60/60 round brilliant?

[Scud]

I posted about this a few days ago but looking for other thoughts as well.

This weekend I am going to look at a few diamonds at Tiffany and my 2 leading contenders based on size I want and specs are this 60/60 stone and another with more "ideal" ratios. They both are under 2 on HCA and I know I will have to see them in person but based on the specs, would you lean towards one over the other assuming they both look as good as each other in person?

Diamond 1:

This is a 1.13 IVS2
Diamond dimensions are 6.73 X 6.75 X 4.06 Table 60.2%, depth 60%, crown height 13.6%, crown angle 33.9, Pavilion 43%

Diamond 2:
1.10 IVS2
6.60 X 6.63 X 4.07
D 61.5%, T 57%, CH 15.1%, CA 34.8, P 40.7

Thanks!

 

[yssie]

Numbers on both are fine one type of stone isn't objectively better than the other, they're just different.

Just be sure to compare them both in various types of lights - direct sunlight by a window, diffuse office lights, spotlights... see if you see any differences in the way they sparkle in those different types of lights, and let your eyes pick which one they prefer - seeing and choosing in-person really is the best way to buy!

 

[mastercut]

Both seem to be very nice. What s the price? If it the same I would probably take the "60/60"

 

[Scud]

They are within a couple hundred $$ so basically the same.

A few people in the old thread said they did not like the 60/60 cut as much because they don't like 60/60 cuts.

 

[yssie]

They are within a couple hundred $$ so basically the same.

A few people in the old thread said they did not like the 60/60 cut as much because they don't like 60/60 cuts.

Well, I don't like any type with long lgfs. Doesn't make either party right or wrong... you have a fantastic opportunity to find out what YOU like, take advantage of it!

 

[mastercut]

They are within a couple hundred $$ so basically the same.

A few people in the old thread said they did not like the 60/60 cut as much because they don't like 60/60 cuts.

Well, I don't like any type with long lgfs. Doesn't make either party right or wrong... you have a fantastic opportunity to find out what YOU like, take advantage of it!

I LOVE well proportioned 60/60 Great spread and (in many cases) a perfectly square table. The ideal cuts in the USSR were just like this

 

[Scud]

They are within a couple hundred $$ so basically the same.

A few people in the old thread said they did not like the 60/60 cut as much because they don't like 60/60 cuts.

Well, I don't like any type with long lgfs. Doesn't make either party right or wrong... you have a fantastic opportunity to find out what YOU like, take advantage of it!

I LOVE well proportioned 60/60 Great spread and (in many cases) a perfectly square table. The ideal cuts in the USSR were just like this

And you would consider this 60/60 well proporioned I assume. That is good news!

 

[mastercut]

Yes, this is a very nice stone. What is the symmetry/polish (finish) grading by the way - excellent or very good?

 

[Scud]

I'll find out.

 

[John P]

Without more information there is no way people online can make meaningful conclusions about this specific comparison, other than taste. You've provided good data on spread, table, depth, crown and pavilion averages but this is only a handful of data points on a computer monitor, some of which represent 8 different measurements. We can make generalizations, which we have...the angle combinations on both specimens are promising and would meet or approach top cut-benchmarks in modern laboratory systems.

But with no information on the 40 minor-facets (more than half of the facets on the diamond), brillianteering details, levels of cut-consistency or cut-precision our conclusions will be general at best; not specific. T&Co is well-regarded and we can expect for these things to be in-order, but the precise specifics will influence observable performance. In particular, the lower-halves are quite influential, especially in 60/60 makes. Without knowing more specifics your online friends here can predict what "we" presume "we" might favor, based on our own experiences ~ but not as it relates to this specific comparison.

What we can do is give you comparison advice. I suggest you observe them side-by-side in temporary mountings through multiple lighting environments... T&Co makes excellent use of lighting. Many of their stores have bright floors, walls and ceilings illuminated by recessed diffused lighting. There will also be direct-spotlighting from above, often from two different heights. Paneling or displays framed in dark wood on the walls will provide contrast. It is a wonderful environment in which to observe diamonds and jewelry - not "overblown" with spotlighting like some chain-stores, while still being very optimum for diamond and gemstone performance.

