Are the hearts & arrows cut diamonds just a fad?

[Dancing Fire]

i had a POS 60/60 stone recut into a H&A ,mine was ugly.

no crown height,no fire,just a dead stone.

i''m sure there''re better 60/60 out there.i prefer the smaller 54-56%tables.

 

[strmrdr]

The arrows are only black under a limited set of light and viewing conditions.
And it varies a 8* due to the short lgf and other issues will show them black more often than most others.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/6/2005 9:19:51 PM
Author: widget
I've had an H&A question forever, and this seems like a good place to ask it.

Every once in a while I see a picture of a diamond with what I call a 'wagon wheel' effect. I assume the the 'spokes' are arrows.

Is this considered good or bad? I notice the pretty diamond Belle posted doesn't show that effect, and I much prefer that look.

Just curious, actually. The truth is I'm an asscher/EC/OEC kinda girl, myself...

widget

Watching this thread with interest.

Widget, Matatora, Diamondsrock, Kaleigh (& lurkers)

The dark arrows you see in photos are caused by 'obscuration.' Those are areas on a diamond where light would normally enter and exit from directly above. The camera is blocking that direct light, so those areas go dark in the static and centered view. The same thing happens when a diamond is still and the viewer's head is directly over it. When unobscured those arrows are not so obvious, as in belle's photos. More info on head shadow, here

The difference you see in a diamond, unobscured to obscured, is a measure of that diamond's contrast. Remember that diamonds are dynamic. With good contrast you will see a sharp on/off quality to the scintillation as the diamond moves, as well as other benefits. A nice, precise pattern of arrows with contrast is evidence of good cutting and symmetry. Good H&A diamonds are not the only ones that have this effect - many well-cut diamonds show it.

As an example of the difference contrast via obscuration makes, here are cosine squared images of 2 stones. They are identical, except that a 30 degree cone of obscuration, equivalent to an observer’s head, is present in the one on the right.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 7/6/2005 9:25:45 PM
Author: kaleigh
I was wondering the same thing widget. I thought all those H&A's had those black arrows that you see in so many of the pictures. The pic that belle posted didn't have them and actually I prefer that. Am I in the minority??? Oh and widget, I'm with you asschers rule!!! Not that I have one, but I can dream can't I???

Kaleigh
those black arrows pictures are taken under certain light conditions (i e. WF rb ring pic) under most light conditions you will not be able to see the black arrows as easily.not even with an 8*.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Date: 7/6/2005 9:13:18 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 7/6/2005 4:01:01 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren


Here''s another, less publicized fact: Most ''Ideal'' cut diamonds look smaller than a 60/60 of the same weight.
Many well cut 60/60 1.00''s will have a spread of 6.5mm.
Many ''Ideal'' cut diamonds are 6.2mm.
Compare the two and you will notice a differnce in size.

You may also notice a difference in the type of sparkle the diamond exhibits.
Some say an ''Ideal'' cut has more fire, a 60/60 more sparkle. Whatever, I still prefer the look of a well cut 60/60 wioth NO hearts and arrows.

Then, the kicker.
To get all this: Smaller table, smaller appearance etc...I have to pay more???

Just a small disenting voice David.
a 60-60 tolkowsky with medium girdle measures 6.48mm.
The same stone with a 56% table (and 61.4% depth) measures 6.45mm
The stone with the smaller table will have a slightly brighter appearance and can look the same size to the eye because of that. And it will have an impercepably larger amount of fire.
In addition the smaller table diamond has more verticle spread i.e. - more diamond sticks out the top of the ring setting.

But i personally believe there will be many more fads to come in the diamond world.

Sergey is working on some nice ones - a couple of years off - but with every potential to add to the current trends.

Garry- Aren''t you assuming crown height when you say a med girdle 60/60 spreads 6.48mm?
IN other words, is it not possible for a 60/60 to have med girdle and spead 6.35, or 6.55?

I agree that a slightly smaller stone with a smaller table ( Ideal cut) can match appearance of a slightly larger 60% table stone. By slightly I mean the example you posted- 6.45 vs 6.48.
A 6.55 60/60 will outstrip a 6.45 Ideal in terms of visual appearance IMO.

Garry- I like the "vertical spread" analogy.
Normally, I aim for low profile, so that would again favor 60/60 as it will mount lower in a ring.
OF course, some poeple veiw this as a disadvantage rather than an asset.
That''s what makes horse racing, no?

