.

You don't seem to understand that the HCA is a rejection tool. It tells you that you need to get more info, before considering. That's all. That is all the 'cut score' can do, also - tell you that you need more info, however, it is not presented as a clear rejection tool (unlike HCA). That is what is disingenuous.

People like marketing gimmicks - there is no denying it. That is what the 'cut score' is, plain and simple.

Who said it was a trap? It is misleading consumers and it's silly for you not to realize that.

 

[Chihuahua6]

Hey Everyone,

Paul, I appreciate your viewpoint, however, we have never made any claims that our cut score is the end-all be-all of diamond analysis and evaluation. We certainly never claim that it is definite or absolute.

Much to the contrary, we ALWAYS tell our customer's that our score reflects OUR preferences for what make's a stone visually beautiful. We ALWAYS encourage customers to weigh their own personal preferences and take advantage of whatever additional information (ASET's, Idealscopes, Hearts & Arrows, HCA) may be available before making any buying decision.

Did I just read what I think I read or is my dyslexia acting up again? I am the one who started the thread about the conversation I had via chat with Joshua. He told me outright that I should use the cut score and nothing else. I did request ideal scope images and he told me that they were not necessary and that people who told me otherwise didn't know what they were talking about. He even made a comment about vendors telling me I needed such images just to sell me a diamond.

Customer service is severely lacking in your business. Having a successful retail business is all about the customer, being of service and bending over backwards to make them happy.

 

[pfunk]

Rocky, I think you missed my point. When I talk about helping navigate the GIA excellent cut grade, I am not talking about the perils of rounding. I am talking about preventing a customer from buying a diamond cut to the edges of GIA excellent or somewhere near to it. The cut score would kill those stones. Everyone here is much more knowledgeable and wants diamonds cut to more precise numbers that result in repeatable, predictable performance. That is great, and is immensely helpful to everyone who stumbles across PS. But for the world of online shoppers who don't find pricescope, the cut score does indeed help you distinguish one GIA excellent from the next with a pretty good degree of confidence. That is why I see it having a real use for a lot of people.

I did not miss your point.

How do you know if it's really cut to the edge of XXX, or if it is just rounding, from the report? Answer is, you don't. You need more info. Saying anything else, which is exactly what this 'cut score' does, is disingenuous.

Let me rephrase then. Any stone that is cut close to the edge of GIA excellent will get banged up pretty badly by the enchanted cut score. There will be no question that it is a stone you should pass on, if it is close enough to the edge of GIA excellent that rounding has any effect whatsoever. Better?

Should we just consider the HCA as completely useless too right away? People plug rounded GIA numbers into there like they are following the 11th commandment here. A score below 2 rules out a large number of known poor performing proportion sets right? The cut score is used the same way by average consumers and IS helpful. Whether you want to agree to that doesn't make any difference to me, but the fact remains that a lot of people are going to like it and for good reason.

It's not a trap. It's not misleading consumers and it is silly to say that. Play with it for awhile and see if you find any diamonds over 95 that are cut to a point they could fall out of GIA excellent after averaging/rounding. Like I said earlier, cut grades set by jewelers like Shane Co ARE traps. They ARE misleading. I just found another stone yesterday (GIA XXX) that scored over 5 on the HCA and 66 on enchanted cut score that received their top grade of "Shane Classic". Until I see a diamond cut to the edges of excellent while scoring highly on the ED cut score, I am not going to say it doesn't have some usefullness to a lot of consumers. Whether it is useful to cut nuts here at PS is a different argument completely different from what I am talking about.

You don't seem to understand that the HCA is a rejection tool. It tells you that you need to get more info, before considering. That's all. That is all the 'cut score' can do, also - tell you that you need more info, however, it is not presented as a clear rejection tool (unlike HCA). That is what is disingenuous.

People like marketing gimmicks - there is no denying it. That is what the 'cut score' is, plain and simple.

Who said it was a trap? It is misleading consumers and it's silly for you not to realize that.

Rocky... I get that the HCA is a rejection tool. What you seem to be missing is that not all consumers come here to PS. Not all consumers use "rejection tools". Assuming a consumer does not use a HCA or an idealscope or an ASET or a Sarin file, does the cut score help them decide which diamonds scoring GIA xxx are MORE LIKELY to perform well? Does it help differentiate between one that is likely to perform well vs one that is unlikely to?

 

[RockyRacoon]

Rocky, I think you missed my point. When I talk about helping navigate the GIA excellent cut grade, I am not talking about the perils of rounding. I am talking about preventing a customer from buying a diamond cut to the edges of GIA excellent or somewhere near to it. The cut score would kill those stones. Everyone here is much more knowledgeable and wants diamonds cut to more precise numbers that result in repeatable, predictable performance. That is great, and is immensely helpful to everyone who stumbles across PS. But for the world of online shoppers who don't find pricescope, the cut score does indeed help you distinguish one GIA excellent from the next with a pretty good degree of confidence. That is why I see it having a real use for a lot of people.

