Are the hearts & arrows cut diamonds just a fad?

[diamondsbylauren]

Date: 7/7/2005 5:53:12 PM
Author: 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

Bill- for the purposes of this conversation, I was using the term "Ideal" to mean the type of stone promoted by Lazaare Kaplan in the 80''s and onward- maybe late 70''s (?)

I believe that 60/60 is within Tolkowsky''s definition of the best proportions- but I am not positive on Tolkowski''s specific declarations.

I do know the house of Winston preferred a stone of 60/60 in the 70''s when I learned there.
The "Russian" cuts tha Bill refers to were , at the time, in the late ''80''s known as the ultimate in cut.

If you had true Russian makes, there were breathtaking. And NOT 56% tabled.
Many were 60/60.

bill- I am not trying to pick one with you either- but the cutters and dealers I have been involved with were never "Ideal" houses- which until recently were most Kaplan anyway.
Kaplan was known as a very expensive place to buy diamonds- great makes, yes. But there was never a consensus among major players in the diamond biz that said Lazaar''s Ideal was actually nicer than a 60/60.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

This is the image I was refering to- I should have posted this along with my comment, which was probably to harsh- sorry.
It''s just that I''ve never seen any diamond that looks like either of the ones in the image here- has anyone ever seen diamonds cut to these porportions?.

The chart Leonid posted here is much more in line with real diamonds.
If a 60/60 diamond had crown angles greater than 35 degrees that would be indicated oin the GIA Report comment section.

Of course every diamond must be judged on it''s own- just as calling something Ideal does not make it great, calling it 60/60 does not guarantee anything either

 

[pricescope]

David, this picture doesn't misrepresent anything either. It just demonstrate the same point: 60/60 rule doesn't guarantee anything. There might be nice diamonds (if they have other good proportions) and might be not.

That's all what that tutorial page is about: 60:60 is not a guarantee of diamond beauty.

Scientists are working to make diamond grading more accurate and although different people might prefer different look of a diamond, there are certain things that can be predicted. Let's consider the following three examples.

Here is DiamCalc results for a diamond with Tolkowsky crown and pavilion and 57% table.

 

[pricescope]

This stone has the same crown and pavilion (34.5 and 40.75) but 60% both table and depth. Note 0.03mm = 0.5% better spread and 6% drop in contrast (affects brilliance) (fire is not calculated).

 

[pricescope]

this diamond also have 60:60 proportions but pavilion angle is 1 degree deeper (41.75). Spread is better but note dark ring under the table caused by light leakage.

 

[pricescope]

So if a diamond has 60/60 table/depth and right combination of crown and pavilion angles and girdle, it can still be a nice diamond and people should consider it in comparison with similar diamond but smaller table to see which one they prefer.

However, a diamond with 60/60 can also be a reject as the stone #3 above.

 

[mepearl53]

Date: 7/7/2005 5:38:15 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren
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)

Belle has empowered me. Thanks so much!

Dave, the dog is Nick and he''s a cross between a golden, sheppard, and husky. You can only pet him from the ground for this is generally where you end up when he greets you

In the "old" days like Wink, many jewelers did not like certs for they could sell the stones for a bit more because in their opinion what was the difference in a VS1 G and a VVS2 F. The customer didn''t know and had to trust their local respected jeweler. If they came with certs some would just not use them in their sales presentation. I remember buying "lots" of non-certified 1''4ct and up. But I looked at every one of them and could pick from the parcels what I liked and would pay the pick price. Having finished the GIA I would take the customer through the entire presentation of the 4 C''s. Just as many of today''s customers come to these forums they became some what confused but it was a educated confusion. Back then (1974) we also were warned about misrepresentation and if we did so could be sued. That is when we started using GIA certs. Then the AGS certified gemologist and we became the high experts on cut and the purveyors of the ideals. The non ideals would sell better because we could sell a imho VS2 G for $1,200.00 and make money but the ideals were catching on when let''s say Ms. Jones ideal cut sparkled more than Ms. Smith''s. This reeked havoc on the guys selling 65 table stones and we became a standard in the area of ideal cut. This is also the time of the leisure suit

