Are the hearts & arrows cut diamonds just a fad?

[diamondsbylauren]

Date: 7/23/2005 3:24:49 AM
Author: Iiro

Date: 7/22/2005 12:37:34 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

Date: 7/22/2005 6:04:00 AM
Author: Iiro
Why it is so hard to find a 3D SARIN in NY?

It''s not hard, it''s SIMPLE!!! Why every phone booth has one now- and not just a plain old sarin- a 3d sarin.

I dont have any kind of SARIN, we dont sell diamonds enough to justify such a investement, but NY is one of the Diamond centers of the world, and I find it a bit odd DDC has not invested to latest tech.

Actually- this goes directly to the point - sellers of AGS0- Ideal Cut- Hearts ands Arrows- call them what you want- these sellers are very specialized.
In fact, H&A diamonds represent a tiny fraction of fine diamond sales as a whole.
So- sellers of this type of diamond have the burden of purchasing these machines.
If you look at the development of the Sarin- the way it''s been improved...it requires a large financial investment to have the latest tools.
Based on the small number of dealers specializing in this type of diamond, I guess the NYC DDC does not feel the investment is warranted.

So Rhino is keeping the Sarin people in the black...hehehehe

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Date: 7/23/2005 9:04:47 AM
Author: strmrdr
David if you do go over the gog for a visit how about this:
Find the best to you 60/60 diamond you can and bring it along and have Jon run his battery of high tech tests on it and report the results compared to the super-ideals.

I think it would be very education for us consumers to see that.

Sure- I''d love to see what results would be - purely for academic reasons- but remember strmdr- lovers and consumers of 60/60 diamonds need NO machines to tell them what they need to know.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Date: 7/22/2005 8:38:24 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Keep your shirt on David - i am not accusing anyone of anything

How far away os your camera lens please?
It''s important - I think I have an error in my logic

Now Garry- if I keep my shirt on I''ll be depriving all the women around here a good veiw of a .....Whale!!!! hehehehe



I''d say my camera is about about one inch from the diamond.

I''d like to thank you for taking the time to look at the conversation thouroughly, and with open mind- so you can admit I''m right

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

thankyou David

I have learned that the way a camera takes a photo somehow changes the perspective of the table size to how it would appear from closer up.

DiamCalc has a control for observer distance - it is there for a different purpose - but by changing it i can change the table size in the wire frame as you can see from the 2 screen captures in this image.
Note the table size of 61.5% has not been changed.

I need to call in some help from Sergey or Vladimir to work out a solution for those appraisers using DiamCalc to estimate stone proportions.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

But this does not change the fact that David clearly has a wider tollerance for diamond beauty than many.
This stone (assuming perfect symmetry, as we can not seem to get a 3D file) scores 0.90 for light return compared to a tolkowsky stone.
And as can be seen from the ideal-scope photo, there is a large area of table leakage.

Many regulars will know that for a long time I have tried to get to the bottom of David''s photographic lighting methods. the reason is that I am quite sure that he illuminates many of his pictures from below the pavilion. This can make diamonds that leak a lot appear brighter and more attractive than a well cut stone that when illuminated from below would appear dark and uninteresting.

Finally this stone has a -5% smaller spread than a 53% table Tolkowsky diamond with a thin girdle of 1.1% at the valley or 2.7$ at the mains. I think David your original arguement was that bigger table diamonds had better spreads?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/23/2005 12:18:09 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

Date: 7/23/2005 9:04:47 AM

Author: strmrdr

David if you do go over the gog for a visit how about this:

Find the best to you 60/60 diamond you can and bring it along and have Jon run his battery of high tech tests on it and report the results compared to the super-ideals.


I think it would be very education for us consumers to see that.

Sure- I''d love to see what results would be - purely for academic reasons- but remember strmdr- lovers and consumers of 60/60 diamonds need NO machines to tell them what they need to know.

yea well you need to them to show us in terms we are used to if the diamond should be worth considering.
Iv seen some 60/60s that id clasify as nice but havent seen one as bright or as sparky as a the best of the super-ideals I have seen.
So maybe I just havent ran accross a great 60/60 or maybe I have.
So the results and how they compare to the what the super-ideals do on the same test should be interesting.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/23/2005 11:11:00 AM
Author: Pyramid
Just wanted to add here. I received a private message from someone suggesting that John Quixote may know something about Ray tracing, experts jargon etc. So as a layman person on here I vote that he should step forward to discuss these technical issues with Garry, DiamondsbyLauren, Iiro, Rhino etc.