Start over the counter. Compare them from arm's length. Hold them still. Then move them slowly side to side. Then move them rapidly. Look for overall brightness (white and colored light), see which has more white sparkle (or glare), which has more colored sparkle, which seems more vivid (brighter brights & darker contrast), which has more rapid/small sparkle, which has more broad/large sparkle. Repeat the comparison from half arm's length. Then from 6-8" away. Then move them from arm's length slowly to close up. Does one get darker as it comes closer? Do they both remain as-bright? Do they both remain as vivid in brightness and contrast? If you're inclined to take notes by all means do, since these comparisons should be made in a few different lighting conditions.

Next, see if there is an area of natural daylight available. You will not be allowed to go outside the store at T&Co. If they have a window looking outside take the diamonds near that window to see how the diamonds look in natural light. Go through the same comparative exercises with the diamonds illuminated by natural, completely non-T&Co lighting. If it's a cloudy day you can expect to see far less fire. If it's a sunny day the diamonds may actually look somewhat dark inside but the colored flashes should be electric.

By this time your sales representative will realize you're going through your due diligence. Ask him or her if they have an area with fluorescent lighting only - a diamond grading area - or just go into his/her office. This should be a place with diffused fluorescent lighting only. Much like a cloudy day, you will see less fire here. Go through all of the same comparisons.

Finally, find a place with very little light. If you've made it into the rep's office this may be as easy as comparing them under his/her desk where all is in shadow. Or, understanding that the floors are somewhat illuminated, you can do this in the showroom under the display case. But I prefer nearly no direct light at all. In a pinch you can cup one hand over the other that is holding the diamond and see how it appears when gathering only the most limited light. A very important test in this condition is to see if either diamond "gets smaller" than the other, or if they both retain their side-to-side size appearance. A diamond that seems to "get smaller" may not be returning light from edge-to-edge as the finest cut diamonds will.

In my opinion the last two tests (fluorescent light and no-direct-light) are the most telling when it comes to determining nuances of fire, scintillation and overall appeal-potential through the broadest range of conditions.

These comparisons are important to me because diamonds look great under spotlighting such as we find in diamond showrooms, but we don't live our lives in such places - unless you make your home in a Costco or one of those cool elevators with recessed spotlights. Run them through the paces! This is your "test-drive" and you're spending as much as you might on a car somewhere, so you are entitled to do-so. More importantly, this may be a for-life purchase. Do not base your expectations for a lifetime of performance in infinite conditions on a few moments in a single showroom. This is especially important for people shopping in stores which go "over-the-top" in their spotlighting. T&CO does it "the right way" to begin with in my opinion.

Most importantly, as you're making these multiple comparisons: Does one of the diamonds "speak" to you more than the other? If so, why? Be specific if you can. Also think about the ring's intended wearer and if this is something that will be applicable to that person (many times it is).

Take your time and enjoy the process. Having a concrete rubric can also help you feel at-ease with your final selection.

I know my own preferences, and those of people close to me, and have observed hundreds of consumers as I've taken them through these paces. There are definite tendencies but it is very clear that not every person is the same. That's why - at this point - it's all about you and your personal observations. I'm excited for you, and hope you'll return to share your final conclusions.

 

[Scud]

What a great post. Most helpful John. Thank you for all the info. I would have not known to do all these different little tests but they all make total sense. I will for sure report my findings and my final selection. Thanks again.

 

[ame]

I still stand by my choice! Only you will know when you see them IN PERSON

 

[Scud]

Yes, this is a very nice stone. What is the symmetry/polish (finish) grading by the way - excellent or very good?

Excellent Brilliant, Very good symmetry, Excellent polish

 

[Scud]

Yes, this is a very nice stone. What is the symmetry/polish (finish) grading by the way - excellent or very good?

Excellent Brilliant, Very good symmetry, Excellent polish

That is for the 60/60 diamond.

The other one is 3 excellents.

Does the fact one has excellent symmetry and one very good factor into the decision at all? What is the difference in very good to excellent symmetry?

 

[yssie]

What is the difference in very good to excellent symmetry?

Detail here: http://www.gia.edu/diamondcut/pdf/polish_and_symmetry.pdf

 

[John P]

What a great post. Most helpful John. Thank you for all the info. I would have not known to do all these different little tests but they all make total sense. I will for sure report my findings and my final selection. Thanks again.

You're welcome. It's my pleasure, and nice to assist someone who is obviously detail-oriented.

Does the fact one has excellent symmetry and one very good factor into the decision at all? What is the difference in very good to excellent symmetry?