GIA not only sold me the proportion scope to show the table size, crown, and pavilion angles et al but these little micro film millimeter thingies that we could actually measure the table size. Since the ideal cut was a relatively new diamond being offered we became different from the other stores. Sound familiar? And yes, although I can''t remember what I did last week, by comparing the 60/60 in front of a customer back then most would choose the ideal but maybe a bit smaller because of the 25% plus premium but the sizes were full. The 1.0ct was a 6.5mm KKK stone and I don''t mean the clan. So sizes were pretty exact. There was a movement for the small guild store to establish themselves as the sellers of luxury where the luxury stores expected themselves to be seen as the only ones who could present the luxury experience. This was bunk and for those who study history many of the "to die for" tired old brand luxury stores fell into bankruptcy and were sold off to multi-nationals. To stay short winded the ideal cut made the AGS stores successful. But this market today is still small. Most people by crap and can''t tell the difference. But the computer, robotics, and the net is again changing the world as we know it and today the consumer, informed or confused has their choice.

Are grading standers more lax today? In my opinion, yes. In the "old days" a SI1 was eye clean table up table down. Color grading then was done with AGS or supplier supplied master diamonds. Since sold off and had left the AGS society for reason I felt I had to. The hair is still there but it looks like the woman from the Munsters

 

[pricescope]

Date: 7/7/2005 6:16:20 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

... calling it 60/60 does not guarantee anything either

That is the point of that tutorial page. Nothing more and nothing less.

Where do you see any hidden agenda or misrepresentation?

 

[Dancing Fire]

David
both the seller and the appraiser who had no financial gain, call the stone a 60/60 cut.my stone looks like the one on the bottom of belle''s link,it had no crown height,flat as a pancake.

 

[mepearl53]

Date: 7/7/2005 6:04:38 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren
Bill- for the purposes of this conversation, I was using the term ''Ideal'' to mean the type of stone promoted by Lazaare Kaplan in the 80''s and onward- maybe late 70''s (?)

I believe that 60/60 is within Tolkowsky''s definition of the best proportions- but I am not positive on Tolkowski''s specific declarations.

I do know the house of Winston preferred a stone of 60/60 in the 70''s when I learned there.
The ''Russian'' cuts tha Bill refers to were , at the time, in the late ''80''s known as the ultimate in cut.

If you had true Russian makes, there were breathtaking. And NOT 56% tabled.
Many were 60/60.

bill- I am not trying to pick one with you either- but the cutters and dealers I have been involved with were never ''Ideal'' houses- which until recently were most Kaplan anyway.
Kaplan was known as a very expensive place to buy diamonds- great makes, yes. But there was never a consensus among major players in the diamond biz that said Lazaar''s Ideal was actually nicer than a 60/60.

Kaplan and others were using this cut in the 70''s when I came into the industry in 1972. They followed the specifications of the Tolkowsky cut model. Mathematically Mr, T was correct but there is a new angle from the AGS, Rhino please help here!!!, that is changing the cut grade again. I can''t mention any stars in the sky because I''ll be stormd on but a new area is being looked at. I was buying the Russian cuts in the mid 70" from S Toepfer & Sons and they were not ideas just impossibly beautiful finishes. I understand the looks of these diamonds. I used to call them over polishing for each were done by hand. In my opinion the rage in the industry is that the ideal cut is no longer the exclusive territory of a few firms marketing themselves as" I am the best" Pick me pick me! But the pricing of these diamonds are more transparent. Another topic, "Branded Diamonds" are they worth it?