Ooops just noticed that he has already been taking part, I forgot to add his name to my post apparently but he is included in the 'others'. It was not him who pointed it out but another valuable member of this forum.

Pyramid - I received a similar message. This weekend I am on the road spending much-needed time with family. I will 'step forward' and give more input once I get home: I have a number of comments for this thread and a few others I've skimmed.

I estimated a virtual model of David's diamond a while ago, but didn't post it here, since several estimates were already offered. Thank you (both) for requesting my opinion...I promise to give it after taking some personal time.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Date: 7/23/2005 6:16:31 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
But this does not change the fact that David clearly has a wider tollerance for diamond beauty than many.
This stone (assuming perfect symmetry, as we can not seem to get a 3D file) scores 0.90 for light return compared to a tolkowsky stone.
And as can be seen from the ideal-scope photo, there is a large area of table leakage.

Many regulars will know that for a long time I have tried to get to the bottom of David''s photographic lighting methods. the reason is that I am quite sure that he illuminates many of his pictures from below the pavilion. This can make diamonds that leak a lot appear brighter and more attractive than a well cut stone that when illuminated from below would appear dark and uninteresting.

Finally this stone has a -5% smaller spread than a 53% table Tolkowsky diamond with a thin girdle of 1.1% at the valley or 2.7$ at the mains. I think David your original arguement was that bigger table diamonds had better spreads?

Garry- I never said anything bigger tabled diamonds having greater spread- certainly not anything about 62% depth diamonds. My point about spread: A 60% depth, 60% table diamond, if it''s well cut- will be above 6.5 mm, or actually reach 6.6 mm.
Many of today''s ideal cut diamonds are in the 6.4 range, no?

As far as my tolerance for beauty- I''m sure my girlfirend would take exception to your statement..hehehe

OH- wait- Garry said "Diamond Beauty"
Interesting observation- so you can say, without hesitation that the 1.72 diamond who''s picture you edited 10 times and posted is ugly? And you''re prepared to make this statement having NEVER seen the diamond?

Strmdr wrote

yea well you need to them to show us in terms we are used to if the diamond should be worth considering.

- all due respect- are you speaking for a group?

I am not trying to sell anything here. I have no 60/60''s I''m pushing.
We''re having a discussion. People considering H&A diamonds have done research, and have probably already made up their minds- which is a good thing.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 7/23/2005 7:58:15 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren
OH- wait- Garry said ''Diamond Beauty''
Interesting observation- so you can say, without hesitation that the 1.72 diamond who''s picture you edited 10 times and posted is ugly? And you''re prepared to make this statement having NEVER seen the diamond?

I can desribe its maximum potential for beauty.
AGS are kinder though, they would rate it as AGS 4
So yes David, without seeing the stone I would say it is far from the most beautiful diamond, but when you compare it to a radiant, it may be quite pretty. It is all relative. Relative to a nice Tolkowsky stone, yours is a barking at me.

Oh and BTW you mentioned 60% as having bigger spreads - so I assumed you would expect 62% should have even bigger?

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Date: 7/23/2005 8:10:07 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 7/23/2005 7:58:15 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren
OH- wait- Garry said ''Diamond Beauty''
Interesting observation- so you can say, without hesitation that the 1.72 diamond who''s picture you edited 10 times and posted is ugly? And you''re prepared to make this statement having NEVER seen the diamond?

I can desribe its maximum potential for beauty.
AGS are kinder though, they would rate it as AGS 4
So yes David, without seeing the stone I would say it is far from the most beautiful diamond, but when you compare it to a radiant, it may be quite pretty. It is all relative. Relative to a nice Tolkowsky stone, yours is a barking at me.

Oh and BTW you mentioned 60% as having bigger spreads - so I assumed you would expect 62% should have even bigger?