Dancingfire- I would LOVE to see a before and after GIA report comparison!
What''s the specs now? How much weight did you loose??

 

[Dancing Fire]

David
here''s the link. i bought the stone with no lab report. an appraiser measure the stone and he told me was a 60/60.

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/from-a-1-47-ct-60-60-stone-to-a-1-15-ct-after-the-recut-by-infinity-diamonds.24501/

 

[Kaleigh]

Thanks DF and John,
That clears up some things I was curious about.

 

[Lurchie]

Belle, thanks for posting those excellent photos. I''m loving the experts'' posts, but sometimes I feel like that dog in the Far Side cartoon: "blah blah blah, table, blah blah blah crown, blah blah hearts arrows." I forget what those suckers look like in "real" life.

MMM - We ALL need more cowbell!

Alexa

 

[rickyrockranger]

Date: 7/6/2005 9:10:21 PM
Author: strmrdr

anyway....
back to my point:
I was responding to rickyrockranger, seeing 100 diamonds a week does not make an automatic expert on all diamonds.
Even if it did there are preferences and agendas that come into play.
Iv talked to vendors that have seen thousands of diamonds over the years that have managed to learn very little about them other than the profit margins they can get from them.

Seeing hundreds of diamonds a week puts him in a much more authoritative position than someone who simply talks about diamonds but never sees them.

 

[MissAva]

Date: 7/6/2005 10:06:26 PM
Author: Dancing Fire
David
here''s the link. i bought the stone with no lab report. an appraiser measure the stone and he told me was a 60/60.

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/from-a-1-47-ct-60-60-stone-to-a-1-15-ct-after-the-recut-by-infinity-diamonds.24501/

There are no before pictures

. I am so curious now. DBL do you have any pictures of a pretty 60/60? I have to say this is of great intreat to me since my SO will be pruschasing my ring this fall and I would like a bigger look for the same money.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

DancingFire- can we agree that the lack of a proper GIA report means we really don''t know the exact proporions of the diamond prior to re-cut- great job on the re-cut- great looking stone. I''d love to be able to see what it lookerd like before- but we don''t even have that.

It''s a beauty now, but declaring that " It was an ugly 60/60" is simply not a fair statement.
There are all kinds of appraisers and all kinds of........
I would be willing to bet that the diamond was NOT a 60/60 before the recut.
Something is kind of weird - here''s why.
Normally, if a cutter takes a stone to 1.47, it''s because he''s really doing a nice job on the cut- after all- a leave a little more girdle and viola- you''ve got yourself a full carat and a half.
The diamond ended up grading I/VS2 -so it was not a very cheap color/clarity to start out with.
Was it an antique, or old cut?

I''m working on that photo......

 

[rosy]

Hearts & Arrows are not a fad, not since they discovered that cut was king!

 

[valeria101]

I would not call them ''fad'' - perhaps ''technical curiosity'' ? Even without intention, that pattern would still be there more or less given some set of proportions and execution precission. Beautifully cut diamonds are not a new concept though (not fad) - as long as that matters, H&A remain a particularly controlled kind of round brilliant. After all, if one takes a long enough time into account everything is a ''fad''.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

David what about 62% 62%?
Does that look better than a H&A''s?

This one is from your website - it is hard to get a really good reading on the crown height / angle and girdle thickness since you never gave the girdle thickness on the stone?
But it certainly has no risk of having those annoying stars

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=10216&item=5010623661#ebayphotohosting

 

[MissAva]

Personally I am not sure that they are a fad now.... doesnt that imply intense popularity? I think outside of the world of PS that they have not become nearly as popular as they are here. JMO. Perhaps they will be a fad someday.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 7/7/2005 1:20:55 AM
Author: diamondsbylauren
DancingFire- can we agree that the lack of a proper GIA report means we really don't know the exact proporions of the diamond prior to re-cut- great job on the re-cut- great looking stone. I'd love to be able to see what it lookerd like before- but we don't even have that.

It's a beauty now, but declaring that ' It was an ugly 60/60' is simply not a fair statement.
There are all kinds of appraisers and all kinds of........
I would be willing to bet that the diamond was NOT a 60/60 before the recut.
Something is kind of weird - here's why.
Normally, if a cutter takes a stone to 1.47, it's because he's really doing a nice job on the cut- after all- a leave a little more girdle and viola- you've got yourself a full carat and a half.
The diamond ended up grading I/VS2 -so it was not a very cheap color/clarity to start out with.
Was it an antique, or old cut?