No. In observable terms there's no visible difference between Ideal/EX/VG polish and symmetry. In their studies the GIA found naked-eye experts who could sometimes pick out G symmetry from VG, but any differences were attributable to physical craftsmanship, not perceptual beauty. I'd also add that T&Co's finish grading is considered stricter by many than GIA's.

As I said above, the ball is in your court now.

 

[chicam]

Sorry OP, this is not to thread jack.
Question is for John P. John, what is your personal preference when it comes to diamonds with longer LGF? Yssie has indicated she does not care for them. Do you? I value your response please. I have never seen one in person. I have a 75% one right now, and I'm about to trade it for one with 83.8%. I am buying sight unseen. Of course I can always return it but was just wondering, if you have seen one, if perfectly cut, will the fire etc still be optimal at around 83.8%?

 

[yssie]

Sorry OP, this is not to thread jack.
Question is for John P. John, what is your personal preference when it comes to diamonds with longer LGF? Yssie has indicated she does not care for them. Do you? I value your response please. I have never seen one in person. I have a 75% one right now, and I'm about to trade it for one with 83.8%. I am buying sight unseen. Of course I can always return it but was just wondering, if you have seen one, if perfectly cut, will the fire etc still be optimal at around 83.8%?

What size stone?
I am obviously not John P.

 

[John P]

Sorry OP, this is not to thread jack.
Question is for John P. John, what is your personal preference when it comes to diamonds with longer LGF? Yssie has indicated she does not care for them. Do you? I value your response please. I have never seen one in person. I have a 75% one right now, and I'm about to trade it for one with 83.8%. I am buying sight unseen. Of course I can always return it but was just wondering, if you have seen one, if perfectly cut, will the fire etc still be optimal at around 83.8%?

Hi Chicam,

You probably knew this was coming, but I can't say decisively without the surrounding information. You say "perfectly cut" but that could mean a number of things... In common sizes robust crown/pavilion angles and top light return are prerequisites for any RB configuration for me; whether Tolkowsky, 60/60, antique-transitional or other. Once you have great light return the lower halves and their relationship with the table facet ‘fine-tune’ the specifics and character of the diamond’s performance.

83.8% is considered extremely long for lower halves. In fact GIA's EX cutoff for any configuration is 85%. There are 60/60 and shallow makes with lower crown heights which can look spectacular with lower halves this long in bright lights but a deeper diamond or ones with smaller tables could suffer in many conditions.

Here's why: In technical terms longer lower halves mean thinner pavilion mains; what you see in diamond photos as ‘arrows.' The mains are the primary engines driving light return, so when all else is equal short lower halves (wider pavilion mains) tend to help performance in indirect/soft lighting conditions - and longer lower halves (thinner pavilion mains) tend to intensify performance in direct/spotlighted conditions. The middle range balances those qualities. As it relates to scintillation, large colored flashes generally become more visible as lower halves gets shorter. Meanwhile intense needle-like flashes generally become more visible as they get longer. Of course the specifics depend on the overall configuration but you can see why diamonds cut for a large balance of fire in performance (small-medium tables, higher crowns and large virtual facets) benefit from shorter lower halves which produce pavilion mains that are not too thin.

You can 'guesstimate' lower half % by viewing still diamond photos with obstruction - where the arrows are dark - like we commonly see here on Pricescope. The simulations below are near-Tolkowsky configurations. See how the 'arrows' get fatter with short lower halves - and skinner with longer.



In summary, it’s a big world with many different makes. 83.8% is pretty long, and since you asked my personal preference, a bit outside the range I'd select for myself or as a gift for everyday wear - regardless of make. With that said, a 60/60 with 41.2/33.0 and 83-84% lowers could be a constant firecracker for someone who spends a lot of time in a brightly lit spotlighted environment.

 

[Laila619]

Sorry OP, this is not to thread jack.
Question is for John P. John, what is your personal preference when it comes to diamonds with longer LGF? Yssie has indicated she does not care for them. Do you? I value your response please. I have never seen one in person. I have a 75% one right now, and I'm about to trade it for one with 83.8%. I am buying sight unseen. Of course I can always return it but was just wondering, if you have seen one, if perfectly cut, will the fire etc still be optimal at around 83.8%?

I love longer LGF! It's all really personal preference based on what sort of light display you like.

Sometimes, a slightly steep deep stone can even be 'saved' if the LGF are longer.

