"Beauty" as it pertains specifically to diamonds.

[Demon]

I don't see how a consensus could ever be reached - maybe less so now than ever.

There are more cuts available, with more precision, and yet so many people still love the old cuts that can be pretty 'wonky'. There are more people moving beyond the DEF colors and finding the lower colors more attractive to them. Clarity may be the only area that can be agreed on at all, and even that, not so much - there are several people here that buy, and even seek out, I clarity stones, as long as they are eye clean.

My first diamond, other than accent diamonds, was a VS champagne (I used to prefer colored stones - my engagement ring was a sapphire) with strong blue fluorescence. My second was an SI "Q" with faint to medium blue flluorescence, and my most recent is an I1 J, with strong to very strong blue fluorescence. (Moving UP on the color scale, as opposed to down may well qualify me as 'fringe', lol) The J has a crystal right under the table, but I can't see it with my eyes alone, only the loupe. While I love them all, my favorite as far as color is the Q - there's something I love about blue flashes in a yellowish stone. I even bought an M, SI1 diamond that has a slight brownish tint in some lights. While I can hear some of you out there gagging at that

, it is a freaking beautiful diamond! So much so that my daughter fell in love with it and I had to give it to her.

So I guess my point, after the rambling, is that I believe that while vendors can offer only ideal cut, high color & clarity diamonds and reach the mainstream, I believe the mainstream is shrinking somewhat and may continue to do so as people move away from the 'ideal' standard and toward what is ideal to them. I guess I fall into the subjective beauty category.

 

[HVVS]

Date: 10/30/2009 3:13:16 PM
Author: oldminer
My experience has been that women develop a close emotional attachment to their engagement diamond. The guys, on the other hand, attack the problems associated with buying the diamond like it was a thesis or a term paper. Many, though not all, are fact driven and don't get too emotionally invested until near the moment of showing the ring to their intended. If something could be communicated which would excite buyers more, which would invest them sooner with motivation and direction, the sellers would be happier and so would the buyers. ...

Nope, sorry, oldminer, but I'm a woman and I never developed any close emotional attachment with my e-ring diamond. And it was a G VVS1 and I even got to help pick it myself, lol. And judging from the quantity of upgrade yearnings threads here, I'd say the women are *more* likely, not less likely, to be more mercenary and value conscious than the prospective grooms are during the purchase process, and to look at it as a commodity and want the most for the money, LOL. Maybe afterward, they get attached to the stone. Who knows.

I gave my original e-ring back to my ex when we divorced, for any number number of reasons including didn't want the memories. Since then, I've bought 4 (count 'em) diamonds of 1 ct or more (I earn my own money, BTW.) When I make a big purchase, I don't want any romantic notions influencing my decisions. Money issues and technical specs are what I am interested in. And only one of those diamonds is a modern H&A super ideal RB. The rest are vintage and older cut RBs, but they all are attractive and get compliments. If anyone makes me an offer I can't refuse, that diamond or maybe the whole ring goes down the road.

 

[jstarfireb]

Regarding emotional attachment, my husband and I are a little backwards, I guess! I''m the one who suggested upgrading to a bigger, whiter stone with fluorescence somewhere down the line. And he''s the one who said "how could you ever think of getting rid of the stone we picked out together as a symbol of our love?"

I''m also in the camp that beauty is completely subjective, and any attempt to quantify it will be futile. We can quantify things like light return, scintillation, etc. And most of us would agree that a cut diamond is more pleasing to the eye than a rough rock. But beyond that, we can''t quantify what someone will describe as beautiful vs. ugly. Just look at color for instance. One person''s "ugly" yellowish diamond is another''s "beautiful" antique warm colored one.

 

[clgwli]

Date: 10/31/2009 3:06:17 PM
Author: Demon
I don''t see how a consensus could ever be reached - maybe less so now than ever.

There are more cuts available, with more precision, and yet so many people still love the old cuts that can be pretty ''wonky''. There are more people moving beyond the DEF colors and finding the lower colors more attractive to them. Clarity may be the only area that can be agreed on at all, and even that, not so much - there are several people here that buy, and even seek out, I clarity stones, as long as they are eye clean.

My first diamond, other than accent diamonds, was a VS champagne (I used to prefer colored stones - my engagement ring was a sapphire) with strong blue fluorescence. My second was an SI ''Q'' with faint to medium blue flluorescence, and my most recent is an I1 J, with strong to very strong blue fluorescence. (Moving UP on the color scale, as opposed to down may well qualify me as ''fringe'', lol) The J has a crystal right under the table, but I can''t see it with my eyes alone, only the loupe. While I love them all, my favorite as far as color is the Q - there''s something I love about blue flashes in a yellowish stone. I even bought an M, SI1 diamond that has a slight brownish tint in some lights. While I can hear some of you out there gagging at that

, it is a freaking beautiful diamond! So much so that my daughter fell in love with it and I had to give it to her.