 

[LadyluvsLuxury]

Date: 7/6/2005 5:43:15 PM
Author: belle

Date: 7/6/2005 3:50:35 PM
Author: Matatora
I am with David...for me the pattern seems rigid. I dont knwo why I like the idea or a well cot diamond and that is what I want, but I dont want to see the black arrows (as in some pictures her on PS) I just dont care for it. Also I think that brands such as HOF might loose a little steam but not the cutting process. JMO.

i don''t think of the pattern as ''rigid''. i would call it precise

the h&a pattern represents precision in cutting, which yeilds amazing light return. i have found that these stones outperform other stones under a wide range of lighting conditions. by that, i mean they sparkle everywhere! even in the dark! (almost)

one of my favorite viewing conditions for h&a stones is at night, with only the computer monitor or t.v. on. with the stone backlit in this lowlight situation, the arrows just ''pop''!
and don''t worry matatora, the arrows aren''t black. they are more of a silvery white. you can see them as black, but it takes a viewer or at least very unique lighting conditions to see them this way.

here is a pic of an aca h&a stone that i took recently....

Just found this picture on another thread (I would post the link if I knew how!

) Anyway as one that does not look the look of the black arrows, I think this demonstrates what Belle was speaking of when she said the arrows are more silvery white. Looking at it from this picture, I think it is gorgeous!

Laney''s Ring made by GOG

 

[LadyluvsLuxury]

It says attached but it isn''t here

 

[cutes814]

Date: 7/6/2005 12:45:44 PM
Author:sardonic

i'm worried that this cut is a trend/fad and will fade in popularity/value in the near future.

Wow,

Interesting thread. Funny how the topic changed as we went along.

I'm just answering back to Sardonic. I don't think H&A's are a fad. Not many people even know about this kind of diamond. My honey and I are currently shopping for an engagement ring and I've been talking about H&A's to my friends and NOT a single one has heard of the diamond.

I think H&A's are only popular and well known on PS. I think it's because we're all diamond nuts here

And Belle, those pictures took my breath away. So beautiful!!!

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 7/7/2005 6:16:20 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

This is the image I was refering to- I should have posted this along with my comment, which was probably to harsh- sorry.
It''s just that I''ve never seen any diamond that looks like either of the ones in the image here- has anyone ever seen diamonds cut to these porportions?.

The chart Leonid posted here is much more in line with real diamonds.
If a 60/60 diamond had crown angles greater than 35 degrees that would be indicated oin the GIA Report comment section.

Of course every diamond must be judged on it''s own- just as calling something Ideal does not make it great, calling it 60/60 does not guarantee anything either

YES !!! my stone look exactly like the one on the bottom,before the recut.

 

[WinkHPD]

Many many years ago I was flown to the offices of Debeers Consolidated Mines,, Inc of Scottsdale, AZ where I inspected a parcel of stones that had been sold to an investor who was the gentleman who hired me to inspect the stones. One of them was cut very similar to the bottom picture, accept that the table was over 80%. Properly cut it should have weighed about .60cts instead of the 1.01 it did weigh.

He still owed 20 some grand on the parcel that he had already paid over $50,000 for. I could have sold him the whole parcel at the time for about $18,000. Some invcestment! It got worse for him, his plane crashed and all on board were killed when he left to go to Scottsdale for the Federal Mail Fraud trial against the owner of the company.

So yes, I have seen a stone cut like that, only it was worse!

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

P.S. Please do not confuse these theives with DeBeers Consolidated Mines, LTD of England, which is of couse just what these theives wanted from their "investors".

 

[mepearl53]

Wink may be the only one here that remembers the Wall St Journal publishing the prices of diamonds on a daily basis on Comdex. The paper had a daily section on what a D-H IF-VS diamond was selling for and it never mentioned cut grade. A real suckers market perpetrated by a national publication.

 

[oldminer]

Newspapers don't have a function to create news or to sit in judgment of actual events. They have an obligation to report what is taking place. They may have a slanted viewpoint, or they be very straight about their apporoach. We can't force that issue, but we can purchase a newspaper that pleases us, I suppose.

There was nothing wrong in reporting about diamond prices back in the end of the 70's and early 80's. There were dire predictions of the fate of the US Dollar. People had fear and looked for solid commodities. The WSJ was not promoting, but reporting. People were intensly interested and they served those subscribers and readers. Sure, it was a bogus market, but it was of great interest.