 

[yssie]

Sorry OP, this is not to thread jack.
Question is for John P. John, what is your personal preference when it comes to diamonds with longer LGF? Yssie has indicated she does not care for them. Do you? I value your response please. I have never seen one in person. I have a 75% one right now, and I'm about to trade it for one with 83.8%. I am buying sight unseen. Of course I can always return it but was just wondering, if you have seen one, if perfectly cut, will the fire etc still be optimal at around 83.8%?

I love longer LGF! It's all really personal preference based on what sort of light display you like.

Haha yup, clearly

Sometimes, a slightly steep deep stone can even be 'saved' if the LGF are longer.

Not without sacrificing elsewhere - if you're going to decrease the angle difference between adjacent facets coloured light return is at the top of that list, and that wouldn't be a sacrifice I'd ever want to make - I love the colour! Better IMO to leave it slightly leaky and see more colour, even if it is at the expense of not having proximal - overpowering - bright white! But I suspect I am in the PS minority on that

 

[Rockdiamond]

Very interesting posts John!
With regards to performance and longer mains: Would it not also be possible that in a lower light environment the greater number of reflections created by the thinner main pavilion facets create more performance? More virtual mirrors to reflect ambient light

My personal favorite is brilliance above patterning- and my experience is that in a well proportioned 60/60, a longer lower half gives a more consistent sparkle, in any lighting.
I've also observed two stones of the same dimensions- where a 60/60 with longish LGF ( about 82) looks larger than a stone of identical diameter, 57table, shorter LGF

Scud- here on PS there's many discussions where terms have been used- such as "brilliance" "scintillation" and "fire"
At the end of the day, words are inadequate to describe what each of us perceives- but you will notice a difference.

Another aspect of PS is an "Anti 60-60" agenda. Far less prevalent today, but remnants still exist- here
Pre 2006, when GIA came out with the cut grade- AGSL was the only reputable cut grade game in town- there was a clear preference for "ideal" cut- in fact, 60/60 was left out of the best cut grade by AGSL.
Many will point to other factors ( meaning AGSL was not "reacting" to GIA), however what is undeniably true today, is that AGSL changed their cut grade to include 60/60, and that 60/60 was included on the very first GIA cut grade for rounds.

 

[John P]

Very interesting posts John!
With regards to performance and longer mains: Would it not also be possible that in a lower light environment the greater number of reflections created by the thinner main pavilion facets create more performance? More virtual mirrors to reflect ambient light

Yes and no. When the size of internal/virtual facets is reduced they do become more plentiful and create more "sizzle" in bright lights. However that performance is made-up of smaller flashes overall. Look to the Leo cut and others with added-facets as examples which have smaller VFs and a lot of needle-like flashes. When not optimized precisely these cuts can suffer away from jewelry store lighting.

For the traditional round brilliant more/smaller virtual facets can result in less visible fire because the VFs are then not large enough to produce a dispersive fan which your eye's pupil will clip and see as color before it recombines (and perceives as white light). It can also result in less visible flashes overall, depending on cut-precision, since there is a size-threshold for human detection in the first place.

In larger stones (5+ carats) your theory is sound and some cut-designers using modern technology are leaning that way.

Another aspect of PS is an "Anti 60-60" agenda. Far less prevalent today, but remnants still exist- here

Many people have no problem with 60/60s. I'm one of them... But with a much smaller "bullseye" of precise proportions required to result in mutually acknowledged top-performance - and with so many examples of below-average 60/60s "out there" - it's logical that only occasional candidates will pass muster among the cut-pedantic Pricescope crowd.

And, for the record, when a nice one comes up - like the one in this thread - there seems not to be too much "Anti" happening. I hope that puts a warm feeling in your 60/60 tummy.

 

[Laila619]

Very interesting posts John!
With regards to performance and longer mains: Would it not also be possible that in a lower light environment the greater number of reflections created by the thinner main pavilion facets create more performance? More virtual mirrors to reflect ambient light

Yes and no. When the size of internal/virtual facets is reduced they do become more plentiful and create more "sizzle" in bright lights. However that performance is made-up of smaller flashes overall. Look to the Leo cut and others with added-facets as examples which have smaller VFs and a lot of needle-like flashes. When not optimized precisely these cuts can suffer away from jewelry store lighting.

John, my Leo cut has 89% LGF! Crazy, huh?! I think that's even too long for me!

 

[John P]

John, my Leo cut has 89% LGF! Crazy, huh?! I think that's even too long for me!

