Assessing Cut for the Online Diamond Purchase

[risingsun]

Judah, Strm, and Dave~your points are well taken. My concern is that the content on Ira's site does not appear to be fair or balanced. He makes statements that appear to be factual, which seem to be based upon his opinion. It does not speak in the broader terms that all of you use when educating a consumer. His site speaks to "his" truth about diamonds. It is not necessarily "the" truth about diamonds. It reminds me a bit about Fred Cuellar's style of "education."

 

[risingsun]

Judah and Dave~your points are well taken. My concern is that the content on Ira''s site does not appear to be fair or balanced. He makes statements that appear to be factual, which appear to be based upon his opinion. It does not speak in the broader terms that both of you use when educating a consumer. His site speaks to "his" truth about diamonds. It is not necessarily "the" truth about diamonds. It reminds me a bit about Fred Cuellar''s style of "education."

 

[Regular Guy]

Marian,

Taking a second look at my name-sake's site, I share many of your concerns. I think he does give mis-information about AGS vs GIA. I copy below:

---------------

Cut Grade -- All that MattersUntil January 1st, 2006, you basically had two options when it came to cut grade. You could either buy a diamond with an AGS certificate and trust their cut grading system, or you could learn about the various proportions of diamond cut and trust your own eduction about what numbers translated into a beautiful diamond. On that day, though, the GIA introduced a new certificate format that included their very own cut grade. They claim that their Cut Grade system is based on 15 years of research testing and retesting different combinations of measurements with real life light performance tests. As opposed to the AGS system which simply defines what an "ideal" diamond is and then gives lower grades the farther away from that "ideal" the parameters are (see table to the left), the GIA system does not have any one single definition of perfection. They claim that in their research various differing combinations of proportions equally produced diamonds that reflected the most light. So while in the AGS model, a diamond with a table size of 60% is automatically penalized to a Cut Grade of "2," (on a scale from 0 to 9), with the GIA model, there's still a chance the diamond could receive an "Excellent" grade if the rest of the parameters are the best possible parameters that combine with a 60% table.

(A chart is then included here, not copied, which seems to purport to refer to what would be an AGS parametric system. But IraWeissman doesn't seem to pick up that AGS played hop scotch with GIA at this point, such that near the time GIA went to a system that works similar to Garry's HCA, AGS went 3D...or at least continues to give this option with platinum...and no longer presents the type of chart Ira presents, at least for their more premium system...)


In my opinion, the GIA system is clearly a much more elegant solution to the question of what cut proportions produce the most beautiful diamonds. And the fact is, it's a more elegant solution than your typical diamond dealer's instincts, as well. What I mean is, before GIA introduced their cut grade, most diamond dealers thought about cut grade the same way the AGS did. They had in their mind what was the perfect set of parameters, and basically, diamonds got uglier the further they strayed from that ideal. This revelation of how GIA Cut Grade worked was a boon to diamond manufacturers as well. Now, the cutters had more options when assessing a piece of rough for cutting. If a diamond with a 57% sized table couldn't fit into a certain piece of rough and still maintain the weight category, then they could try a diamond with a 60% table and see if that would maintain the weight.

For those of you looking to buy a diamond without a certificate, here's a very dumbed-down, but reliable rule of thumb. Just remember "60/60." That means 60% table and 60% total depth. While this falls out of the "0" and "1" cut grade of the AGS, it is the basic rule of thumb that diamond dealers always use. You can allow for about 2% plus or minus from the 60%, and make sure the girdle size is either thin or medium, but not thick. With these simple rules, you can be assured you will end up with a very beautiful diamond.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 5/11/2009 5:09:21 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 5/10/2009 6:18:00 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Hi everyone!
I don''t believe there''s reason for any fireworks.

For a start I am happy to give you a 50% discount to be spent on an ideal-scope, and ASET scope and ideal-light and if you wish a set of good and bad stones. You can see these at ideal-scope.com.

I have no problem with different tastes and preferences, and there is no doubt you have a good eye for fancy colored diamonds and some fancies. DiaGem also has interesting views on a variety of cuts, and Storm too - the more he has learned the more un-stereo-typical is his taste.

Marian,
I agree that calling opinions "Truth" as though they are absolute facts is misleading to an extent.
That''s exactly what my point is!
I appreciate Garry acknowledging my expertise in colored diamonds-I am duly impressed with the body of work Garry has compiled....but I also feel that Garry''s idea of "good and bad stones" represent an opinion- not facts.
I certainly would not need Garry to show me which stones I like..... or which are the "bad" stones- if we''re talking about stones which are considered by the trade in general as "Off make"
Would those who promote the IS and ASET be able to select the best stones using only their eyes?


Stephan, my experience with HRD is in line with what Ira said- they are not on the same level as GIA- by a longshot.
Think EGL Israel, and you''re more accurately pairing HRD.