I'm working on that photo......

david
this stone was purchase in 1996. the vendor call it a moderm RB Russian cut I VS2.i paid $5300 for the stone,i think that was like 15% back of rap.i'm sure it was a 60/60 stone ,i remember that's what the vendor call it.even to this day he still consider a 60/60 to be the best cut. i'm sure there're beautiful 60/60 stones out there but this wasn't one of them.

about that 1.47 ct weight.i understand what you're saying .here's what Paul of infinity said about the stone....the original cutter did his best to hide some extra weight and still wasn't able to make it a 1.50ct.

 

[mepearl53]

I just did a quick search on Rapaport''s trade listings for 60/60''s. In the gd/gd vg/vg lists in D to H If to VS1 ranges of 200 diamonds of 1.0ct there are 3 diamonds that match the 60/60 category. Two were 6.3 ish mm and one was a 6.3-6.4 ish. Of the AGS000 on the list of the same qualities not a one measured under 6.4mm unless it had over a 62.2 depth. We carried the Kaplan and Keiger diamonds in the 1970''s and we did this because it was a premium cut diamond that had a market. We also carried a more middle of the road diamond for those that wanted a less expensive stone and these were the 60/60. In other words over the past 34 years that I have been associated with the industry there has been a preference for both diamonds. Would I put a 60/60 into some of my premium design rings, no. Would I put the 60/60 into our more main stream brands, yes. Is there a visual difference between the two diamonds, yes. Is the AGS00 easier to compare prices, yes. Non ideal stones are harder for the consumer to compare prices and I think it is here that the trade has the grip. Although you pay a premium for a ideal the profit margin is less than a non ideal IMHO.

 

[belle]

Date: 7/7/2005 9:47:48 AM
Author: mepearl53
I just did a quick search on Rapaport''s trade listings for 60/60''s. In the gd/gd vg/vg lists in D to H If to VS1 ranges of 200 diamonds of 1.0ct there are 3 diamonds that match the 60/60 category. Two were 6.3 ish mm and one was a 6.3-6.4 ish. Of the AGS000 on the list of the same qualities not a one measured under 6.4mm unless it had over a 62.2 depth. We carried the Kaplan and Keiger diamonds in the 1970''s and we did this because it was a premium cut diamond that had a market. We also carried a more middle of the road diamond for those that wanted a less expensive stone and these were the 60/60. In other words over the past 34 years that I have been associated with the industry there has been a preference for both diamonds. Would I put a 60/60 into some of my premium design rings, no. Would I put the 60/60 into our more main stream brands, yes. Is there a visual difference between the two diamonds, yes. Is the AGS00 easier to compare prices, yes. Non ideal stones are harder for the consumer to compare prices and I think it is here that the trade has the grip. Although you pay a premium for a ideal the profit margin is less than a non ideal IMHO.

great summary bill.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Bill- So, then what about the PS database?
The search of PriceScope Database I did revealed that the 60/60's were larger in spread than AGS0 stones.


This has also been my experience in looking at stones over the years- 60/60 stones routinely spread better than stones with 56% tables.
I don't feel three stones on Rapnet prove anything.


As a Kaplan, and Kreiger dealer, was it not part of the plan to prove that "Ideal" cut stones were superior, to justify the price difference?
In other words, wouldn't a dealer that committed to LK have a prejudice against 60/60 which would be proved by their willinglness to buy into the LK program?

Wouldn't that also influence a dealer to use 60/60's in "mainstream" jewelry, and use the more expensive LK stones in "premium" rings?

Bill- I write this with all due respect. I've heard so many good things about Pearlman's over the years- I don't mean to imply anything negative at all about your business.
Since I sold non Lazaare stones on the road, I had as much reason NOT to like them.....

I agree that profit margin is no greater n "Ideal" cut stones. Yet I do not deel that AGS0 makes price comparisons easier- I've seen too many AGS0's which I did not like- therefore I feel it's not possible to ascertain a stone's desirability simply because AGS graded it 0 cut grade.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Date: 7/7/2005 2:42:30 AM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 7/7/2005 1:20:55 AM
Author: diamondsbylauren
DancingFire- can we agree that the lack of a proper GIA report means we really don''t know the exact proporions of the diamond prior to re-cut- great job on the re-cut- great looking stone. I''d love to be able to see what it lookerd like before- but we don''t even have that.