62% is deeper that 60%- so it is simply common sense that a 60% depth diamond spreads larger than a 62%. I would assume you understand this.
Of course you can produce computer models where a 62% diamond spreads larger than a 60%- in real life shallower diamonds generally spread larger than deeper diamonds.
SO, Garry, I have been trying to decide, can you say definitively which has the maximum potential for beauty, Eric Clapton''s Layla, or Jimi Hendix doing The Wind Cries Mary? Monet or Van Gogh? Vette or Porsche?
1.00 D/IF AGS000 or a 1.00 Fancy Intense Yellow/ VS1 Cushion cut diamond?

Garry- are people wrong if they love radiant cut diamonds?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/23/2005 7:58:15 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

Date: 7/23/2005 6:16:31 PM


Strmdr wrote

yea well you need to them to show us in terms we are used to if the diamond should be worth considering.

- all due respect- are you speaking for a group?

.

Pricescopers in general are used to rating diamonds using those tools so it would be interesting to see how your favorites compare using those tools.
That is the us I was talking about.
..............
I cant speak for others in this area but im willing to listen but a because I say so isnt going to cut it.
I have compared the information Iv got here with my own observations of diamonds as much as the limited availabitity in my area allows.
It matches up.
What your saying that 60/60 are the best looking diamonds doesnt match up with my admittedly limited exposure to them.
Maybe I just havent seen the ones like your talking about that can take on the best of the super-ideals.
Maybe they dont exist maybe they do I see no evidence yet either way.

So that said give me more info im willing to listen but if you just want to have a grudge match with Garry then I will leave you alone and you can carry on.

 

[Kaleigh]

Is there ever gonna be an end to this thread, cause it just goes on and on. I mean this sincerely if a point is to be made then make it and we can move on.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

My point in one sentance:
Many diamonds can be extrmely beautiful and desirable- 60/60 as well as Radiant,Asscher, Cushion, Oval Pear Shape, and H&A ideal cut- and other shapes.


Sorry, it was a long sentance.
.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 7/23/2005 9:26:29 PM
Author: kaleigh
Is there ever gonna be an end to this thread, cause it just goes on and on. I mean this sincerely if a point is to be made then make it and we can move on.

OK Kaleigh, you are right.

My point is that David sells dogs with the aid of deceptive photograpghy and promotes on his advertisments (with the above stone) that he does not buy or sell "barkers".
And this same person comes here and offers advice to first timers, (and consumers who are better educated than him) about diamond beauty. I have no confidence in him.

I will not post on this thread any more.

But I did discover from this thread that my DiamCalc modeling approach is flawed. Need to fix that.

 

[diamondsrock]

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." That is one thing I think everyone can agree on. What one person considers ideal, another may not be as fond of and may actually prefer a non-ideal cut stone. I am starting to like oec''s which aren''t ideal by today''s standards. It''s all relative to the observer. Numbers and reports are helpful but it all comes down to the human eye (and individual person) as judge. Just my humble opinion!

 

[hlmr]

Date: 7/23/2005 9:57:34 PM
Author: diamondsrock
''Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.'' That is one thing I think everyone can agree on. What one person considers ideal, another may not be as fond of and may actually prefer a non-ideal cut stone. I am starting to like oec''s which aren''t ideal by today''s standards. It''s all relative to the observer. Numbers and reports are helpful but it all comes down to the human eye (and individual person) as judge. Just my humble opinion!

The best point of the night!

 

[widget]

Gary: So NOW you're going to stop posting??? Sorta like throwing rocks at someone and then running into the house saying "I'm not gonna play anymore."

I think that having differences of opinion is one thing....but publicly impugning the name and reputation of a fellow professional is something else entirely.

Bad...really bad.

I do not think I'm alone in my opinion that David at DBL provides EXCELLENT service, products, and values with absolute integrity.

widget

PS: diamondsrock....I agree with you 100%....including your closing sentiment: "Kindness matters".

 

[hlmr]

Date: 7/23/2005 10:38:28 PM
Author: widget
Gary: So NOW you''re going to stop posting??? Sorta like throwing rocks at someone and then running into the house saying ''I''m not gonna play anymore.''

I think that having differences of opinion is one thing....but publicly impugning the name and reputation of a fellow professional is something else entirely.

Bad...really bad.