So I guess my point, after the rambling, is that I believe that while vendors can offer only ideal cut, high color & clarity diamonds and reach the mainstream, I believe the mainstream is shrinking somewhat and may continue to do so as people move away from the ''ideal'' standard and toward what is ideal to them. I guess I fall into the subjective beauty category.

So much of this is how I feel. I realize that some may see me on the fringe. I prefer older cuts and lower colors to what many classify as "idea" and white colors. Beauty is so subjective and I think that poll is showing it as well.

What bothers me is that some of the jewelers I would like to talk to locally about stones don''t even consider looking beneath a J or K in color. We are working with some locally (and may broaden our search to online as well) and there were 3 locals that didn''t blink an eye when I said I prefer L and below. I think that is something these high end stores are missing out with. I know my husband has some quotes out there and he has given me stories with the good and the bad. I do appreciate people who understand that beauty is subjective and not everyone finds a certain type to be ideal for them.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 10/31/2009 7:34:01 PM
Author: clgwli

Date: 10/31/2009 3:06:17 PM

Author: Demon

I don''t see how a consensus could ever be reached - maybe less so now than ever.


There are more cuts available, with more precision, and yet so many people still love the old cuts that can be pretty ''wonky''. There are more people moving beyond the DEF colors and finding the lower colors more attractive to them. Clarity may be the only area that can be agreed on at all, and even that, not so much - there are several people here that buy, and even seek out, I clarity stones, as long as they are eye clean.


My first diamond, other than accent diamonds, was a VS champagne (I used to prefer colored stones - my engagement ring was a sapphire) with strong blue fluorescence. My second was an SI ''Q'' with faint to medium blue flluorescence, and my most recent is an I1 J, with strong to very strong blue fluorescence. (Moving UP on the color scale, as opposed to down may well qualify me as ''fringe'', lol) The J has a crystal right under the table, but I can''t see it with my eyes alone, only the loupe. While I love them all, my favorite as far as color is the Q - there''s something I love about blue flashes in a yellowish stone. I even bought an M, SI1 diamond that has a slight brownish tint in some lights. While I can hear some of you out there gagging at that

, it is a freaking beautiful diamond! So much so that my daughter fell in love with it and I had to give it to her.


So I guess my point, after the rambling, is that I believe that while vendors can offer only ideal cut, high color & clarity diamonds and reach the mainstream, I believe the mainstream is shrinking somewhat and may continue to do so as people move away from the ''ideal'' standard and toward what is ideal to them. I guess I fall into the subjective beauty category.

So much of this is how I feel. I realize that some may see me on the fringe. I prefer older cuts and lower colors to what many classify as ''idea'' and white colors. Beauty is so subjective and I think that poll is showing it as well.


What bothers me is that some of the jewelers I would like to talk to locally about stones don''t even consider looking beneath a J or K in color. We are working with some locally (and may broaden our search to online as well) and there were 3 locals that didn''t blink an eye when I said I prefer L and below. I think that is something these high end stores are missing out with. I know my husband has some quotes out there and he has given me stories with the good and the bad. I do appreciate people who understand that beauty is subjective and not everyone finds a certain type to be ideal for them.

Regarding the related poll on the pinned topic - it does show some interesting repsonses and has quite surprised me.
One interesting analogy could be wine - the more one learns about wine, the more one can develop a wider palete, or a more narrow one. In my case it has become more narrow. I liken this to Storm''s response - my taste has become similar to his diamond taste. Quite narrow - like my wine taste

 

[Serg]

Re: One interesting analogy could be wine - the more one learns about wine, the more one can develop a wider palete, or a more narrow one. In my case it has become more

In beginning I preferred sweet wins , than red dry wins. Because dry Win was something new for me I have started from best brand “French win”, very often I used Parker book to select win.
But when my Taste an selection skills become better I recognized what French wins is not best choice for me.
For same price I can buy now much better( for my Taste) Italian, SAR, Argentine and some times Australian red Wins .

Education and experience is key for variety and customization .
If diamond industry wants grooving , it should invest to real consumer education .
Too much drift to emotion shopping, costly advertisements, brainwashing are not helpful more for diamond industry .

It is not our task to decide what is better for consumer, it is not our task to find one single metric to grade Beauty, It is not our task to find one more “ True Ideal cut” and push consumers to buy it.
Out task to Give instruments for consumer comparison between different nice cuts and Learn consumer preferences, variety of consumer Taste . it will help create new amassing cuts and create consumer curiosity

 

[oldminer]

Thanks everyone! This has been an eye opening thread for me and probably for many others. My own preferences are to quantify and categorize things, but it is apparent that there are other methods for selection of the right diamond for each consumer. I can certainly live with variety and a wider choice like Serg has suggested. Creating tools to provide this knowledge and the wider variety seems a worthy goal.

