60/60 diamond

[Jean1977]

This site will be the death of me lol. I just learned my diamond is a 60/60 diamond. Pardon my ignorance, is that bad?

 

[MK Malone]

I love my 60/60 diamond (profile pic). It is so pretty to me. Do you like your diamond?

 

[AllAboardTheBlingTrain]

Personally, I prefer a well-cut 60-60 diamond over literally any other flavour of diamond. If your stone scores 1.4 on the HCA, it seems likely that it will have angles that work together. 60-60 diamonds are shallower and spreadier than the average which gives you a nice visual boost.

Do you like the look of your diamond? If you do, and you’re happy with it, don’t get psyched out by what you read! The small-table look is more popular around these parts but it doesn’t mean that a diamond that doesn’t conform to those specifications is bad. It’s only a problem if your diamond is dull or dead.

 

[Jean1977]

I love my diamond. It looks lovely to me! I guess that is all that matters. TY

 

[mwilliamanderson]

Stop reading and slowly back away from Pricescope before it’s too late. If you stay and keep reading and looking at other diamonds you will realize you could have made a better choice and start planning your upgrade. And it will have to be a “super ideal”. I know, it happened to me.

Seriously, you have traded some fire for some brightness. No big deal.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I must claim some responsibility.
Years ago, when ps was new, I was the only trade member posting who loved 60/60’s.
I was trained to grade diamonds by Harry Winston inc. in the 70’s. Those proportions were thought to be the most beautiful when all the other angles and girdle were done right.
One carat diamonds routinely measured 6.5mm. Have a look at the average spread of we’ll cut one carat round diamonds.

In the 2000’s when the internet and PS first started to really gain steam the proponents of small tabled, deeper diamonds were far more numerous. After all, back then very few in the diamond trade paid much attention to the new fangled internet thingy.
So it was me against Garry and a bunch of others.
Today Garry and I see eye to eye.
But when the real disagreements got hot back then I probably made it worse by being a hothead. So now all these years later people reading this forum get the TOTALLY INCORRECT idea that there’s something inherently wrong with a 60/60.

I still prefer the look of a 60/60 to a super ideal. And I’m intimately familiar with both.
So do many observers who’ve not read PS.
Enjoy your gorgeous diamond!!

 

[elizat]

If you love your stone, leave it be. I am not a modern round gal, but of the ones I see, I seem to prefer a well cut 60/60 in photos and videos. There is absolutely nothing wrong with your diamond, because it is not a super ideal or not an ACA, CBI, Brian Gavin, etc. It's a different flavor and if you are pleased, that's what matters.

My favorite stone is probably my 3.09 o/p omc, followed by my 2.06 L antique pear and 2.34 m antique cushion. Most folks here probably would not want those, and would want a high color super ideal, but it's my finger! Just as it is yours. Wear what you like- even if it's not the most popular choice.

 

[Jean1977]

Stop reading and slowly back away from Pricescope before it’s too late. If you stay and keep reading and looking at other diamonds you will realize you could have made a better choice and start planning your upgrade. And it will have to be a “super ideal”. I know, it happened to me.

Seriously, you have traded some fire for some brightness. No big deal.

Ha ha. Very wise! Thank you

 

[Dancing Fire]

There is nothing wrong with a well cut 60/60 stone. The ones I'd run away from are the flat top ones. I had a flat top 60/60 recut into ideal specs.

 

[Rockdiamond]

There is nothing wrong with a well cut 60/60 stone. The ones I'd run away from are the flat top ones. I had a flat top 60/60 recut into ideal specs.