 

[Stephan]

Date: 5/11/2009 5:33:19 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Stephan, my experience with HRD is in line with what Ira said- they are not on the same level as GIA- by a longshot.
Think EGL Israel, and you''re more accurately pairing HRD.

Wow.
Here in Antwerp, we have HRD and IGI.
IGI diamonds sell cheaper than HRD.
Understand that for most people in the business I saw, IGI is not as good as HRD.
I don''t believe in HRD for cut grade, but I''ve always trusted in them for color/clarity.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

David yet again you have no idea what the "Good and Bad" stones are because you never bothered to do anything but shoot form the hip.

You could find out, but learning is not in your psych it seems

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/11/2009 5:22:24 PM
Author: Regular Guy
Marian,


Taking a second look at my name-sake's site, I share many of your concerns. I think he does give mis-information about AGS vs GIA. I copy below:

nice catch, a lot of incorrect information in what you quoted.
Also a 62/62 blah

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 5/11/2009 5:33:19 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Marian,
I agree that calling opinions ''Truth'' as though they are absolute facts is misleading to an extent.
That''s exactly what my point is!
I appreciate Garry acknowledging my expertise in colored diamonds-I am duly impressed with the body of work Garry has compiled....but I also feel that Garry''s idea of ''good and bad stones'' represent an opinion- not facts.
I certainly would not need Garry to show me which stones I like..... or which are the ''bad'' stones- if we''re talking about stones which are considered by the trade in general as ''Off make''
Would those who promote the IS and ASET be able to select the best stones using only their eyes?

anything wrong with finding a stone that would pass all these test?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Garry: Years ago I made jokes about the IS. Maybe you're still angry about that, and it's driving some of your hostility.
In fact there's been an IdealScope on my desk for many years. If I wanted to buy and sell stones to satisfy people looking for IS results, I'd surely need to use it.
I will take you up on the light and ASET- I'd like to have the full set on hand.

I have come to realize that I was incorrect to scoff at reflector technology- no matter my personal feelings about it.
I have come to see, over time, that many shoppers have gotten benefit from the IS.
Many consumers who've used it are happy with their purchases- the proof is in the pudding.

I'm not saying that reflector technology is useless.

I do feel that many stones which are extremely desirable get rejected due to inaccurate reflector interpretation- but you can respond by saying rejecting good stones is better that a tool that allows what you consider to be bad stones to slip through.
I do feel that "over-analyzing" a diamond is not conducive to the best shopping experience for all shoppers - or even getting the best diamond.
You can respond with the many people here on PS who disagree. People that want to learn which crown angles are the ones they love. As opposed the way I, and many other diamond professionals look at diamonds.

It seems to me that a difference of opinion, instead of being looked at as two different viewpoints, is turned into something pejorative.
That's a shame.
I'm not saying anyone is wrong, or does not know how to pick diamonds simply because they utilize reflector technology.
I'm saying it's entirely possible to pick the best stones without reflector technology- and that might be the better way for some people.


Storm- I believe it's also a shame that finding well cut RBC stones, in larger sizes, with what I consider to be the optimum depth and table are almost impossible to find.
Given time, I feel very sure that will change- just as "chunky" old style cushions have re-gained a lot of popularity lately.
In the rush to call their goods "Ideal" it seems that many of the well established principles have been replaced. A lot of the newer "Ideal" cuts are anything but.
I suppose that's a very good reason to endorse reflector technology, especially for someone looking for the best near tolk they can find..... especially considering the paucity of selection in 60% tabled stones.
Yes, I am glad we have a niche for Cushions, an Emerald Cuts, and of course, Fancy Colors.
These are stones that are all cut their own way.
I love the challenges associated with picking Fancy Shapes from a production. Rounds are beautiful, and one is supposed to look just like the next when you're manufacturing jewelry.
Every cushion is different.
Viv l'difference.


Peace

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/11/2009 7:19:57 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Garry: Years ago I made jokes about the IS. Maybe you''re still angry about that, and it''s driving some of your hostility.
In fact there''s been an IdealScope on my desk for many years. If I wanted to buy and sell stones to satisfy people looking for IS results, I''d surely need to use it.
David I never even raise my heart rate or bother with people who laugh at the pink shot glass. Very few have ever maintained their opinion over the years and I view that as their problem not mine. My hostility is that you consume a lot of peoples time and potentially mislead people, then provide no evidence other than spurious ''art'' type claims.
I will take you up on the light and ASET- I''d like to have the full set on hand.
Good, then email me or Pat at Gemappraisers and we will arrange it -I will let her know and the easiest way is to simply tell her or me what you are ordering and find other goods that add up to 1/2 that price and order them - we will see you get what you tell us - it is not Macys

I have come to realize that I was incorrect to scoff at reflector technology- no matter my personal feelings about it.
I have come to see, over time, that many shoppers have gotten benefit from the IS.
Many consumers who''ve used it are happy with their purchases- the proof is in the pudding.