It''s a beauty now, but declaring that '' It was an ugly 60/60'' is simply not a fair statement.
There are all kinds of appraisers and all kinds of........
I would be willing to bet that the diamond was NOT a 60/60 before the recut.
Something is kind of weird - here''s why.
Normally, if a cutter takes a stone to 1.47, it''s because he''s really doing a nice job on the cut- after all- a leave a little more girdle and viola- you''ve got yourself a full carat and a half.
The diamond ended up grading I/VS2 -so it was not a very cheap color/clarity to start out with.
Was it an antique, or old cut?

I''m working on that photo......

david
this stone was purchase in 1996. the vendor call it a moderm RB Russian cut I VS2.i paid $5300 for the stone,i think that was like 15% back of rap.i''m sure it was a 60/60 stone ,i remember that''s what the vendor call it.even to this day he still consider a 60/60 to be the best cut. i''m sure there''re beautiful 60/60 stones out there but this wasn''t one of them.

about that 1.47 ct weight.i understand what you''re saying .here''s what Paul of infinity said about the stone....the original cutter did his best to hide some extra weight and still wasn''t able to make it a 1.50ct.

Danciing- You are simply proving the point- there''s no way at all to guarantee what the diamond was prior to re-cut.
Who knows what the vendor knew or did not know?

By stating this type of hearsay as fact, you are misleading readers. WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT DANCING FIRE''S DIAMOND WAS PRIOR TO RE-CUT.

If someone came on here swearing they had a 56 table diamond, and no GIA or AGS- or at least an EGL or IGI to back it up-would we believe them????


Why would you pay 15% below rap for a diamond which was not beautiful?????
Wasn''t $5300 a lot of money in 1996?????


It does make me think.... why are people attacking 60/60??????

 

[belle]

It does make me think.... why are people attacking 60/60??????

information on 60:60 diamonds

 

[diamondsbylauren]

THANK YOU Belle!

The page you linked to shows what happens when people play "virtual modeling" games with computers.


Imagine a person who weighs 90 pounds and it 8 feel tall.
You could probably find a computer porgram to draw a "photo" of such a person- but could such a thing actually exist???
Yes- out of billions of people on Earth, maybe ONE is 8 feet and weighs 90 pounds.

I have never seen a diamond approaching the virtual models ( not photographs, but computer generated images) presented on the page Belle linked to.
There''s good reason for this- no one possesing rough diamonds ( that I know of) is that stupid.
The examples presented on that page are simply too extreme.
Can anyone out there say they''ve seen a diamond that had a profile like either one of the 60/60''s presented on that page???


The fact is, it is easier to produce a good looking diamond with a large table. If the cutter does not get it exactly right, they can still make a nice stone.
I''m NOT saying 60/60 is better than so called Ideal proportions.
It is simply a matter of taste. Which also means that Ideal cut is no better than a well cut 60/60.

 

[JohnQuixote]

David,

I think Belle was just showing that if you buy using only the 60/60 rule there are more unknowns than if you have all of the particulars. For a consumer browsing the internet knowing many particulars reveals more about predicted performance than 60/60 will.

If someone offered to let you buy, sight-unseen, a 1ct diamond with 55 T, 61.7 D, 34.5 CA, 40.8 PA, or a 1ct "60/60" (you can have either for $1 – one time special!) which would you be more comfortable buying?

On your ebay ad (linked above) you state there are jewelry sellers who decide on their own formulas and “slap on the term, ideal.” I’d suggest that 60/60 is no different. Surely you have seen 60/60 diamonds that are not great performers. How do you express the difference between great and not-so-great 60/60s to your customers?

 

[mepearl53]

David,

I use the rapp for it gives me a faster search and there is not as much duplication of the same stones offered. Although one would not call it a highly regarded survey I think a 1.5% return on a random sample gets to my point. The same results turned up on the Idex board.

As far as the Kaplan diamond and Keiger, we also did Keppie, this may have been a plan but it was a justified presentation. This information was taught at the GIA when I received my GG in Residence in 1974. It was in their instruction manuals for their students to effectively explain the difference to their customers or in appraisals for them. It was also a way of sight grading to determine the true re cut value of a diamond when on the road buying diamonds. (Haven''t things changed ) Remember the proportionscope? That big grey thing that did the projection onto a screen of a diamond and how the proportions differed from or adhered to ideal. If you telling me that the information that was being taught by GIA to their students was wrong than I stand corrected. Any current GG''s care to chime in here on the current teaching?