Ah yes.....DF who LIVES to open a can of worms
DF, if I’m not mistaken the diamond you had recut had no GIA report- so we really don’t know anything about it.
For those who weren’t here years ago: DF tried to batter me with his “horrible flat top 60/60” for years. But we never actually found out the specifics on that stone.
In general : recutting a flat top stone into a super ideal will net you a HUGE weight loss. It might take a 1.00ct down to a .60 super ideal. If that.
Make no mistake- I very much ch appreciate and like DF.......but he’s full of doo doo when he brings up ‘ol flat top”

 

[Dancing Fire]

Ah yes.....DF who LIVES to open a can of worms
DF, if I’m not mistaken the diamond you had recut had no GIA report- so we really don’t know anything about it.
For those who weren’t here years ago: DF tried to batter me with his “horrible flat top 60/60” for years. But we never actually found out the specifics on that stone.
In general : recutting a flat top stone into a super ideal will net you a HUGE weight loss. It might take a 1.00ct down to a .60 super ideal. If that.
Make no mistake- I very much ch appreciate and like DF.......but he’s full of doo doo when he brings up ‘ol flat top”

True,but I can tell it was a flat top b/c the crown was so low. After the stone was recut it went to AGS lab which they graded it I VS2. It went from a 1.47 ct 60/60 to a 1.15ct. This was 16 yrs ago??

 

[Rockdiamond]

True,but I can tell it was a flat top b/c the crown was so low.

So tell us- specifically- what was the crown and pavilion angles?
I’m just busting your balls old buddy
I know you have no idea what the stone measured before the recut. It’s just nice to finally have you admit it.

 

[MMtwo]

I love my diamond. It looks lovely to me! I guess that is all that matters. TY

Don't get sucked into not loving a pretty diamond because of a score. There are all kinds of pretty!

 

[Dancing Fire]

So tell us- specifically- what was the crown and pavilion angles?
I’m just busting your balls old buddy
I know you have no idea what the stone measured before the recut. It’s just nice to finally have you admit it.

No I don't. I was told by the dealer it is a 60/60 stone. When I held the ring up close to my eye I can see that there was no crown height. The top was flat.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I was told by the dealer

And we all know how trustworthy them diamond dealers are ....lol!
Seriously it really sounds like the guy was either pulling your leg or didn’t know his stuff. While I have no doubt you had a flat stone, that is in no way indicative of any well cut 60/60. And in my experience back then, off made or flat top stones were always off in terms of table and depth. For example: if the stone had a flat top it’s highly unlikely to have had a 60% depth or table. Were you blindfolded when you bought that piece of flatness......hahahaha -

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

And we all know how trustworthy them diamond dealers are ....lol!
Seriously it really sounds like the guy was either pulling your leg or didn’t know his stuff. While I have no doubt you had a flat stone, that is in no way indicative of any well cut 60/60. And in my experience back then, off made or flat top stones were always off in terms of table and depth. For example: if the stone had a flat top it’s highly unlikely to have had a 60% depth or table. Were you blindfolded when you bought that piece of flatness......hahahaha -

Sounds like a standard bad 60:60 that you said didnt exist David. Like in my original tutorial that you begged to go away.

Diamond Cut: 60/60

Some older members of the diamond industry share a strange fallacy that if a diamond has proportions of 60% depth and 60% table, then it will be beautiful. It’s a […]

www.pricescope.com

 

[kb1gra]

Ah, this old chestnut again.

60/60 stones are absolutely fine. There's a whole range of angles that would make AGS0 so long as they suit each other. You might have traded some pinpoint fire for some white, and got a spreadier stone in return.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Sounds like a standard bad 60:60 that you said didnt exist David. Like in my original tutorial that you begged to go away.

Diamond Cut: 60/60

Some older members of the diamond industry share a strange fallacy that if a diamond has proportions of 60% depth and 60% table, then it will be beautiful. It’s a […]

www.pricescope.com

Yup, my 60/60 stone look like your bottom tutorial stone = flat top!

 

[Rockdiamond]

Sounds like a standard bad 60:60 that you said didnt exist David. Like in my original tutorial that you begged to go away.

Diamond Cut: 60/60

Some older members of the diamond industry share a strange fallacy that if a diamond has proportions of 60% depth and 60% table, then it will be beautiful. It’s a […]

www.pricescope.com

Ah- just like old times. From the late ‘70’s till the ‘90’s I worked with the largest loose diamond houses in the world. I saw plenty of “ off made” diamonds. They were far more common back then. There were large parcels of horribly made Indian diamonds. Back then, if a diamond was from India you could assume bad make (cut). I did carry plenty back then as the Indian goods of the day were much cheaper than better made Belgian goods. Some stores used to eat them up.
In general they were “lumpy”. Deep.
It’s likely I saw stones that looked like the exaggerated example you whipped up. But in general- if an off made stone was “spready” or flat, it was flat- less than 60% depth.
In general- when cutters back then ( before computers remember) were aiming for 60/60, it implied that they were aiming for well cut diamonds. There were virtually no 60/60’s coming out of India.