I''m not saying that reflector technology is useless.

I do feel that many stones which are extremely desirable get rejected due to inaccurate reflector interpretation- but you can respond by saying rejecting good stones is better that a tool that allows what you consider to be bad stones to slip through. It is possible, but the safety fall back works well for diamonds that get dirty = 100% of them.
I do feel that ''over-analyzing'' a diamond is not conducive to the best shopping experience for all shoppers - or even getting the best diamond.
You can respond with the many people here on PS who disagree. People that want to learn which crown angles are the ones they love. As opposed the way I, and many other diamond professionals look at diamonds. each buyer should have his own rights - they cana choose now - and we see that the fear the www would take all diamond sales has never been realized. But remeber they are buying unseen and want info to replace their eyes.

It seems to me that a difference of opinion, instead of being looked at as two different viewpoints, is turned into something pejorative.
That''s a shame.
I''m not saying anyone is wrong, or does not know how to pick diamonds simply because they utilize reflector technology.
I''m saying it''s entirely possible to pick the best stones without reflector technology- and that might be the better way for some people. I would argue about the very fine differences where say there is a tiny facet misalignment and from a certain direction stone X has a dead spot - you cant pick that up with your eye.


Storm- I believe it''s also a shame that finding well cut RBC stones, in larger sizes, with what I consider to be the optimum depth and table are almost impossible to find.
Given time, I feel very sure that will change- just as ''chunky'' old style cushions have re-gained a lot of popularity lately.
In the rush to call their goods ''Ideal'' it seems that many of the well established principles have been replaced. A lot of the newer ''Ideal'' cuts are anything but.
I suppose that''s a very good reason to endorse reflector technology, especially for someone looking for the best near tolk they can find..... especially considering the paucity of selection in 60% tabled stones.
Yes, I am glad we have a niche for Cushions, an Emerald Cuts, and of course, Fancy Colors.
These are stones that are all cut their own way.
I love the challenges associated with picking Fancy Shapes from a production. Rounds are beautiful, and one is supposed to look just like the next when you''re manufacturing jewelry.
Every cushion is different. take that comment - the reason is bad - it is because even though the cutter just cut the best one in his life - he can not replicate it. The thread pinned at the top about solutions includes a fix for that. Cushions and radiants are several times harder to achieve consistency with for many reasons.

Viv l''difference. viv l''best for all


Peace

 

[risingsun]

Date: 5/11/2009 5:22:24 PM
Author: Regular Guy


Marian,

Taking a second look at my name-sake's site, I share many of your concerns. I think he does give mis-information about AGS vs GIA. I copy below:

---------------

Cut Grade -- All that MattersUntil January 1st, 2006, you basically had two options when it came to cut grade. You could either buy a diamond with an AGS certificate and trust their cut grading system, or you could learn about the various proportions of diamond cut and trust your own eduction about what numbers translated into a beautiful diamond. On that day, though, the GIA introduced a new certificate format that included their very own cut grade. They claim that their Cut Grade system is based on 15 years of research testing and retesting different combinations of measurements with real life light performance tests. As opposed to the AGS system which simply defines what an 'ideal' diamond is and then gives lower grades the farther away from that 'ideal' the parameters are (see table to the left), the GIA system does not have any one single definition of perfection. They claim that in their research various differing combinations of proportions equally produced diamonds that reflected the most light. So while in the AGS model, a diamond with a table size of 60% is automatically penalized to a Cut Grade of '2,' (on a scale from 0 to 9), with the GIA model, there's still a chance the diamond could receive an 'Excellent' grade if the rest of the parameters are the best possible parameters that combine with a 60% table.

(A chart is then included here, not copied, which seems to purport to refer to what would be an AGS parametric system. But IraWeissman doesn't seem to pick up that AGS played hop scotch with GIA at this point, such that near the time GIA went to a system that works similar to Garry's HCA, AGS went 3D...or at least continues to give this option with platinum...and no longer presents the type of chart Ira presents, at least for their more premium system...)




In my opinion, the GIA system is clearly a much more elegant solution to the question of what cut proportions produce the most beautiful diamonds. And the fact is, it's a more elegant solution than your typical diamond dealer's instincts, as well. What I mean is, before GIA introduced their cut grade, most diamond dealers thought about cut grade the same way the AGS did. They had in their mind what was the perfect set of parameters, and basically, diamonds got uglier the further they strayed from that ideal. This revelation of how GIA Cut Grade worked was a boon to diamond manufacturers as well. Now, the cutters had more options when assessing a piece of rough for cutting. If a diamond with a 57% sized table couldn't fit into a certain piece of rough and still maintain the weight category, then they could try a diamond with a 60% table and see if that would maintain the weight.