We are a large community and many different ways of thinking exist here. It is a wonderful expereince to see participation by so many with divergent views as it is a true insight into the market which is rarely appreciated by marketing firms and sellers.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 10/31/2009 11:56:33 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 10/29/2009 5:06:14 PM

Author: oldminer


Your method of argument uses the most far from center thinking. It is entertaining once I get past the surprise of seeing it in print. People liking the feel of a stone in the dark is a good example of this, but nearly laughable in thinking it applies to even just a tiny minority. People selecting a non-symmetric stone, yet another tiny minority of buyers. What kind of buyer wants an eye-imperfect stone in preference to an eye-clean one except some sort of minority individualist? All may be very true examples of the lunatic fringe or the rugged individualist, but I doubt you actually believe these folks are thinking as the mojority would think. As experts, we have rights to set fair, reasonable and agreed upon standards. Consumers are very free to ignore them, but consumers and non-experts surely do not set standards in any field, especially diamonds.

Can I be part too?

I guess I too belong to the ''lunatic fringe'' club as I am one lunatic who has been cutting these non-symmertic cuts for over a decade..., and purposly too

.


There must be something wrong with me...

Whatever is wrong with you - I like it

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thank YOU Dave!
Nice to see more folks loving the rough edges, as it were. Not all beauty involves perfection.
I have so often felt like a lone wolf in sea of people looking for perfect optical symmetry.

The tools used here to select perfection in optical symmetry, and light return do a phenomenal job of getting that type of diamond in a shoppers hands. Which is great if that''s what a shopper wants.
Suggesting to folks that they''re supposed to want that have seems to me as missing the point.


My point has always been that it''s wrong to classify stones that are not cut to be perfectly symmetrical as "worse" than a stone that displays perfect optical symmetry.
The same applies to fancy shaped diamonds that may fall far outside the "ideal" ranges suggested by charts. Diamonds below J- are not "worse" than D colored diamonds, just different. The same for diamonds that are lighter than Fancy Light Yellow, such as Y-Z.

Apparently many other people feel the same.
Nice to see!

 

[oldminer]

It still remains that diamonds are basically, not totally, priced by a contrived grid of color-clarity points along with weight and outline shpe. The less color, the more purity, etc,etc, the higher the price. It is logical that more valuable in a given weight and shape means less color and higher clarity. You can''t blame folks for wanting to do the same with symmetry, and numerous light handling characterisitcs. The shorthand for this additional set of categories has taken on the "beauty" role although it may be a very poor choice of a word.

The quest for the highest symmetry, and the most attractive light measures does inherently create another X/Y grid structure which in logical terms might go right under the color/clarity grid. While I think it can, the obvious opinion is that it may not be a proper use of such a grid. Even the grid and its components are under question.

This is the kind of thing everyone needs to know and understand. We have no standard although we have lots of marketing which indicates otherwise. Prices are definitely influenced by the marketing and each consumer needs to make their own informed decision.

You can''t go wrong with and AGS000 stone in terms of attractiveness, but you can find many, many diamonds without such a grade which are highly attractive and desirable, too. In truth, there are non-AGS000 diamonds which many folks would personally prefer. We all have our own hard coded mental images of what we like and don''t like and this is science driven.

We can qualntify beauty for those who want a scientific approach. Those who will accept the dictates of a numerical reference system can find comfort in such objective facts. However, these folks may not appreciate that such a system would disregard many fine choices of equal or similar beauty and probably lower price.

So, owhen one is shopping for a diamond, it might be smart from the very start to declare that you are science driven or more open minded about finding what YOU think looks best. This could help sellers to show you a narrower or wider range of diamonds and allow them to know your methodology of buying is restricted by pre-screening numerically or open to visual decision making and market shopping.

 

[Serg]

Date: 11/2/2009 7:21:14 AM
Author: oldminer
It still remains that diamonds are basically, not totally, priced by a contrived grid of color-clarity points along with weight and outline shpe. The less color, the more purity, etc,etc, the higher the price. It is logical that more valuable in a given weight and shape means less color and higher clarity. You can't blame folks for wanting to do the same with symmetry, and numerous light handling characterisitcs. The shorthand for this additional set of categories has taken on the 'beauty' role although it may be a very poor choice of a word.


The quest for the highest symmetry, and the most attractive light measures does inherently create another X/Y grid structure which in logical terms might go right under the color/clarity grid. While I think it can, the obvious opinion is that it may not be a proper use of such a grid. Even the grid and its components are under question.


This is the kind of thing everyone needs to know and understand. We have no standard although we have lots of marketing which indicates otherwise. Prices are definitely influenced by the marketing and each consumer needs to make their own informed decision.