Also- back then no one spoke of CA/PA. We were trained to recognize make by eye. No one sent bad makes to labs back then. So if you saw a badly made diamond, it didn’t have a GIA. You could measure the stone to calculate the depth percentage- but precise table measurements require more technical method to measure accurately.
If someone had a monstrosity looking like your “bad” 60/60, it would have never been to a lab, so no precise table measurements weren’t possible.
C’mon Garry, admit it after all these years. You were just trying to get my goat with that graphic

 

[prs]

Ah- just like old times. From the late ‘70’s till the ‘90’s I worked with the largest loose diamond houses in the world. I saw plenty of “ off made” diamonds. They were far more common back then. There were large parcels of horribly made Indian diamonds. Back then, if a diamond was from India you could assume bad make (cut). I did carry plenty back then as the Indian goods of the day were much cheaper than better made Belgian goods. Some stores used to eat them up.
In general they were “lumpy”. Deep.
It’s likely I saw stones that looked like the exaggerated example you whipped up. But in general- if an off made stone was “spready” or flat, it was flat- less than 60% depth.
In general- when cutters back then ( before computers remember) were aiming for 60/60, it implied that they were aiming for well cut diamonds. There were virtually no 60/60’s coming out of India.

Also- back then no one spoke of CA/PA. We were trained to recognize make by eye. No one sent bad makes to labs back then. So if you saw a badly made diamond, it didn’t have a GIA. You could measure the stone to calculate the depth percentage- but precise table measurements require more technical method to measure accurately.
If someone had a monstrosity looking like your “bad” 60/60, it would have never been to a lab, so no precise table measurements weren’t possible.
C’mon Garry, admit it after all these years. You were just trying to get my goat with that graphic

@Rockdiamond I once asked you to give me the CA/PA combinations of the great 60/60 diamonds of your early career. I seem to remember you replied that didn't know them because back then you graded diamonds by eye, and nobody knew what those angles were anyway. I have to assume you would only have bought the great looking 60/60 diamonds, and wouldn't know if there were any poor 60/60s because you would have immediately rejected them on sight.

 

[Jean1977]

I am sorry I opened this can of worms! I didn’t realize it was such a hot topic.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Peter,
Thanks for the question!
I wasn’t a buyer back then. I started as a grader and worked my way up to becoming a loose diamond salesman. So it wasn’t up to me what was purchased.
There’s a lot made of specific ca/pa here. I’m sure that to those who are interested, it’s relevant. And it’s science based.
It always seemed to me that if you need a specific measuring device to pick the best made Diamond then we’re missing something. Look at enough stones - badly made and well cut, and you can develop an eye.
This is all irrelevant nowadays- they’re cutting diamonds routinely far deeper nowadays- but with far greater consistency. You just don’t see off made RBC’s unless they’re old.

I am sorry I opened this can of worms! 8 didn’t realize it was such a hot topic.

Jean- speaking for myself, thank you!
This discussion is infinitely more interesting and fun than most discussions nowadays.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Hi Peter,
I wasn’t a buyer back then. I started as a grader and worked my way up to becoming a loose diamond salesman. So it wasn’t up to me what was purchased. There’s a lot made of specific ca/pa here. I’m sure that to those who are interested, it’s relevant. And it’s science based.
It always seemed to me that if you need a specific measuring device to pick the best made Diamond then we’re missing something. Look at enough stones - badly made and well cut, and you can develop an eye.
This is all irrelevant nowadays- they’re cutting diamonds routinely far deeper nowadays- but with far greater consistency. You just don’t see off made RBC’s unless they’re old.



Jean- speaking for myself, thank you!
This discussion is infinitely more interesting and fun than most discussions nowadays.

Guess how I got my Cut Nut handle David?