For those of you looking to buy a diamond without a certificate, here's a very dumbed-down, but reliable rule of thumb. Just remember '60/60.' That means 60% table and 60% total depth. While this falls out of the '0' and '1' cut grade of the AGS, it is the basic rule of thumb that diamond dealers always use. You can allow for about 2% plus or minus from the 60%, and make sure the girdle size is either thin or medium, but not thick. With these simple rules, you can be assured you will end up with a very beautiful diamond.

Thanks for your comments, Ira. I didn't feel up to posting all the misleading information I found on that site. I'm glad that you had a look and understand my concerns. We try our best on PS to give current information to people looking for diamonds. When shopping on the net, we need as much objective information as possible. I have trusted Brian Gavin's eyes to choose a great diamond for me, but I still want the IS, ASET, Sarin, hearts and arrows photo, and whatever relevant technology that is available. I bring my own IS and ASET to my B&M jeweler, as well

ETA: Sorry for the double post...

 

[strmrdr]

David,
What is funny is that you have become what you claim to hate when it comes to rounds.
You advocate very strongly for one style of RB that you worked with many years ago.
While the people you argue with at every opportunity advocate a huge range of beautiful diamonds that far exceeds 60/60s in scope! (it even includes some)
Which do you really believe in a very narrow range or a comparatively huge and inclusive range?
Viv l''difference indeed...

 

[iraweissman]

Humble pie tastes great!

You''re right, I need to update that page. The info on AGS is admittedly outdated and no longer correct.

Please keep the criticisms coming. It''s very helpful.

Date: 5/11/2009 5:22:24 PM
Author: Regular Guy
Marian,


Taking a second look at my name-sake''s site, I share many of your concerns. I think he does give mis-information about AGS vs GIA. I copy below:


---------------


Cut Grade -- All that MattersUntil January 1st, 2006, you basically had two options when it came to cut grade. You could either buy a diamond with an AGS certificate and trust their cut grading system, or you could learn about the various proportions of diamond cut and trust your own eduction about what numbers translated into a beautiful diamond. On that day, though, the GIA introduced a new certificate format that included their very own cut grade. They claim that their Cut Grade system is based on 15 years of research testing and retesting different combinations of measurements with real life light performance tests. As opposed to the AGS system which simply defines what an ''ideal'' diamond is and then gives lower grades the farther away from that ''ideal'' the parameters are (see table to the left), the GIA system does not have any one single definition of perfection. They claim that in their research various differing combinations of proportions equally produced diamonds that reflected the most light. So while in the AGS model, a diamond with a table size of 60% is automatically penalized to a Cut Grade of ''2,'' (on a scale from 0 to 9), with the GIA model, there''s still a chance the diamond could receive an ''Excellent'' grade if the rest of the parameters are the best possible parameters that combine with a 60% table.



(A chart is then included here, not copied, which seems to purport to refer to what would be an AGS parametric system. But IraWeissman doesn''t seem to pick up that AGS played hop scotch with GIA at this point, such that near the time GIA went to a system that works similar to Garry''s HCA, AGS went 3D...or at least continues to give this option with platinum...and no longer presents the type of chart Ira presents, at least for their more premium system...)




In my opinion, the GIA system is clearly a much more elegant solution to the question of what cut proportions produce the most beautiful diamonds. And the fact is, it''s a more elegant solution than your typical diamond dealer''s instincts, as well. What I mean is, before GIA introduced their cut grade, most diamond dealers thought about cut grade the same way the AGS did. They had in their mind what was the perfect set of parameters, and basically, diamonds got uglier the further they strayed from that ideal. This revelation of how GIA Cut Grade worked was a boon to diamond manufacturers as well. Now, the cutters had more options when assessing a piece of rough for cutting. If a diamond with a 57% sized table couldn''t fit into a certain piece of rough and still maintain the weight category, then they could try a diamond with a 60% table and see if that would maintain the weight.


For those of you looking to buy a diamond without a certificate, here''s a very dumbed-down, but reliable rule of thumb. Just remember ''60/60.'' That means 60% table and 60% total depth. While this falls out of the ''0'' and ''1'' cut grade of the AGS, it is the basic rule of thumb that diamond dealers always use. You can allow for about 2% plus or minus from the 60%, and make sure the girdle size is either thin or medium, but not thick. With these simple rules, you can be assured you will end up with a very beautiful diamond.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 5/12/2009 2:40:52 AM
Author: iraweissman
Humble pie tastes great!

You''re right, I need to update that page. The info on AGS is admittedly outdated and no longer correct.

Please keep the criticisms coming. It''s very helpful.

Ira,

Considering that:
- you are presenting yourself as a ''sightholder veteran'', whatever that means (did I miss one of the recent wars going on?),
- you are hosting a site with the strong message ''the truth about diamonds'',
- this site is designed in such a way that you gain financially from it,
- you regularly tout your huge experience since you joined this forum,

It is rather rude to ask consumers on this site to check out your site in order to find incorrect statements, so that you can adjust it. If the abovementioned four considerations had any meaning, you would take care of fixing your own errors yourself.