The Hearts and Arrows thing is an accident that became one of the most popular ways to identify a nicely cut, highly symmetrical round diamond. I think it is a fad that has legs. We will be seeing it around for a long time. Truthfully, Hearts and Arrows is a pretty good indicator of a pretty diamond........Since there is some truth in the H&A story, it will outlast less qualified marketing schemes.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Hi Everyone- It's a brand new day!

First and foremost- as this discussion unraveled yesterday, I got a little too emotional.
The info presented by Leonid is for the public's advantage. Do I disagree with the repesentation of "possible 60/60's? Yes- and quite strongly.
Still, my language was too strong, and I apologize.

I value all the opinions of experienced jewelers posting here.
Bill's input allows a much more rounded conversation- I appreciate his veiwpoint.

Bill- are you saying the Kaplan Keppie 4/4 ( carat stones) back then were 6.5mm routinely?

I agree that the Lazaare presentaion was superb, and I have no doubt that many folks bought into it.
Yet, I felt then, as I do now. A smaller table ( below 58% makes a diamond look....squooshed to me.
I'd put it this way: In a comppetely blind comparison of a great looking 60/60, versus a great looking Ideal H&A hearts on Fire - the best branded "ideal" versus a plain old 60/60 well cut stone- I beleive that there would not be a huger preference for either.
Maybe 60% would choose Ideal. Maybe 60% would choose the 60/60.
I just don't feel that there would be much more of a difference in people's preferences.
They are BOTH beautiful. Ideal has more fire, 60/60 has more sparkle and greater size appearance.




Wink- Yes, I've also seen horribly cut stones- but the one in the representation was supposedly 60table 60 depth- you mentioned an 80% table.

Let's also make it clear to the general readership that it does NOT take an expert to pick out a horribly off cut diamond.
In the examples presented which show 60/60 in a bad light, many have crown angles greater than 35 degree- which is indicated on a GIA report.
If we could see a head's on shot of the computer generated 60/60's in the photo- they would not even look like real diamonds


Dancing- it's a great thing you've started to educate yourself on diamonds- how could you have paid over $5000 for a stone that looked like that one?

And it's also great that it's such a stunning diamond now!

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 7/8/2005 4:54:50 AM
Author: mepearl53
Wink may be the only one here that remembers the Wall St Journal publishing the prices of diamonds on a daily basis on Comdex. The paper had a daily section on what a D-H IF-VS diamond was selling for and it never mentioned cut grade. A real suckers market perpetrated by a national publication.

Well obviously, not quite the only one... LOL!

Those were the days when Martin Rapaport was getting death threads from diamond dealers for destroying the trade by giving retailers too much information. Just think what they would have done had they even dreamed it would reach the public.

 

[muzzman]

In Hong Kong, H&A’s are promoted as if they were the best performing of diamonds, and shops keep H&A viewers in the display windows so that passersby can look through the glass from outside to see the pattern. There’s a Chinese predilection for the number 8, so the visual manifestation makes a big impact.

It’s a common practice for merchants to inscribe “H&A” on the girdle, and then point to the comments section of a GIA report to incorrectly ascribe a GIA endorsement of hearts and arrows when the report is only noting an added inscription.

In Hong Kong and Japan, they’re not a fad.

 

[WinkHPD]

David,

Nice to see you again. You are right, my blind grandma could have seen that diamond was a dog.

You are also right that the GIA cert would have stated "Crown angles greater than 35%" that was one bad cut, probably the worst I have actually ever seen.

Wink

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Back Atcha Winkerino!!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 7/8/2005 3:40:45 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

Let''s also make it clear to the general readership that it does NOT take an expert to pick out a horribly off cut diamond.
In the examples presented which show 60/60 in a bad light, many have crown angles greater than 35 degree- which is indicated on a GIA report.
If we could see a head''s on shot of the computer generated 60/60''s in the photo- they would not even look like real diamonds

Of course those 2 stones look shocking David.
that is the entire 100% point to that tutorial topic.
The warning is "do not trust people who say "this is a 60% 60% and therefore it is beautiful."