You can't go wrong with and AGS000 stone in terms of attractiveness, but you can find many, many diamonds without such a grade which are highly attractive and desirable, too. In truth, there are non-AGS000 diamonds which many folks would personally prefer. We all have our own hard coded mental images of what we like and don't like and this is science driven.


We can qualntify beauty for those who want a scientific approach. Those who will accept the dictates of a numerical reference system can find comfort in such objective facts. However, these folks may not appreciate that such a system would disregard many fine choices of equal or similar beauty and probably lower price.


So, owhen one is shopping for a diamond, it might be smart from the very start to declare that you are science driven or more open minded about finding what YOU think looks best. This could help sellers to show you a narrower or wider range of diamonds and allow them to know your methodology of buying is restricted by pre-screening numerically or open to visual decision making and market shopping.

re:The less color, the more purity, etc,etc, the higher the price. It is logical that more valuable in a given weight and shape means less color and higher clarity. You can't blame folks for wanting to do the same with symmetry, and numerous light handling characterisitcs.

Dave,
Color and clarity have strong connection with Nature . Final results ( for color and clarity grade) depends from cutter , but in any case these two categories have strong correlation with RARITY.
You can not say same for symmetry and LR.
15 years ago Round diamonds with high level symmetry were very rare. Such diamonds ( as H&A diamonds) are not rare more.

I am agree what we need grade Craftsmanship. But never anybody successfully graded Beauty. Do you know any such grades from other industries? in Jewelry for example?

May be we can find way to grade Performance( LR, Fire,...), but Beauty is social culture phenomena.
I think, Diamond industry received too much damage from Ideal Diamonds.
Grade system what is good for clarity and color, could give ugly results for Beauty grading
Time for new solutions.

 

[oldminer]

Serg;

We agree with one another although we state things very differently. I hope other readers appreciate what difficulty lies at the hands of using a foreign language to express complex problems.

I have never quite believed that nature has so conveniently supplied the diamond trade with a perfect model of D color being most rare and IF being most rare. I think that is a marketing construct of Debeers. A good tool, but hardly believable. I understand that D color is more common in larger diamonds than in 1 carat and smaller diamonds. Surely, D color is less rare in some sizes than in others. Maybe F color is more rare overall. I have no way to know and with the way rough was distributed and hoarded for so long, how would anyone know such a well kep secret?

I would like to make a beauty screening tool, but if it isn''t to be, then we can continue to discuss attributes of a personal nature that each of us count as we judge beauty for ourselves. Even such a discussion will help novices to shop smarter and to find the best stone for their budget and personality.

 

[Demon]

Date: 10/31/2009 9:41:30 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 10/31/2009 7:34:01 PM
Author: clgwli

Date: 10/31/2009 3:06:17 PM

Author: Demon

I don''t see how a consensus could ever be reached - maybe less so now than ever.


There are more cuts available, with more precision, and yet so many people still love the old cuts that can be pretty ''wonky''. There are more people moving beyond the DEF colors and finding the lower colors more attractive to them. Clarity may be the only area that can be agreed on at all, and even that, not so much - there are several people here that buy, and even seek out, I clarity stones, as long as they are eye clean.


My first diamond, other than accent diamonds, was a VS champagne (I used to prefer colored stones - my engagement ring was a sapphire) with strong blue fluorescence. My second was an SI ''Q'' with faint to medium blue flluorescence, and my most recent is an I1 J, with strong to very strong blue fluorescence. (Moving UP on the color scale, as opposed to down may well qualify me as ''fringe'', lol) The J has a crystal right under the table, but I can''t see it with my eyes alone, only the loupe. While I love them all, my favorite as far as color is the Q - there''s something I love about blue flashes in a yellowish stone. I even bought an M, SI1 diamond that has a slight brownish tint in some lights. While I can hear some of you out there gagging at that

, it is a freaking beautiful diamond! So much so that my daughter fell in love with it and I had to give it to her.


So I guess my point, after the rambling, is that I believe that while vendors can offer only ideal cut, high color & clarity diamonds and reach the mainstream, I believe the mainstream is shrinking somewhat and may continue to do so as people move away from the ''ideal'' standard and toward what is ideal to them. I guess I fall into the subjective beauty category.

So much of this is how I feel. I realize that some may see me on the fringe. I prefer older cuts and lower colors to what many classify as ''idea'' and white colors. Beauty is so subjective and I think that poll is showing it as well.


What bothers me is that some of the jewelers I would like to talk to locally about stones don''t even consider looking beneath a J or K in color. We are working with some locally (and may broaden our search to online as well) and there were 3 locals that didn''t blink an eye when I said I prefer L and below. I think that is something these high end stores are missing out with. I know my husband has some quotes out there and he has given me stories with the good and the bad. I do appreciate people who understand that beauty is subjective and not everyone finds a certain type to be ideal for them.