I did not miss your point.

How do you know if it's really cut to the edge of XXX, or if it is just rounding, from the report? Answer is, you don't. You need more info. Saying anything else, which is exactly what this 'cut score' does, is disingenuous.

Let me rephrase then. Any stone that is cut close to the edge of GIA excellent will get banged up pretty badly by the enchanted cut score. There will be no question that it is a stone you should pass on, if it is close enough to the edge of GIA excellent that rounding has any effect whatsoever. Better?

Should we just consider the HCA as completely useless too right away? People plug rounded GIA numbers into there like they are following the 11th commandment here. A score below 2 rules out a large number of known poor performing proportion sets right? The cut score is used the same way by average consumers and IS helpful. Whether you want to agree to that doesn't make any difference to me, but the fact remains that a lot of people are going to like it and for good reason.

It's not a trap. It's not misleading consumers and it is silly to say that. Play with it for awhile and see if you find any diamonds over 95 that are cut to a point they could fall out of GIA excellent after averaging/rounding. Like I said earlier, cut grades set by jewelers like Shane Co ARE traps. They ARE misleading. I just found another stone yesterday (GIA XXX) that scored over 5 on the HCA and 66 on enchanted cut score that received their top grade of "Shane Classic". Until I see a diamond cut to the edges of excellent while scoring highly on the ED cut score, I am not going to say it doesn't have some usefullness to a lot of consumers. Whether it is useful to cut nuts here at PS is a different argument completely different from what I am talking about.

You don't seem to understand that the HCA is a rejection tool. It tells you that you need to get more info, before considering. That's all. That is all the 'cut score' can do, also - tell you that you need more info, however, it is not presented as a clear rejection tool (unlike HCA). That is what is disingenuous.

People like marketing gimmicks - there is no denying it. That is what the 'cut score' is, plain and simple.

Who said it was a trap? It is misleading consumers and it's silly for you not to realize that.

Rocky... I get that the HCA is a rejection tool. What you seem to be missing is that not all consumers come here to PS. Not all consumers use "rejection tools". Assuming a consumer does not use a HCA or an idealscope or an ASET or a Sarin file, does the cut score help them decide which diamonds scoring GIA xxx are MORE LIKELY to perform well? Does it help differentiate between one that is likely to perform well vs one that is unlikely to?

Not definitive, no.

All it tells you is that you need more info. You can't 'just trust our cut score,' which is something that has been said explicitly by this vendor.

It's easy to recognize that this is a vendor has some serious issues that need to be addressed.

 

[pfunk]

So since it is not definitive it is not useful? Since it is not defnitive it is a marketing gimmick? Steering the consumer away from the 56% table, 34/41.8 combo and towards the 56%, 34/41 isn't useful for the less informed consumer? It doesn't up their chances of getting a diamond that performs well, since we can't say with 100% confidence?

 

[Jonathan_Las-Diamond_Expert]

Hi Chihuaha, I'm sorry that you feel that way about your experience with Enchanted Diamonds. We pride ourselves on providing concierge level service and holding our customers hands (if they want it) throughout the entire process.

I have read the chat you had with Joshua, not just the excerpt you chose to share with the community. He gave you open and honest guidance and recommendations, you actually agreed with him and thanked him several times throughout the conversation. I can't share the chat as that would be a clear violation of forum policies.

It's unfortunate that a 53 minute chat was reduced to a ~10 line snippet that was presented void of any context, or the other side of the conversation prompting those responses.

Joshua's personal opinion is to not place much weight in IdealScope images. That's his preference, nothing more. Many other PS contributors have made similar statements of preference in the past.

Gary Holloway, an unquestionable authority and expert in the field made a similar, but seemingly more bold statement not too long ago about ASET images. You can find that post here https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/do-not-request-aset-images-for-round-diamonds.153890/

Opinions are just that, opinions. We all have them.

I'm sorry you had a negative experience, but like many other businesses, sports teams, athletes, teachers, electricians, etc., and just life in general, it's impossible to be perfect or at your best 100% of the time. We aim to deliver the highest quality service and experience as consistently as possible. Sometimes we fall short. Like you, we're only human

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Hi Chihuaha, I'm sorry that you feel that way about your experience with Enchanted Diamonds. We pride ourselves on providing concierge level service and holding our customers hands (if they want it) throughout the entire process.

I have read the chat you had with Joshua, not just the excerpt you chose to share with the community. He gave you open and honest guidance and recommendations, you actually agreed with him and thanked him several times throughout the conversation. I can't share the chat as that would be a clear violation of forum policies.

It's unfortunate that a 53 minute chat was reduced to a ~10 line snippet that was presented void of any context, or the other side of the conversation prompting those responses.