No worries, it's by design The avg PA on Leos I've checked out has run from 41.0 up to 41.6 degrees, with depths that are greater than a traditional RB. With such parameters the lower half angle being 89% has somewhat less implications... Still it's definitely a choice at the long-side to max-out that active sizzle which Leo is known for.

I don't yet have a Leo but it's on my get-list for one day. It's certainly the most well-sustained modified round that exists. They allow a pretty wide tolerance which is logical for such a large brand - but that makes some decidedly worse than others. With that said, the examples I've seen at trade gatherings (hand-selected by the promoters) are sometimes slamming, especially under bright lights.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Very interesting posts John!
With regards to performance and longer mains: Would it not also be possible that in a lower light environment the greater number of reflections created by the thinner main pavilion facets create more performance? More virtual mirrors to reflect ambient light

Yes and no. When the size of internal/virtual facets is reduced they do become more plentiful and create more "sizzle" in bright lights. However that performance is made-up of smaller flashes overall. Look to the Leo cut and others with added-facets as examples which have smaller VFs and a lot of needle-like flashes. When not optimized precisely these cuts can suffer away from jewelry store lighting.



For the traditional round brilliant more/smaller virtual facets can result in less visible fire because the VFs are then not large enough to produce a dispersive fan which your eye's pupil will clip and see as color before it recombines (and perceives as white light). It can also result in less visible flashes overall, depending on cut-precision, since there is a size-threshold for human detection in the first place.

In larger stones (5+ carats) your theory is sound and some cut-designers using modern technology are leaning that way.

Interesting John- my experience is that well cut stones with smaller virtual facets do very well in low lighting, even in stones under 1.00ct.....

Another aspect of PS is an "Anti 60-60" agenda. Far less prevalent today, but remnants still exist- here

Many people have no problem with 60/60s. I'm one of them... But with a much smaller "bullseye" of precise proportions required to result in mutually acknowledged top-performance - and with so many examples of below-average 60/60s "out there" - it's logical that only occasional candidates will pass muster among the cut-pedantic Pricescope crowd.

And, for the record, when a nice one comes up - like the one in this thread - there seems not to be too much "Anti" happening. I hope that puts a warm feeling in your 60/60 tummy.

John, from my perspective, the italicized portion of your post only continues the "anti 60-60" sentiment which is wrongly put forth here.
Where are all these sub par 60/60's you speak of?
Truth is, I have a hard time finding stones with these proportions today as cutters try to imitate "ideal" cuts.
If I look at 10 triple EX GIA graded stones, it's likely no more than 1 or two have 60% tables.
Then we have the fact that less CA/PA angles qualify for EX or 0 cut grades in stones cut to 60/60.
Interesting, and likely influencing how many EX cut grade 60/60's I see, but I know you'll agree, percentages of stones that are "this" or "that" are in no way relevant to any given discussion about a given stone.

How about the "cheat sheet" regularly posted to "assist" shoppers?
It clearly says, 53-57% table.

And of course, the lovely article showing how ugly a 60/60 might be if someone who had no idea what a diamond looks like cutting them. Why not show how ugly a 57/62 might be cut, if we wanted to?

So, from the perspective of one who would prefer a more even handed approach to assisting consumers, I still see a problem. Although I do disagree with a few statements made in this thread, I know we share the same goal John.

 

[John P]

Interesting John- my experience is that well cut stones with smaller virtual facets do very well in low lighting, even in stones under 1.00ct.....

The conventional wisdom is that larger VFs help visibility in low-light conditions. This is the reason antique rounds, which were fashioned under the gas lamp, were cut with extremely wide pavilion mains; their lower halves were around 40% until Morse lengthened them to 60% around the turn of the 20th century. You probably know that, almost a century later, Eightstar created a formula within the modern RB combining short lower halves by today's standards (73-77%), painted upper-halves - basically serving to "couple" every two facets into one all the way around the crown - and top cut-precision to maximize the size of the resultant VFs. While their painted-crown treatment now takes a hit in modern cut metrics Eightstar's reputation for bold, visible colored flashes in low-light conditions remains unrivaled in a modern RB. It was all a result of strategic upper and lower-half choices, amplified by cut-precision, to increase VF size ~ before we were even talking about VFs.

In favor of your experience though, top cut-precision does give crisper-contrast and harder "edges" to VFs, so it increases visibility regardless of size. In low light your pupils may dilate which can increase the chance you will perceive color...but that's a tricky topic which depends on number and intensity of light sources as well as how they collectively sub-tend light. That detail is related to why fine diamonds can go "dark" at their cores in sunlight; because the sun sub-tends light at only 1/2 of a degree in a 180-degree hemisphere.