Also, we carried the 60/60''s along with the ideals. Back then the jewelry business was different than today''s more specialized stores. We had something for everybody. If we presented a choice between ideal and non-ideal it was up to the customer to weigh what was presented to them and they made their own decision. If price was not a object they choose ideal. If it was a issue they choose the 60/60. If they asked me I said ideal. That is what I gave to my wife before the computer age and it''s beauty is timeless. I tell my customers that what ever they choose to give their loved ones make sure that she doesn''t see a prettier one on another woman''s hand. But, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that is ones choice.

I take no offense and mean no offence to the discussion concerning the preference. This is what I was taught and this is what I recommend to my customers. The gemologist of today is far smarter than I but have a lot of experience in this area. I''d love to hear from some of the GG''s and people taking courses what their opinion is.

Now, can someone tell me how to get the subject matter into the grey box that said what the other poster said so I can remember the question

 

[belle]

Date: 7/7/2005 4:53:48 PM
Author: mepearl53

Now, can someone tell me how to get the subject matter into the grey box that said what the other poster said so I can remember the question

hey bill,
to quote a post, click on the ''reply'' button above the post you want to quote. once the reply box comes up, hit the ''quote'' button and the quote will come up. if you want to edit the text in the quote box, double click on the box.

if you need more help, feel free to pm me.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Date: 7/7/2005 4:27:54 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

David,

I think Belle was just showing that if you buy using only the 60/60 rule there are more unknowns than if you have all of the particulars. For a consumer browsing the internet knowing many particulars reveals more about predicted performance than 60/60 will.

If someone offered to let you buy, sight-unseen, a 1ct diamond with 55 T, 61.7 D, 34.5 CA, 40.8 PA, or a 1ct ''60/60'' (you can have either for $1 – one time special!) which would you be more comfortable buying?

On your ebay ad (linked above) you state there are jewelry sellers who decide on their own formulas and “slap on the term, ideal.” I’d suggest that 60/60 is no different. Surely you have seen 60/60 diamonds that are not great performers. How do you express the difference between great and not-so-great 60/60s to your customers?

John,
The pictures on that page can only be descibed as misrepresentations. What purpose do they serve?

Actually, I have a hard time recalling any off make 60/60 diamonds I''ve seen. I''m sure there are some, but it''s simply not common. Maybe a stone had graining- maybe it was "twisted" These are not common problems.
Maybe if a stone was 1.00 and had facets "painted" on. Cutters use a thicker girdle, and "softer" faceting to hit a weight.
This is a common pitfall to stones of exact carat size ( like 1.00 ,1.50 , 2.00, etc)
Remember, a .99 is worth about 11% less than a 1.00- so cutter take every advantqage on borderline stones. This is also a concern on both 60/60, and Ideal cut stones


As I''ve already said, near misses on smaller tabled diamonds can be unattracitve- where larger tabled stones have a better chance of looking great.
Other than Dancing Fire- it seems unlikely that someone could "pass off" a non 60/60 as a 60/60= or why would anyone try? You have to know something about diamonds to understand that 60/60 is a good proporion. The term "Ideal" is designed for laymen- that''s why it''s misused by certain jewelers.

John, as far as describing off made, or less than desirable diamonds- I feel it''s the responsibility of a seller to disclose everything negative they know about what they are offering.

So- If I was in the position of owning a poorly cut 60/60, I''d describe and price it as such and take my licks.

Of course there are some sellers that hoave so little knowledge they don''t understand what they have, or don''t have.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Date: 7/7/2005 4:53:48 PM
Author: mepearl53
David,

I use the rapp for it gives me a faster search and there is not as much duplication of the same stones offered. Although one would not call it a highly regarded survey I think a 1.5% return on a random sample gets to my point. The same results turned up on the Idex board.

As far as the Kaplan diamond and Keiger, we also did Keppie, this may have been a plan but it was a justified presentation. This information was taught at the GIA when I received my GG in Residence in 1974. It was in their instruction manuals for their students to effectively explain the difference to their customers or in appraisals for them. It was also a way of sight grading to determine the true re cut value of a diamond when on the road buying diamonds. (Haven''t things changed ) Remember the proportionscope? That big grey thing that did the projection onto a screen of a diamond and how the proportions differed from or adhered to ideal. If you telling me that the information that was being taught by GIA to their students was wrong than I stand corrected. Any current GG''s care to chime in here on the current teaching?