Joshua's personal opinion is to not place much weight in IdealScope images. That's his preference, nothing more. Many other PS contributors have made similar statements of preference in the past.

Gary Holloway, an unquestionable authority and expert in the field made a similar, but seemingly more bold statement not too long ago about ASET images. You can find that post here https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/do-not-request-aset-images-for-round-diamonds.153890/

Opinions are just that, opinions. We all have them.

I'm sorry you had a negative experience, but like many other businesses, sports teams, athletes, teachers, electricians, etc., and just life in general, it's impossible to be perfect or at your best 100% of the time. We aim to deliver the highest quality service and experience as consistently as possible. Sometimes we fall short. Like you, we're only human

I fail to see the relevance of my suggesting that an Ideal-scope image covers round diamonds and ASET is not necessary for round diamonds (but is very useful for fancy shapes) to this discussion. Infact I think it is obfuscation and do not appreciate your use of it to support any argument.

 

[toldani]

Hi, just chiming in here because I'm the programmer who wrote the cut score code. I'm glad to see that people are finding us from my Reddit AMA!

As far as the cut score algorithm, we originally developed it for internal use, not as a gimmick or anything. When the code for the cut score first went live, it wasn't visible to the public. Our salespeople used it as a way to quickly sort through thousands of diamonds to find the ones that had the proportions that they were looking for. It was never meant to be the definitive metric of cut, it was just meant to make it so that better-cut diamonds would be at the top of the search results. If we'd intended to use it as a gimmick, we would have given it a name that could be trademarked, like "Enchanted SparkleScore" or something silly like that. It ended up being useful enough that customers would contact our salespeople just to get them to find diamonds for them by cut score, or ask what the cut score of a particular diamond was. So we decided to just make it public so our customers could use it too. We hastily wrote up a description and posted it on our site, so newcomers would have some idea of what we were talking about, but it probably could have been better-written.

As far as whether it takes color or clarity into account, it doesn't, except for sorting purposes. So two diamonds that are identical except for color or clarity will still show as having the same cut score, but the better one will be sorted higher. It sometimes gets thrown off by diamonds that have fancy cuts that the algorithm hasn't seen before, but even if it isn't perfect, it's generally accurate enough to be useful.

Overall, I'd say it's about as accurate as an IQ test, and at least on these forums, apparently about as controversial as well.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Hi, just chiming in here because I'm the programmer who wrote the cut score code. I'm glad to see that people are finding us from my Reddit AMA!

As far as the cut score algorithm, we originally developed it for internal use, not as a gimmick or anything. When the code for the cut score first went live, it wasn't visible to the public. Our salespeople used it as a way to quickly sort through thousands of diamonds to find the ones that had the proportions that they were looking for. It was never meant to be the definitive metric of cut, it was just meant to make it so that better-cut diamonds would be at the top of the search results. If we'd intended to use it as a gimmick, we would have given it a name that could be trademarked, like "Enchanted SparkleScore" or something silly like that. It ended up being useful enough that customers would contact our salespeople just to get them to find diamonds for them by cut score, or ask what the cut score of a particular diamond was. So we decided to just make it public so our customers could use it too. We hastily wrote up a description and posted it on our site, so newcomers would have some idea of what we were talking about, but it probably could have been better-written.

As far as whether it takes color or clarity into account, it doesn't, except for sorting purposes. So two diamonds that are identical except for color or clarity will still show as having the same cut score, but the better one will be sorted higher. It sometimes gets thrown off by diamonds that have fancy cuts that the algorithm hasn't seen before, but even if it isn't perfect, it's generally accurate enough to be useful.

Overall, I'd say it's about as accurate as an IQ test, and at least on these forums, apparently about as controversial as well.

It's pretty hard to take any score that gives any stone 100, because presumably there is no possibility for a 101 or greater. Along comes a new cut in a certain shape that blows the best previously seen out of the water and the system is invalidated.
But I really don't want to give this system any more time or attention.

 

[toldani]

It's pretty hard to take any score that gives any stone 100, because presumably there is no possibility for a 101 or greater. Along comes a new cut in a certain shape that blows the best previously seen out of the water and the system is invalidated.
But I really don't want to give this system any more time or attention.

Right... there is no possibility for a score over 100 because it's calculated as a percent. A cut score of 100 essentially means "this diamond has 100% of the desirable cut features that can be automatically checked for using certificate data". As far as I know, you can't graduate from college with a GPA of more than 4.0, but most people still take that pretty seriously.

If a new diamond cut became popular, I suppose I'd have to write more code to accommodate it. And to be fair, I'm already doing this, given the flavor-of-the-week nature of cushion cuts.

 

[Sphene]

WOW testosterone in the diamond world - I as an inexperienced person can not make head nor tail of the cut score system.

One diamond had a score of 56 and looked amazing another was a score of 98 and looked disgusting

Why don't you drop the scoring system it seems your using it to push poor quality diamonds