The 62% 62% stone someone pointed me to on your website has your words on it saying something like:

we own our stones and we would never buy a "barker"
And you come on here ?????

 

[karenleah15]

Hi Everyone! This thread is great!
I had the pleasure of seeing a hearts on fire diamond yesterday for the first time!!! I have a modified round brilliant that just SPARKLES. (It has 66 facets vs 58.) I put it next to the hearts on fire and guess what? My stone had MORE fire! I do think the HOF stones are great just maybe a little pricey. Also the sales lady knew nothing. I asked her a few questions and all she could say was that everything about the stone was "perfect." "Perfect" was her answer to everything I asked. SO I asked her about the girdle width. She said that was perfect too. I asked if it was a medium. I got the deer in the headlight look. You would think if they were trying to push these diamonds they might have someone who knew a thing or two. UGH! But anyhow they are very pretty diamonds. I just think mine is BEAUTIFUL vs pretty but then beauty is in the eye of the beholder. A mom always thinks her child is the cutest right? LOL! I am just glad my diamond is eye clean and MIND clean!!!

 

[mepearl53]

Date: 7/8/2005 3:40:45 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren
Hi Everyone- It''s a brand new day!



I value all the opinions of experienced jewelers posting here.
Bill''s input allows a much more rounded conversation- I appreciate his veiwpoint.

Bill- are you saying the Kaplan Keppie 4/4 ( carat stones) back then were 6.5mm routinely?

I agree that the Lazaare presentaion was superb, and I have no doubt that many folks bought into it.
Yet, I felt then, as I do now. A smaller table ( below 58% makes a diamond look....squooshed to me.
I''d put it this way: In a comppetely blind comparison of a great looking 60/60, versus a great looking Ideal H&A hearts on Fire - the best branded ''ideal'' versus a plain old 60/60 well cut stone- I beleive that there would not be a huger preference for either.
Maybe 60% would choose Ideal. Maybe 60% would choose the 60/60.
I just don''t feel that there would be much more of a difference in people''s preferences.
They are BOTH beautiful. Ideal has more fire, 60/60 has more sparkle and greater size appearance.

The stones I bought back then had to be a minimum 6.5 for me to consider it. The AGS didn''t have a lab back then so I had to go by what the GIA considered a ideal. The AGS just endorsed the ideal cut. Today we see AGS000 grades on 6.3mm ish stone which would not have cut it with us and many like minded jewelers. Still would not sell a 000 under 6.45 for a 4 grainer (trade talk for a 1.0ct) The gentleman ???? from HK I''m sure will verify that the ideal was a standard also back then in Asia. Heck, I just got a letter from a cutter in Europe who is doing ideal cuts in .005ct sizes which should be interesting.

 

[mepearl53]

One more thing before I go home to wife and have dog Nick knock me over Love that dog! And wife!!! I have not kept up with what the GIA is currently teaching on this subject. Any GG''s in training or recently completed GG''s who care to chime in on this subject?

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Date: 7/8/2005 5:47:06 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 7/8/2005 3:40:45 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

Let's also make it clear to the general readership that it does NOT take an expert to pick out a horribly off cut diamond.
In the examples presented which show 60/60 in a bad light, many have crown angles greater than 35 degree- which is indicated on a GIA report.
If we could see a head's on shot of the computer generated 60/60's in the photo- they would not even look like real diamonds

Of course those 2 stones look shocking David.
that is the entire 100% point to that tutorial topic.
The warning is 'do not trust people who say 'this is a 60% 60% and therefore it is beautiful.'

The 62% 62% stone someone pointed me to on your website has your words on it saying something like:

we own our stones and we would never buy a 'barker'
And you come on here ?????