What is more, in the past day of you posting, there have been incorrect or inaccurate statements in about 50% of your posts. This is happening to such an extent, that nobody can even keep up in correcting all these errors.

Just one question: when will you learn?

Live long,

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/12/2009 3:37:34 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

Date: 5/12/2009 2:40:52 AM
Author: iraweissman
Humble pie tastes great!

You''re right, I need to update that page. The info on AGS is admittedly outdated and no longer correct.

Please keep the criticisms coming. It''s very helpful.

Ira,

Considering that:
- you are presenting yourself as a ''sightholder veteran'', whatever that means (did I miss one of the recent wars going on?),
- you are hosting a site with the strong message ''the truth about diamonds'',
- this site is designed in such a way that you gain financially from it,
- you regularly tout your huge experience since you joined this forum,

It is rather rude to ask consumers on this site to check out your site in order to find incorrect statements, so that you can adjust it. If the abovementioned four considerations had any meaning, you would take care of fixing your own errors yourself.

What is more, in the past day of you posting, there have been incorrect or inaccurate statements in about 50% of your posts. This is happening to such an extent, that nobody can even keep up in correcting all these errors.

Just one question: when will you learn?

Live long,

The paradox....

The pro/consumers are correcting the "sightholder veteran"[''s] mistakes.....

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 5/11/2009 11:52:52 PM
Author: strmrdr
David,
What is funny is that you have become what you claim to hate when it comes to rounds.
You advocate very strongly for one style of RB that you worked with many years ago.
While the people you argue with at every opportunity advocate a huge range of beautiful diamonds that far exceeds 60/60s in scope! (it even includes some)
Which do you really believe in a very narrow range or a comparatively huge and inclusive range?
Viv l''difference indeed...

Karl, I honestly feel the use of the word "hate" is inaccurate.
You categorize me as arguing at every opportunity- I feel this is also an inaccurate categorization.
When I have gotten into heated discussions, clearly I was not talking to myself- others have "argued" the other side.
I''ve NEVER said that there''s anything "wrong" with near tolk diamonds- just the opposite- I think they are beautiful.

My point has been that the smaller table, and greater depth of these near tolks is a compromise- just like a 60/60 is a compromise. Personally, I prefer the things a 60/60 brings to the table- mainly a larger spread- and what appears to my eye to be more brilliance.
That is not to say anyone is wrong for loving the smaller tables of near tolks.
My point is that one is not "better" than the other, rather it''s a matter of taste.

To answer the last question you posed "Which do you really believe in a very narrow range or a comparatively huge and inclusive range?"

The answer is the latter.
Based on his answer, it would seem that Garry wants every cushion to be the same, I prefer looking at a wide range of facet and cutting designs.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/12/2009 3:42:08 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Based on his answer, it would seem that Garry wants every cushion to be the same, I prefer looking at a wide range of facet and cutting designs.

Im going to address this first:
Not so, what Garry wants is 10-20 different ways of cutting a high performance beautiful cushion that are available to consumers on a consistent basis and the percentage of badly cut stones to be reduced.
Cutting for looks and performance does not equal reduced choice.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/12/2009 3:42:08 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

My point has been that the smaller table, and greater depth of these near tolks is a compromise- just like a 60/60 is a compromise. Personally, I prefer the things a 60/60 brings to the table- mainly a larger spread- and what appears to my eye to be more brilliance.

That is not to say anyone is wrong for loving the smaller tables of near tolks.

I keep on pointing out to you that I can use the same tools that I use to optimize other cuts to design high performance beautiful 60/60s.
If the ones that you love are as nice as you remember they will do very well on these tests also.
Which is why the frustration level gets high is because we keep having the same conversation over and over again to the point I could copy and paste my replies because you haven''t found one yet to prove to yourself that it is true.

As to what I bolded above you recently took a consumer to task for saying that a 60/60 moves the compromise towards brilliance.
Your own observation above confirms that.
Think about it....

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 5/12/2009 2:40:52 AM
Author: iraweissman
Humble pie tastes great!

You''re right, I need to update that page. The info on AGS is admittedly outdated and no longer correct.

Please keep the criticisms coming. It''s very helpful.

Mr. W...the question is, of course, more than what do you know, and when did you know it...but more...knowing what you know now, what will you do, and why.

I believe you represent on your web site that you make diamond recommendations to people seeking you out. When I do this, I take grading reports associated with diamonds into serious consideration.

How have you done this, and how will you do this, now?