John, from my perspective, the italicized portion of your post only continues the "anti 60-60" sentiment which is wrongly put forth here. Where are all these sub par 60/60's you speak of? Truth is, I have a hard time finding stones with these proportions today as cutters try to imitate "ideal" cuts. If I look at 10 triple EX GIA graded stones, it's likely no more than 1 or two have 60% tables. Then we have the fact that less CA/PA angles qualify for EX or 0 cut grades in stones cut to 60/60.

GIA's new cut-grading requirements have absolutely depleted the abundance of 60/60 makes on RapNet and similar B2B sites... But you'll still find them abundantly in popular chain stores, department store jewelry counters and other discount outlets selling finished jewelry. And those places make up a huge segment of the USA diamond market. Those stones are not listed in our trading networks; they go from upstream cutting houses to international wholesalers to parent buying organizations (think Zalecorp, Finlay, Buffet, Sterling...) are assembled into jewelry and directly distributed. They do not pass through GIA and are often held to no cut-quality requirements to speak-of. Such makes can also be found on the streets and shops of diamond districts in other countries, although less and less in the Asia-Pacific theater these days.

I ran a check on RapNet - where there are admittedly more non-60/60s - so you can see where my "sub-par" comment comes from.

60/60s: A search today produces 35,306 diamonds (GIA/AGSL only) tables 59-61 with Ideal-Ex cut grades. The same search produces 31,054 diamonds with VG-P cut grades...pretty similar numbers. For table 60 exclusively there are 11,010 Ideal-Ex and 10,237 VG-P. Those numbers are even more similar.

Near-Tolk: A search produces 114,839 diamonds (GIA/AGSL only) in tables 53-58 with Ideal-Ex cut grades. The same search produces 70,355 with VG-P cut grades. Bear in mind that this search spans 2X as many table sizes as 59-61% and 6X as many as table-60-only, but returns far more (supposed) "top" cuts than "non-top."

So RapNet - our most revered trade-to-trade network - declares the number of "Non-EX" 60/60 options to be nearly as abundant as "Ideal-EX" 60/60 options. Meanwhile there is a much larger number of "Ideal-EX" Near-Tolk options than "Non-EX."

Now consider that many educated folks believe the GIA "EX" system is already pretty accommodating. This means that many of the potential "EX" candidates returned on RapNet (across all makes) may be rejected by cut-focused folks.

Add to this the fact that the Pricescope enthusiasts are specialized in being numbers-demanding and cut-particular. Remember that the majority of Near-Tolk options that appear here have been culled and posted by vendors who understand this marketplace. The random 60/60s do not enjoy such culling beforehand - and that does not work in their favor. Without the benefit of pre-selection by vendors targeting this cut-focused market it's no surprise that 60/60s get dismissed with greater frequency.

So, from the perspective of one who would prefer a more even handed approach to assisting consumers, I still see a problem. Although I do disagree with a few statements made in this thread, I know we share the same goal John.

We always have.

You know, one thing that could change the perception, David, is if someone would start specializing in 60/60s with terrific ASET images and great cut-precision here; posting a suite of photos online just as the sellers of near-Tolkowsky makes do. The consumer-knowledge on Pricescope has been gained through years of experiences which include trial, error, success and failure. I continue to see plenty of near-Tolk diamonds spewed into the "real-world" that would get hammered here, even though PS standards have softened over the years.

If someone (you?) would bring an inventory of scientifically-supported 60/60s to this market, demonstrate their appeal and price them aggressively perhaps avenues would open up which would make you happy in the aforementioned 60/60 tummy.

Interesting, and likely influencing how many EX cut grade 60/60's I see, but I know you'll agree, percentages of stones that are "this" or "that" are in no way relevant to any given discussion about a given stone.

Absolutely. And shame on us for so gruesomely hijacking a thread that has nothing to do with this particular discussion... "Plus ça change..."

 

[sunheds]

Both seem to be very nice.

 

[chicam]

JP, always a pleasure to sit back and read you, even though most of what you say is Greek to me. Thanks for sharing your personal preference in regard to longer lgf. I have ogled them at GOG site. I will contact GOG soon. I just have to see them in person I guess.
Also I apologize for the thread jack too.

 

[Scud]

No problem guys, it is an interesting read to me and I appreciate all the help in the thread.