Also, we carried the 60/60''s along with the ideals. Back then the jewelry business was different than today''s more specialized stores. We had something for everybody. If we presented a choice between ideal and non-ideal it was up to the customer to weigh what was presented to them and they made their own decision. If price was not a object they choose ideal. If it was a issue they choose the 60/60. If they asked me I said ideal. That is what I gave to my wife before the computer age and it''s beauty is timeless. I tell my customers that what ever they choose to give their loved ones make sure that she doesn''t see a prettier one on another woman''s hand. But, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that is ones choice.

I take no offense and mean no offence to the discussion concerning the preference. This is what I was taught and this is what I recommend to my customers. The gemologist of today is far smarter than I but have a lot of experience in this area. I''d love to hear from some of the GG''s and people taking courses what their opinion is.

Now, can someone tell me how to get the subject matter into the grey box that said what the other poster said so I can remember the question

Thanks Belle!
Bill,
I''d also like to add that I love your dog- I just want to pet him!!!!

OK- Billl- in talking about the old days, wasn''t it true that a lot of "non ideal" stones had no GIA reports.
After all, you used to be able to buy nice four grainers wholesale for less than $2000, right?.
Maybe they were H/SI2''s, or K/VS''s- but smart honest jewelers ( such as Pearlman''s) carried nice, non "certified" carat stones that retailed for less than $4000.

But, given that a lot of these non ideal stones were without GIA reports- we can''t really know if they were 60/60.
Maybe I''m wrong, and you remember showing GIA stones of 60/60 specifically next to Kaplan/Keppie stones .
I will tell you that from what I''ve seen, I can understand why you like them. The stones that Kaplan and Keppie sold in the ''80''s and ''90''s were unbeleivably consistant- every stone was "drop dead"

Do you feel that today''s "Ideal" diamonds are as consistent?

And I do recall the template you mention, and all the bruhaha about ideal cuts. They were, and are awesome, no question.
Maybe we all gravitate towards what we were taught back when we had hair ( on our heads)

 

[mepearl53]

Ideal was a term given for Tolkolsky''s sp? formula for total reflection and refraction within a diamond cut to a specific specification almost 90 years ago. This is not a new term. Since the late 1940''s we''ve been able to measure the specifications. With technology we''ve been able to track this. I also believe the term ideal is misused on both the net and by jewelers. But it is plainly spelled out what the term was meant to mean. If you presented a 60/60 to me and asked me if it was a ideal I would say no. If the consumer wants this particular cut grade that is fine but I have been selling this "ideal" stone for my 34 year career and there is a difference. Without my glasses i couldn''t tell what a 70/70 is but I don''t believe it is a arguable subject to say a 60/60 is as nice as a Ideal by correct definition. A preference yes.

David, I''m not picking one with you here understand that. For those who know me I''m absolutely transparent but what you are saying about the 60/60 here is exactly what I am not telling people. I understand completely where your coming from in your opinion. I have seen the old "Russian cut" diamonds of old and the stones were stunning. The polish was as fine as you would see and many of the stone fell outside by definition what ideal is. But their appearance was different and their spread not larger. imho

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Date: 7/7/2005 2:34:06 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
David what about 62% 62%?
Does that look better than a H&A''s?

This one is from your website - it is hard to get a really good reading on the crown height / angle and girdle thickness since you never gave the girdle thickness on the stone?
But it certainly has no risk of having those annoying stars

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=10216&item=5010623661#ebayphotohosting

Garry- I would be happy to pull the diamond fromthe setting, have a sarin done, and see how you did with your predictions.

Her''s the GIA

Just one request- could you post the photo you used before you did your thing with it, so we can see a before and after?

 

[pricescope]

Date: 7/7/2005 5:24:12 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

The pictures on that page can only be descibed as misrepresentations. What purpose do they serve?

David, what in particular these pictures misrepresent? They represent exactly the point that 60/60 rule alone cannot guarantee light performance of the stone and one should know more info such as crown and pavilion angles, girdle, etc.

Is it possible that a 60:60 diamond has over 41 deg pavilion? or 60:60 guarantee against it?