I do not think I''m alone in my opinion that David at DBL provides EXCELLENT service, products, and values with absolute integrity.

widget

PS: diamondsrock....I agree with you 100%....including your closing sentiment: ''Kindness matters''.

The 2nd best point of the night. Well said widget.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 7/23/2005 6:55:03 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 7/23/2005 12:18:09 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

Date: 7/23/2005 9:04:47 AM

Author: strmrdr

David if you do go over the gog for a visit how about this:

Find the best to you 60/60 diamond you can and bring it along and have Jon run his battery of high tech tests on it and report the results compared to the super-ideals.


I think it would be very education for us consumers to see that.

Sure- I''d love to see what results would be - purely for academic reasons- but remember strmdr- lovers and consumers of 60/60 diamonds need NO machines to tell them what they need to know.

yea well you need to them to show us in terms we are used to if the diamond should be worth considering.
Iv seen some 60/60s that id clasify as nice but havent seen one as bright or as sparky as a the best of the super-ideals I have seen.
So maybe I just havent ran accross a great 60/60 or maybe I have.
So the results and how they compare to the what the super-ideals do on the same test should be interesting.

yep....that would be interesting. i had a 60/60 stone that bark louder than my neighbor''s dog.

 

[Serg]

re: 1.00 D/IF AGS000 or a 1.00 Fancy Intense Yellow/ VS1 Cushion cut diamond?

1.00 Fancy Intense Yellow/ VS1 Cushion cut diamond is unique.

1.00 D/IF AGS000 is rare just.

Round cut is not good for Fancy color diamonds.

 

[finerthings]

Date: 7/23/2005 9:47:03 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 7/23/2005 9:26:29 PM
Author: kaleigh
Is there ever gonna be an end to this thread, cause it just goes on and on. I mean this sincerely if a point is to be made then make it and we can move on.

OK Kaleigh, you are right.

My point is that David sells dogs with the aid of deceptive photograpghy and promotes on his advertisments (with the above stone) that he does not buy or sell ''barkers''.
And this same person comes here and offers advice to first timers, (and consumers who are better educated than him) about diamond beauty. I have no confidence in him.

I will not post on this thread any more.

But I did discover from this thread that my DiamCalc modeling approach is flawed. Need to fix that.

Ouch! Well finally we''ve gotten to the bottom of this!

 

[MissAva]

Gary that was not very nice.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Date: 7/22/2005 8:38:24 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Keep your shirt on David - i am not accusing anyone of anything

How far away os your camera lens please?
It''s important - I think I have an error in my logic

I, for one, would like to thank Garry for finally coming out and saying what he thinks.
Here, he''s even admitted to an error in his logic.
Clearly this is true- because Garry''s calculations did not produce angles anywhere near the diamond in question. It also goes to the point that trying to determine a diamond''s desirability using only numbers does not work.

Garry used a stone of ours as an example.The photos and Sarin, and GIA reports are in this thread.
The diamond''s numbers are nowhere near "Ideal" numbers, yet I think it''s quite pretty.
I''ll bet if we showed it to 100 average consumers, a lot would agree.
Wait, most of these people have no idea what a Sarin is- clearly they don''t know what''s beautiful, right?

I have nothing agaist Garry, although I disagree with some of his assertions.
I am here only to share my opinions, even if they are not the same as everyone else''s.
I also agree, Kindness counts.

 

[Serg]

Date: 7/24/2005 1:46:26 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

Date: 7/22/2005 8:38:24 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Keep your shirt on David - i am not accusing anyone of anything

How far away os your camera lens please?
It''s important - I think I have an error in my logic

I, for one, would like to thank Garry for finally coming out and saying what he thinks.
Here, he''s even admitted to an error in his logic.
Clearly this is true- because Garry''s calculations did not produce angles anywhere near the diamond in question. It also goes to the point that trying to determine a diamond''s desirability using only numbers does not work.

Garry used a stone of ours as an example.The photos and Sarin, and GIA reports are in this thread.
The diamond''s numbers are nowhere near ''Ideal'' numbers, yet I think it''s quite pretty.
I''ll bet if we showed it to 100 average consumers, a lot would agree.
Wait, most of these people have no idea what a Sarin is- clearly they don''t know what''s beautiful, right?