HI Garry,
Here's the quote:

Many people wonder why we write about each and every diamond. It's because we can. For one thing we see them and choose them and most often we OWN them as well. So we're plopping down our own cash and we're not willing to do that if it's a barker. This one, like all the others in our store, is right here in our offices.

Here's another paragraph:
We have seen diamonds with 58% tables and 62% depth that have looked fabulous. We've seen all sorts of combos that wouldn't be "ideal" by any definition on paper, but look awesome in person. GIA has never defined a diamond's cut as ideal or not ideal.There is always a great deal of argument over which definition of ideal is right. So we'll just say this is not ideal on paper, but it looks drop dead gorgeous because the moon and stars lined up just at the right time while it was being cut. It just plain works.

The diamond in question is an L/SI2. If someone was looking for a H&A type stone, this one is not it.
Still there's nothing visibly wrong with the cut either- the stone is quite attractive.
The diamond is NOT for sale here- I am not trying to sell anything- but what kind of 1.72 can you buy for less than $7k?

I looked at the diamond, and looked at the price, and I thought it made sense.


I don't see a lot of sellers making the claim.
"We've got some great looking 60/60's over here!- they are all beautiful due to the fact they are 60/60"

In fact I've never seen diamonds advertised using the term 60/60.
Ideal cut? Premium Cut? Super Deluxe Cut?
Think of a name, and you have a brand.
Now that's something to warn against!
I still maintain that a lot of great looking stones are 60/60.
I still say that a 60/60 with GIA report , and no "Crown Angle" comment, is likely to look pretty good, or better.

I also maintain that stones with larger tables- such as a 62% table- are more likely to look good, if they are not perfect symmetry- as compared to stones with tables between 55-58%

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Date: 7/8/2005 6:42:11 PM
Author: mepearl53

Date: 7/8/2005 3:40:45 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren
Hi Everyone- It''s a brand new day!



I value all the opinions of experienced jewelers posting here.
Bill''s input allows a much more rounded conversation- I appreciate his veiwpoint.

Bill- are you saying the Kaplan Keppie 4/4 ( carat stones) back then were 6.5mm routinely?

I agree that the Lazaare presentaion was superb, and I have no doubt that many folks bought into it.
Yet, I felt then, as I do now. A smaller table ( below 58% makes a diamond look....squooshed to me.
I''d put it this way: In a comppetely blind comparison of a great looking 60/60, versus a great looking Ideal H&A hearts on Fire - the best branded ''ideal'' versus a plain old 60/60 well cut stone- I beleive that there would not be a huger preference for either.
Maybe 60% would choose Ideal. Maybe 60% would choose the 60/60.
I just don''t feel that there would be much more of a difference in people''s preferences.
They are BOTH beautiful. Ideal has more fire, 60/60 has more sparkle and greater size appearance.

The stones I bought back then had to be a minimum 6.5 for me to consider it. The AGS didn''t have a lab back then so I had to go by what the GIA considered a ideal. The AGS just endorsed the ideal cut. Today we see AGS000 grades on 6.3mm ish stone which would not have cut it with us and many like minded jewelers. Still would not sell a 000 under 6.45 for a 4 grainer (trade talk for a 1.0ct) The gentleman ???? from HK I''m sure will verify that the ideal was a standard also back then in Asia. Heck, I just got a letter from a cutter in Europe who is doing ideal cuts in .005ct sizes which should be interesting.

See, now I know why I never called on you back in my road days!
I was carrying those 5.9''s back then.....heheheh


For those in the know- keeping an inventory of carat diamonds over 6.5 and above took a LOT of effort.
One of the main things we used to consider about "make" back then was "spread"

Off make carat stones were ( and are) 5.8-6.1mm ...or even smaller!
If a stone was 6.5 mm and weighed 1.01-1.04 you''d ususally have a winner.


As Bill mentioned- today''s Ideal stones can be a bit smaller than the ideals of yesteryear.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

"I also maintain that stones with larger tables- such as a 62% table- are more likely to look good, if they are not perfect symmetry- as compared to stones with tables between 55-58%"

David this is a new claim?
Care to explain it?