Regarding the related poll on the pinned topic - it does show some interesting repsonses and has quite surprised me.
One interesting analogy could be wine - the more one learns about wine, the more one can develop a wider palete, or a more narrow one. In my case it has become more narrow. I liken this to Storm''s response - my taste has become similar to his diamond taste. Quite narrow - like my wine taste

Is there a time limit on editing posts here? I tried to change the fluorescence rating on my Q to strong, not faint to med, but don''t see an edit button now. Huh. It''s odd to me how all my bigger (and many of the accents) diamonds all have at least strong blue fluorescence, without having sought it out. I know about a third of diamonds fluoresce, but I seem to be well above the average! But that''s another topic.....


Garry, since your tastes in diamonds has narrowed, what was the lowest color and clarity that you found beautiful in the beginning? (Mine wine tastes are narrow too, but only because I haven''t really tried that many - Asti is always my wine of choice, lol

).

 

[Demon]

Date: 10/31/2009 7:34:01 PM
Author: clgwli

Date: 10/31/2009 3:06:17 PM
Author: Demon
I don''t see how a consensus could ever be reached - maybe less so now than ever.

There are more cuts available, with more precision, and yet so many people still love the old cuts that can be pretty ''wonky''. There are more people moving beyond the DEF colors and finding the lower colors more attractive to them. Clarity may be the only area that can be agreed on at all, and even that, not so much - there are several people here that buy, and even seek out, I clarity stones, as long as they are eye clean.

My first diamond, other than accent diamonds, was a VS champagne (I used to prefer colored stones - my engagement ring was a sapphire) with strong blue fluorescence. My second was an SI ''Q'' with faint to medium blue flluorescence, and my most recent is an I1 J, with strong to very strong blue fluorescence. (Moving UP on the color scale, as opposed to down may well qualify me as ''fringe'', lol) The J has a crystal right under the table, but I can''t see it with my eyes alone, only the loupe. While I love them all, my favorite as far as color is the Q - there''s something I love about blue flashes in a yellowish stone. I even bought an M, SI1 diamond that has a slight brownish tint in some lights. While I can hear some of you out there gagging at that

, it is a freaking beautiful diamond! So much so that my daughter fell in love with it and I had to give it to her.

So I guess my point, after the rambling, is that I believe that while vendors can offer only ideal cut, high color & clarity diamonds and reach the mainstream, I believe the mainstream is shrinking somewhat and may continue to do so as people move away from the ''ideal'' standard and toward what is ideal to them. I guess I fall into the subjective beauty category.

So much of this is how I feel. I realize that some may see me on the fringe. I prefer older cuts and lower colors to what many classify as ''idea'' and white colors. Beauty is so subjective and I think that poll is showing it as well.

What bothers me is that some of the jewelers I would like to talk to locally about stones don''t even consider looking beneath a J or K in color. We are working with some locally (and may broaden our search to online as well) and there were 3 locals that didn''t blink an eye when I said I prefer L and below. I think that is something these high end stores are missing out with. I know my husband has some quotes out there and he has given me stories with the good and the bad. I do appreciate people who understand that beauty is subjective and not everyone finds a certain type to be ideal for them.

I think the high end jewelers are missing out too, but they could sit on lower color diamonds for quite some time before they found a buyer that loves them. We''re still in the minority, I think, but that''s also good for us - usually the prices are lower.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 11/2/2009 7:21:14 AM
Author: oldminer
It still remains that diamonds are basically, not totally, priced by a contrived grid of color-clarity points along with weight and outline shpe. The less color, the more purity, etc,etc, the higher the price. It is logical that more valuable in a given weight and shape means less color and higher clarity. You can''t blame folks for wanting to do the same with symmetry, and numerous light handling characterisitcs. The shorthand for this additional set of categories has taken on the ''beauty'' role although it may be a very poor choice of a word.

The quest for the highest symmetry, and the most attractive light measures does inherently create another X/Y grid structure which in logical terms might go right under the color/clarity grid. While I think it can, the obvious opinion is that it may not be a proper use of such a grid. Even the grid and its components are under question.

This is the kind of thing everyone needs to know and understand. We have no standard although we have lots of marketing which indicates otherwise. Prices are definitely influenced by the marketing and each consumer needs to make their own informed decision.

You can''t go wrong with and AGS000 stone in terms of attractiveness, but you can find many, many diamonds without such a grade which are highly attractive and desirable, too. In truth, there are non-AGS000 diamonds which many folks would personally prefer. We all have our own hard coded mental images of what we like and don''t like and this is science driven.

We can qualntify beauty for those who want a scientific approach. Those who will accept the dictates of a numerical reference system can find comfort in such objective facts. However, these folks may not appreciate that such a system would disregard many fine choices of equal or similar beauty and probably lower price.

