Anyone notice how most of Blue Niles princess Signature ideal diamonds have lower depths than tables

[brent311]

Anyone notice how most of Blue Niles princess Signature ideal diamonds have lower depths than tables? Im doing some research and comparing Blue Niles signature ideal series Princess diamonds to White Flashes ASG(A cut Above) diamonds. What I noticed was that most of Blue niles diamonds have depths in the upper 60's and tables in low 70's. While White flashes (a cut above diamonds) have depths above tables usually something like 74/71.

Now I read somewhere that depth should be greater than table and called Bluenile to ask about it. They said that their ideal is a depth of 63-70 and table 65-72 and that they cut their own stones to give them the best looks. Now, Am I making a big deal out of nothing? can a ring with a depth 67 and table 70 be a stunner?
And why does Bluenile cut their ideal diamonds with less depth???

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

BN do not cut diamonds, they select diamonds.

I am not aware that BN use any rocket science in their selection process. I think someone drew a line in the sand based on some numbers and that gives you the result you see.

Trying to draw any conclusions is like trying to buy diamonds with table and depth % data. It is a foolish paradigm

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Hi Brent,

You are not making a big deal out of nothing.

In this particular case, you probably have two sides, one being the traditional diamond-cutters, who think that depth in a princess relates directly to spread, and who use rather old rules to make a selection. BN in this case is following them.

On the other side, you have people like Garry, and companies like WF and others, who follow a more modern scientific approach. I am on this side too.

You will have to decide who is wrong.

Live long,

 

[oldminer]

Paul:

You just said: "You will have to decide who is wrong."

I think it might be more fair to have said: You will have to decide which diamond you prefer. The look of the modern version is somewhat different than the older version. Personal taste applies to this kind of choice.

Dealers are making up their minds now on how to cut every piece of rough before them. They not only look at the economics of cutting but who their potential clients are and what they might want to buy. There are more good choices in cutting styles than there were a few years ago, but there has been no great rush of wide acceptance of the newer styles. Yes, the new cuts look great when cut well, but so do the old cuts when cut as well. If everyone looked and agreed that a newer version was way better, then we'd see a more rapid change, but this does not appear to have happened yet.

I believe the top end of high quaility cutting will evntually go to Paul's school of hi-tech light return design. The middle cut quality, nice diamonds, but not top cut, will split either way, and the majority of commercial cuts will continue to be cut according to rather simple parameter measures.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Dave,

Personal taste and preference also applies when choosing for McDonald''s or a real restaurant.

But if McDonald''s says that their hamburgers are ''signature ideal''-meat, it is a matter of right or wrong. And the right or wrong does not translate into the number of meals served.

In other words, I agree wholeheartedly with your entire post. But I think that it does not answer the poster''s question.

Live long,

P.S. One correction, though. I disagree that the ''old cuts'' can look as well when cut well.