 

[purrfectpear]

Interesting comment on Weissman''s site about clarity enhancement:

1) Deep Boiling:This is the only type of clarity enhancement that is sanctioned by the GIA. This involves boiling the diamond under deep pressure in a special acidic solution. This procedure only works on diamonds whose inclusions are black and reach the surface. If the inclusion cavity does not reach the outer surface of the finished cut diamond, then the acid has no way of penetrating the inclusion. Likewise, deep boiling does not fill in the cavity, it simply removes the black compound that''s filling it. So at best this procedure can remove a very noticeable black inclusion and replace it with a slightly translucent white inclusion. This procedure is so commonplace and cheap that most diamond manufacturers simply deep boil an entire production of diamonds before sorting to be sure they have removed any black inclusions that could be removed. There is no stigma whatsoever attached to this treatment.

Experts, truth or not? I''m well aware of boiling diamonds. I''m not aware that "most" diamonds are boiled, and I would think that there "would" be some stigma in having a void on the surface of your diamond. Your take?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/12/2009 5:02:09 PM
Author: purrfectpear
Interesting comment on Weissman's site about clarity enhancement:


1) Deep Boiling:This is the only type of clarity enhancement that is sanctioned by the GIA. This involves boiling the diamond under deep pressure in a special acidic solution. This procedure only works on diamonds whose inclusions are black and reach the surface. If the inclusion cavity does not reach the outer surface of the finished cut diamond, then the acid has no way of penetrating the inclusion. Likewise, deep boiling does not fill in the cavity, it simply removes the black compound that's filling it. So at best this procedure can remove a very noticeable black inclusion and replace it with a slightly translucent white inclusion. This procedure is so commonplace and cheap that most diamond manufacturers simply deep boil an entire production of diamonds before sorting to be sure they have removed any black inclusions that could be removed. There is no stigma whatsoever attached to this treatment.

Experts, truth or not? I'm well aware of boiling diamonds. I'm not aware that 'most' diamonds are boiled, and I would think that there 'would' be some stigma in having a void on the surface of your diamond. Your take?

It is my understanding that most if not all diamonds are boiled as the final step to clean them.
However the resulting cavity would be graded as a clarity characteristic and for durability.
So overall while it has some truth it is not the whole story.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 5/7/2009 4:13:54 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 5/7/2009 3:56:18 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 5/7/2009 3:42:37 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 5/7/2009 3:21:25 PM
Author: Ellen

Can you give me a for instance?


Now, one thing I did think of. If you are referring to the fact that we pick stones that are well balanced, and not 60/60 like you prefer, I get it. But as others have said, and even some 60/60 owners, those stones fall in the ''definite personal preference'' range. They do need to be seen, as the majority would most likely not pick them as opposed to a near Tolk. That''s why we don''t recommend them. (I''m not saying they can''t be nice though!)

HI Ellen,
There''s your examle.
You are stating , as a ''fact'' that stones of 60 depth/60 table are not well balanced. That is by no means a fact. Many of the finest diamond cutters in the world prefer 60/60 over a smaller tabled ''Near tolk''- THAT is a fact

You are talking about ''preference'' in this statement. It may be a fact that some cutters prefer this type of stone, but it doesn''t make it a fact that they are as well balanced in fire and brilliance as a near Tolk.

What is a fact, is that 60/60''s are cut towards brilliance. They do not display a more equal amount of brilliance and fire. You absolutely agreed with me on this very point not too long ago. If you''d like me to pull it up, I''ll be glad to.

Ellen-isn''t this all about preference?
When you label a 60/60 as ''not well balanced'' it really sounds like you are stating as a ''fact'' that a near tolk is ''better''.
The difference is personal preference.

Karl- is this what you are referring to?
All due respect, but I don''t see this as "taking to task" - rather an open exchange of ideas.


IN terms of the diamonds you design Karl- that''s great! I have no doubt that you can create some beautiful designs.

We have cutters we''ve used for many years- and I have been very pleased at the decisions they''ve made on many occasions.

There is a very real practical side to this. Rough diamonds do not grow on trees.
Making the correct decisions on how to maximize beauty, yield and profitability are complex, to say the least. It''s easy to make the diamond cutters out to be greedy- or not caring about beauty. But the balancing act necessary to stay successful in the diamond cutting business is remarkably difficult.
Many companies that attempt that part of the business fail.

I point this out because designing a nice looking diamond using the tools you use is only a small part of actually producing a well cut diamond.

Re: having the same conversation over and over again- some people are here for the long haul- others come, ask a question and move on.
Inevitably the same questions get asked over and over again.
In such cases, copying and pasting might be very practical.

Purrfect: Yes, most stones are boiled after cutting.
Even if there''s no black carbon reaching the surface ( and even very close to the surface) boiling is done to clean the diamonds.
They get extremely dirty during the cutting process- so much so that cleaning with a cloth does not get the job done.
The cost, at $5 a carat is inconsequential.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Yeee-HA!
I just got my mitts on a .54ct E/VVS2 60 depth/61 table stone to use for an informal comparison.
It''s not the "best" made stone I''ve ever seen- but it is a nice representative for the purposes of demonstrating the differences. The GIA report is from before 2006- so there''s no cut grade- but that should not make a difference. I can have a sarin or OGI drawn on the stone to get the angles

For comparison I also got a.52ct AGS 0 cut grade diamond graded E color/ VS2 clarity. 60.5 depth 56.3 table

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/12/2009 5:58:07 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Yeee-HA!