I have nothing agaist Garry, although I disagree with some of his assertions.
I am here only to share my opinions, even if they are not the same as everyone else''s.
I also agree, Kindness counts.

Clearly this is true- because Garry''s calculations did not produce angles anywhere near the diamond in question.

Non correct.
1) Garry had not enough information about your camera and distance for diamond. I think you use camera with lens ~7-15 mm. For camera with lens 50-100 mm Garry''s calculations is correct.
2) If information about total height and girdle are available then much more easy to find all angles .

It also goes to the point that trying to determine a diamond''s desirability using only numbers does not work.

Depends from type of model grading system. I am sure if we use 3d model we CAN create correct cut grading system.

I am not defending Garry. I am disagree with some Garry posts. I am defending idea of cut grading system for 3D model.
Without 3d model ( with some numbers only) Cut grading system can not be correct for all diamonds.

 

[MissAva]

You wouldnt feel that way by chance becuase you make your living from the programs that give us the numbers would you?

 

[AGBF]

Date: 7/24/2005 4:39:09 PM
Author: Matatora
You wouldnt feel that way by chance becuase you make your living from the programs that give us the numbers would you?

Whom are you addressing? Garry? Serg?

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Date: 7/24/2005 2:51:48 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 7/24/2005 1:46:26 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

Date: 7/22/2005 8:38:24 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Keep your shirt on David - i am not accusing anyone of anything

How far away os your camera lens please?
It''s important - I think I have an error in my logic

I, for one, would like to thank Garry for finally coming out and saying what he thinks.
Here, he''s even admitted to an error in his logic.
Clearly this is true- because Garry''s calculations did not produce angles anywhere near the diamond in question. It also goes to the point that trying to determine a diamond''s desirability using only numbers does not work.

Garry used a stone of ours as an example.The photos and Sarin, and GIA reports are in this thread.
The diamond''s numbers are nowhere near ''Ideal'' numbers, yet I think it''s quite pretty.
I''ll bet if we showed it to 100 average consumers, a lot would agree.
Wait, most of these people have no idea what a Sarin is- clearly they don''t know what''s beautiful, right?

I have nothing agaist Garry, although I disagree with some of his assertions.
I am here only to share my opinions, even if they are not the same as everyone else''s.
I also agree, Kindness counts.

Clearly this is true- because Garry''s calculations did not produce angles anywhere near the diamond in question.

Non correct.

1) Garry had not enough information about your camera and distance for diamond. I think you use camera with lens ~7-15 mm. For camera with lens 50-100 mm Garry''s calculations is correct.
2) If information about total height and girdle are available then much more easy to find all angles .

It also goes to the point that trying to determine a diamond''s desirability using only numbers does not work.

Depends from type of model grading system. I am sure if we use 3d model we CAN create correct cut grading system.

I am not defending Garry. I am disagree with some Garry posts. I am defending idea of cut grading system for 3D model.
Without 3d model ( with some numbers only) Cut grading system can not be correct for all diamonds.

WITH 3D models, all you can do is make a machine that detects a cut YOU feel is better
There''s NO way to prove a H&A is cut better than a 60/60.
Any cut grading system based on the fact that H&A are somehow superior is based on assupmtions not verified.

1)- I did not ask Garry to post projections- he took it upon himself with the data available- some of which he did not even look at. In any case, Garry made his own predictions- which did, in fact, prove to be incorrect.

 

[MissAva]

Serg, he was the last post above mine. (I am addressing Deb in this one).

 

[hlmr]

O.K...I am normally quite diplomatic by nature, but since the vast majority seems to be not taking offence to your comments (at least by posting), I must say my full peace.

Garry, you offend not only David, but everyone who has purchased stones from him, or plan to purchase stones from him, now, or in the future, with your comments.

I do know that David is an outsider to PS, BUT I do find that your comments are exceptionally rude and twinged with a dash of jeolousy, IMHO.

I have seen lesser subjects banned from this forum for such blatently rude and unfair comments.

If you have a bone to pick with him, that''s fine, but your words on a public forum speak to a much deeper hatred and jealousy than should be aired to all who read pricescope.

If you want to be rude shouldn''t it be kept to PM''s?

Heather

 

[Kaleigh]

Well said Heather, I couldn''t agree more!!!!!!!!