So, owhen one is shopping for a diamond, it might be smart from the very start to declare that you are science driven or more open minded about finding what YOU think looks best. This could help sellers to show you a narrower or wider range of diamonds and allow them to know your methodology of buying is restricted by pre-screening numerically or open to visual decision making and market shopping.

Hi all!

Dave, your statement in red above seems to me to be exactly what we''re trying to clarify and avoid in thus discussion.
It''s accurate to say some people can''t go wrong with an AGS000 maybe- but others certainly can. This can easily happen if a consumer pays more for an AGS0 that they may very well prefer less than a GIA VG cut grade stone, for example.

THIS is the kind of thing shoppers need to understand.

I could not agree more with Serg that the whole "Ideal Cut" craze has done a lot of damage to our industry.
Of course it''s also helped in other ways by raising the standards of cutting overall.

Interesting conversation for sure!

 

[oldminer]

I don''t think it is fair to say that AGS000 don''t have all the requisite factors to be among the most visually attractive to the general public. This does not mean that some people would not just as well prefer some other diamond for a number of possible reasons such as cost, size, outline, or an appreciation of lowered light return as being of importance to their own personality. There are always exceptions to "rules", but it is not right to imply that "no rules" would ever more useful to the vast majority than having good general categories ("rules") in place.

AGS000 are sort of like a distinct "brand" without a specific seller attached to it. It is a lab based brand rather than a seller based brand. Sort of a Good Housekeeping, Michelin Guide, ISO9001, sort of "brand" which has to do with characterisitcs rather than who is making it or selling it. This brand is then mixed with seller''s branding on top of it sometimes, too.

I have not found anyone who did not like the appearance of an AGS000 round. The princess is of a more subjective nature and any other fancy shape also would be more subjective, too. All these "top cut" look pretty good to me, but I would think it right that people may choose otherwise, differently than I would myself, for many reasons, both good and not such good reasons.

Even in beauty contests one sees many beautiful versions of people. The one chosen frequently is not the most beautiful in my personal opinion, but the politics behind the scenes, the way different attributes are quantified, the goals of the pageant itself, all dictate the final choice of the judges. The same is very true with diamonds. People are very much entitled to judge for themselves, but I would insist that one must only judge AFTER one has examined all the possible choices. Judging too fast is impulsive buying and not a truly informed or fair decision. We see far too many rapid, gut reaction decisions, with unhappy consequences after the purchase. Only knowledge and adequate shopping will lead people into making the correct choice as to what is most beautiful for them to actually buy.

The promotion of "Ideal Cut" as the only logical choice has not improved the diamond business. It has helped to make choosing easier for distant consumers, but I agree it is not always to their best benefit. It is frequently of benefit to those who want something that others will admire and is a trouble free shortcut to something that few would openly criticze.

 

[Serg]

Date: 11/2/2009 2:18:51 PM
Author: oldminer
I don't think it is fair to say that AGS000 don't have all the requisite factors to be among the most visually attractive to the general public. This does not mean that some people would not just as well prefer some other diamond for a number of possible reasons such as cost, size, outline, or an appreciation of lowered light return as being of importance to their own personality. There are always exceptions to 'rules', but it is not right to imply that 'no rules' would ever more useful to the vast majority than having good general categories ('rules') in place.


AGS000 are sort of like a distinct 'brand' without a specific seller attached to it. It is a lab based brand rather than a seller based brand. Sort of a Good Housekeeping, Michelin Guide, ISO9001, sort of 'brand' which has to do with characterisitcs rather than who is making it or selling it. This brand is then mixed with seller's branding on top of it sometimes, too.


I have not found anyone who did not like the appearance of an AGS000 round. The princess is of a more subjective nature and any other fancy shape also would be more subjective, too. All these 'top cut' look pretty good to me, but I would think it right that people may choose otherwise, differently than I would myself, for many reasons, both good and not such good reasons.


Even in beauty contests one sees many beautiful versions of people. The one chosen frequently is not the most beautiful in my personal opinion, but the politics behind the scenes, the way different attributes are quantified, the goals of the pageant itself, all dictate the final choice of the judges. The same is very true with diamonds. People are very much entitled to judge for themselves, but I would insist that one must only judge AFTER one has examined all the possible choices. Judging too fast is impulsive buying and not a truly informed or fair decision. We see far too many rapid, gut reaction decisions, with unhappy consequences after the purchase. Only knowledge and adequate shopping will lead people into making the correct choice as to what is most beautiful for them to actually buy.