I just got my mitts on a .54ct E/VVS2 60 depth/61 table stone to use for an informal comparison.

It's not the 'best' made stone I've ever seen- but it is a nice representative for the purposes of demonstrating the differences. The GIA report is from before 2006- so there's no cut grade- but that should not make a difference. I can have a sarin or OGI drawn on the stone to get the angles


For comparison I also got a.52ct AGS 0 cut grade diamond graded E color/ VS2 clarity. 60.5 depth 56.3 table

yes have a sarin scan ran please and get the .srn file with all the cut information for both diamonds.

 

[Stephan]

As a lot of people are repeating themselves, let me repeat myself too.

Let us talk about the IdealScope.
And let me compare two brands I highly respect:
EightStar vs Cut by Infinity

Which one is ''better''?
GIA will say Infinity.
A lot of people on this forum would say Infinity too.
Some people may prefer EightStar.

I don''t have any preference.
I own both.
My preference will depend on the lighting and the viewing distance.
It''s that easy.

Which one has the ''best'' IdealScope?
EightStar.
Is it better?
I don''t think it''s better, it''s different.
And a lot of people who had the chance to compare did choose the non painted H&A.

IdealScope is for me a rejection tool that helps reject diamonds with blatant leakage under the table or flagrant leakage under the crown.
But I understand David who find that some diamonds with leakage that isn''t concentrate at one place but here and there still look gorgeous. I think interesting things can happen in a diamond around small points of leakage, correct me if I''m wrong.

Did you ever see an AGS0 diamond that looked nice, but when compared, not alive as an emerald cut with poorer light return?

A lot of people reject shalllow diamonds because of contrast and obstruction issues.

If we talk about contrast, we should talk about fire and scintillation.
And IdealScope won''t help me a lot to estimate what kind of fire the diamond will have.

Yes I need an IdealScope picture to make a purchase, but it won''t be enough to make a decision, I have to see the stone and to tilt it under various kind of lights and from different viewing distances.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/12/2009 5:21:03 PM
Author: Rockdiamond


Karl- is this what you are referring to?
All due respect, but I don''t see this as ''taking to task'' - rather an open exchange of ideas.


IN terms of the diamonds you design Karl- that''s great! I have no doubt that you can create some beautiful designs.

We have cutters we''ve used for many years- and I have been very pleased at the decisions they''ve made on many occasions.

There is a very real practical side to this. Rough diamonds do not grow on trees.
Making the correct decisions on how to maximize beauty, yield and profitability are complex, to say the least. It''s easy to make the diamond cutters out to be greedy- or not caring about beauty. But the balancing act necessary to stay successful in the diamond cutting business is remarkably difficult.
Many companies that attempt that part of the business fail.

I point this out because designing a nice looking diamond using the tools you use is only a small part of actually producing a well cut diamond.

You might like to read this http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/69/1/Buying-Diamonds-Consumers’-Problems-and-a-Solution-.aspx

and the thread pinned at the top that references it David and enter the next millenium

 

[Serg]

Date: 5/6/2009 2:18:36 PM
Author: John Pollard
Good topic.


The diamond business as a whole has been extremely slow to adapt to change.


It may be shocking to the Pricescope-educated, but a great many appraisers don''t even know the difference between what a H&A viewer shows and what performance viewers like IS or ASET show. The ASET was only formally introduced in 2005 and the scientific paper presenting it in Optical Engineering didn''t appear until 2007. Ideal-Scope has been in use for longer (cut-research using reflectors have been done since the 1980s) but such reflector performance tools have remained exclusive to certain niche manufacturers and sellers...and as a way for people without the diamond in-hand to predict performance quality on sites like this - as has been mentioned.


You may ask - what about appraiser coursework/education? The GIA GG diploma does not address reflectors. In fact the GIA proportions-based system didn''t evolve until 2006 and (in my opinion) what we learn about technical cut as GIA diamonds diploma graduates is extremely lacking. Those who pursue AGS training all the way through ICGA learn much more, but there are less than 20 ICGA-certified appraisers on the planet (!). Fortunately we have one who posts here on Pricescope (Neil Beaty). He is an example of a professional who maintains use of Ideal-Scope, ASET, DiamCalc and all modern tools that, in my opinion, ''pro appraisers'' of diamond cut quality should at least have familiarity-with.


Sadly there''s no continuing education requirement for appraisers. What was learned 30 years ago may be the most recent for those who studied then. Actually formal training isn''t necessary. Anyone can become a jewelry appraiser without so much as a hairdresser''s license. This is what makes those great appraisers who have diligently pursued their craft so special - a round of applause, please, for the contributors here and their like-minded peers.