The promotion of 'Ideal Cut' as the only logical choice has not improved the diamond business. It has helped to make choosing easier for distant consumers, but I agree it is not always to their best benefit. It is frequently of benefit to those who want something that others will admire and is a trouble free shortcut to something that few would openly criticze.

re:I have not found anyone who did not like the appearance of an AGS000 round. The princess is of a more subjective nature and any other fancy shape also would be more subjective, too

Dave,
Exactly. And it proof what Beauty grading could be very bad Idea

ASG000 type round(2005+ grading system)diamonds were on market before ASG introduce new cut standard.
Industry found this solution after a lot of Trials and Errors . But industry did not find perfect solutions for Princess cut and specially Emerald cut before ASG introduced cut standards for these cuts.

Ps. For my observation D color in polish diamonds is very rare. ANd 10ct D is much more rare than 1ct D.( may be Number(10Ct D)/Number(10Ct F) is bigger than Number(1Ct D)/Number(1Ct F). Few mines produce big rough free from nitrogen more often than others, but in any case D color is really rare color)

 

[diagem]

Date: 11/2/2009 10:54:34 AM
Author: oldminer

I have never quite believed that nature has so conveniently supplied the diamond trade with a perfect model of D color being most rare and IF being most rare. I think that is a marketing construct of Debeers. A good tool, but hardly believable. I understand that D color is more common in larger diamonds than in 1 carat and smaller diamonds. Surely, D color is less rare in some sizes than in others. Maybe F color is more rare overall. I have no way to know and with the way rough was distributed and hoarded for so long, how would anyone know such a well kep secret?

Dave..., thats pure speculation...
If you understand..., can you please share your understanding...

Except hearing this (a few times) from you..., I never heard this previously...

I have heard some wild ideas as far as DeBeers marketing conspiracies..., but....

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 11/2/2009 2:18:51 PM
Author: oldminer
I don''t think it is fair to say that AGS000 don''t have all the requisite factors to be among the most visually attractive to the general public. Personally I think such statements are not only unfair- but misleading to the general public. MANY people will prefer other round diamonds to AGS000 if given a visual choice. I posted photos and ASETs ( done by you) of an AGS round versus a non 0 cut grade stone- I much preferred the non AGS 0 stone. MANY consumers would make the same choice. This does not mean that some people would not just as well prefer some other diamond for a number of possible reasons such as cost, size, outline, or an appreciation of lowered light return as being of importance to their own personality. There are always exceptions to ''rules'', but it is not right to imply that ''no rules'' would ever more useful to the vast majority than having good general categories (''rules'') in place.

AGS000 are sort of like a distinct ''brand'' without a specific seller attached to it. It is a lab based brand rather than a seller based brand. Sort of a Good Housekeeping, Michelin Guide, ISO9001, sort of ''brand'' which has to do with characteristics rather than who is making it or selling it. This brand is then mixed with seller''s branding on top of it sometimes, too.

I have not found anyone who did not like the appearance of an AGS000 round. All due respect Dave- but look harder. In the thread Garry posted Cushion was ranked far ahead of round. That''s probably not a good "yardstick"- but making absolute statements such as the one you made here could be very misleading to consumers. The princess is of a more subjective nature and any other fancy shape also would be more subjective, too. All these ''top cut'' look pretty good to me, but I would think it right that people may choose otherwise, differently than I would myself, for many reasons, both good and not such good reasons.

Even in beauty contests one sees many beautiful versions of people. The one chosen frequently is not the most beautiful in my personal opinion, but the politics behind the scenes, the way different attributes are quantified, the goals of the pageant itself, all dictate the final choice of the judges. The same is very true with diamonds. People are very much entitled to judge for themselves, but I would insist that one must only judge AFTER one has examined all the possible choices. Judging too fast is impulsive buying and not a truly informed or fair decision. We see far too many rapid, gut reaction decisions, with unhappy consequences after the purchase. Only knowledge and adequate shopping will lead people into making the correct choice as to what is most beautiful for them to actually buy.

The promotion of ''Ideal Cut'' as the only logical choice has not improved the diamond business. It has helped to make choosing easier for distant consumers, but I agree it is not always to their best benefit. It is frequently of benefit to those who want something that others will admire and is a trouble free shortcut to something that few would openly criticize.

Light return- is it meaningful to consumers who are shopping?

What''s better a 3000 square foot house, or a 2000 square foot house?
What''s better a stone returning one gallon of light, or a half gallon?

If the square footage is unusable in the 3000sqf house, the 2000 square foot house may indeed be the better choice.

If people want to look at diamonds with their eyes , in real world lighting, "light return" measured by a device may be meaningless.

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 11/2/2009 7:21:14 AM
Author: oldminer
You can't go wrong with and AGS000 stone in terms of attractiveness, but you can find many, many diamonds without such a grade which are highly attractive and desirable, too. In truth, there are non-AGS000 diamonds which many folks would personally prefer. We all have our own hard coded mental images of what we like and don't like and this is science driven.