This may be of interest:


http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/58/1/%e2%80%9cAppraise-the-Appraiser%e2%80%9d---Help-for-Consumers.aspx

re:performance viewers like IS or ASET show.

1) What is cut performance?
2) What is polish diamond performance?
3) What ( type or part) performance does ASET ( or IS) show?

 

[Regular Guy]

bump (as Serg, and us regular folk, are waiting for the plain english reply)...

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 5/13/2009 12:27:52 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 5/12/2009 5:21:03 PM
Author: Rockdiamond


Karl- is this what you are referring to?
All due respect, but I don''t see this as ''taking to task'' - rather an open exchange of ideas.


IN terms of the diamonds you design Karl- that''s great! I have no doubt that you can create some beautiful designs.

We have cutters we''ve used for many years- and I have been very pleased at the decisions they''ve made on many occasions.

There is a very real practical side to this. Rough diamonds do not grow on trees.
Making the correct decisions on how to maximize beauty, yield and profitability are complex, to say the least. It''s easy to make the diamond cutters out to be greedy- or not caring about beauty. But the balancing act necessary to stay successful in the diamond cutting business is remarkably difficult.
Many companies that attempt that part of the business fail.

I point this out because designing a nice looking diamond using the tools you use is only a small part of actually producing a well cut diamond.

You might like to read this http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/69/1/Buying-Diamonds-Consumers’-Problems-and-a-Solution-.aspx

and the thread pinned at the top that references it David and enter the next millenium

Garry: It''s an interesting concept.
My impression is that it is seemingly unworkable based on current market conditions. There are also a lot of variables - what happens if the stone gets destroyed on the wheel?
Why would cutters enter into such an arrangement?
It seems to take all the potential financial gain out of the equation for them. There''s no question some stones are huge windfalls for a cutter- but this is balanced by the ones that don''t meet expectations- or get damaged during cutting. If the cutter can''t "hit a home run" occasionally, the entire risk of the operation may become untenable.
From what I see here in NYC, buying rough is so very difficult that turning any profit at all has been practically impossible for the past 18 months.
Lately, rough has come down, and cutters have started to buy again- but many cutters were lost during this shakeout.

I''d be very interested to see who, if any, rough buyers and cutters wold participate in such a scheme.

I have no doubt Storm can design some beautiful cuts- finding someone to buy the rough and actually produce them...another story entirely


Garry, a lot of folks feel that the next millennium starts when 2099 turns into 2100.
More to the point, I humbly request that differences of opinion about diamonds not get turned into a personal affront.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/13/2009 5:39:15 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 5/13/2009 12:27:52 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 5/12/2009 5:21:03 PM
Author: Rockdiamond


Karl- is this what you are referring to?
All due respect, but I don''t see this as ''taking to task'' - rather an open exchange of ideas.


IN terms of the diamonds you design Karl- that''s great! I have no doubt that you can create some beautiful designs.

We have cutters we''ve used for many years- and I have been very pleased at the decisions they''ve made on many occasions.

There is a very real practical side to this. Rough diamonds do not grow on trees.
Making the correct decisions on how to maximize beauty, yield and profitability are complex, to say the least. It''s easy to make the diamond cutters out to be greedy- or not caring about beauty. But the balancing act necessary to stay successful in the diamond cutting business is remarkably difficult.
Many companies that attempt that part of the business fail.

I point this out because designing a nice looking diamond using the tools you use is only a small part of actually producing a well cut diamond.

You might like to read this http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/69/1/Buying-Diamonds-Consumers’-Problems-and-a-Solution-.aspx

and the thread pinned at the top that references it David and enter the next millenium

Garry: It''s an interesting concept.
My impression is that it is seemingly unworkable based on current market conditions. There are also a lot of variables - what happens if the stone gets destroyed on the wheel?
Why would cutters enter into such an arrangement?
It seems to take all the potential financial gain out of the equation for them. There''s no question some stones are huge windfalls for a cutter- but this is balanced by the ones that don''t meet expectations- or get damaged during cutting. If the cutter can''t ''hit a home run'' occasionally, the entire risk of the operation may become untenable.
From what I see here in NYC, buying rough is so very difficult that turning any profit at all has been practically impossible for the past 18 months.
Lately, rough has come down, and cutters have started to buy again- but many cutters were lost during this shakeout.

I''d be very interested to see who, if any, rough buyers and cutters wold participate in such a scheme.

I have no doubt Storm can design some beautiful cuts- finding someone to buy the rough and actually produce them...another story entirely


Garry, a lot of folks feel that the next millennium starts when 2099 turns into 2100.
More to the point, I humbly request that differences of opinion about diamonds not get turned into a personal affront.

Thank you for reading it David.

If you paste your comments in the appropriate thread I would be glad to answer them

pop it here
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/buying-diamonds-consumers%E2%80%99-problems-and-a-solution.114186/