Unfortunately we are seeing the games beginning with AGS0, AGS3 real world performance level getting AGS0.
Some cutters are figuring out how to game it and manufacturing has made it possible.

edit: added "some" to more truly express my thoughts.

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 10/31/2009 9:41:30 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Regarding the related poll on the pinned topic - it does show some interesting repsonses and has quite surprised me.

One interesting analogy could be wine - the more one learns about wine, the more one can develop a wider palete, or a more narrow one. In my case it has become more narrow. I liken this to Storm''s response - my taste has become similar to his diamond taste. Quite narrow - like my wine taste

I am not surprised high performance cushions are hot right now on PS, will be interesting to see if it lasts.
It is an appealing shape and consistent supply of well cut ones are now available.

My tastes is diamonds is at the same time very wide and narrow.
I love many shapes and styles and feel each has a place in the market.
What I am no longer willing to accept is poor performance with the excuse it is supposed to be like that.
Pretty much every shape can be cut with a reasonable level of performance there is no excuse anymore for weak performance.
What is considered reasonable will vary a bit design to design.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Karl- it seems to me that the entire point of this thread is to separate a term like "performance" from how people judge the beauty of a diamond.
Antique cushions are very popular right now.
Judged for "performance" using your yardstick, these stones fall short.
Judged for beauty they score VERY high marks with consumers.

You say cutters are "gaming the system"
Do you feel diamond cutters , as a group, are dishonest?
Do you think there''s some plot to gain a few points and put horribly cut diamonds into people''s hands?

The reasons I feel this is so important is that by quantifying things , written by "experts" it makes it seem there is some concrete "performance " difference.
There is not. Some people will pick the diamond Karl feels is a "bad performer". They may find beauty in the specific things Karl ( or others) feel takes beauty away.

Implying that diamond cutters are purposely trying to produce sub par cut diamonds impugns an entire group with no evidence whatsoever.

 

[diagem]

Date: 11/2/2009 4:42:51 PM
Author: Karl_K

Date: 10/31/2009 9:41:30 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Regarding the related poll on the pinned topic - it does show some interesting repsonses and has quite surprised me.

One interesting analogy could be wine - the more one learns about wine, the more one can develop a wider palete, or a more narrow one. In my case it has become more narrow. I liken this to Storm's response - my taste has become similar to his diamond taste. Quite narrow - like my wine taste

I am not surprised high performance cushions are hot right now on PS, will be interesting to see if it lasts.
It is an appealing shape and consistent supply of well cut ones are now available.

My tastes is diamonds is at the same time very wide and narrow.
I love many shapes and styles and feel each has a place in the market.
What I am no longer willing to accept is poor performance with the excuse it is supposed to be like that.
Pretty much every shape can be cut with a reasonable level of performance there is no excuse anymore for weak performance.
What is considered reasonable will vary a bit design to design.

strmrdr..., what does performance have to do with beauty/attractiveness..., let alone "a reasonable level of performance"...

Guys (& gals) lets face it..., we cant ignore the beauty aspect let alone quantify it...

There is room for both..., Diamonds cut to top "light" perfpormance..., and Diamond cut to freestyle facet design..., both can be equally beautiful.

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 11/2/2009 5:05:14 PM
Author: DiaGem
strmrdr..., what does performance have to do with beauty/attractiveness..., let alone ''a reasonable level of performance''...


Guys (& gals) lets face it..., we cant ignore the beauty aspect let alone quantify it...


There is room for both..., Diamonds cut to top ''light'' perfpormance..., and Diamond cut to freestyle facet design..., both can be equally beautiful.

Diamond beauty is a large part about how it handles light even in freeform cuts.
That does not mean every cut should be cut for max light return sometimes you trade off some for patterns or a certain look and that is fine.
Contrast patterns is a part of performance.

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 11/2/2009 5:02:53 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Karl- it seems to me that the entire point of this thread is to separate a term like ''performance'' from how people judge the beauty of a diamond.

Antique cushions are very popular right now.

Judged for ''performance'' using your yardstick, these stones fall short.

Judged for beauty they score VERY high marks with consumers.

only if you use raw light return as the only benchmark for performance.

You say cutters are ''gaming the system''
edited to say some
Do you feel diamond cutters , as a group, are dishonest? no, but some do put money over beauty and performance

Do you think there''s some plot to gain a few points and put horribly cut diamonds into people''s hands? some diamonds will make you wonder, but no, it is an attempt to get a reasonable return on investment. Some may take it to far at times in my opinion. If consumers prove they are willing to give the cutters a better return for better cutting then they will move in that direction and many have. But there will always be a small subset that will try and game the system.


The reasons I feel this is so important is that by quantifying things , written by ''experts'' it makes it seem there is some concrete ''performance '' difference.

There is not. Some people will pick the diamond Karl feels is a ''bad performer''. They may find beauty in the specific things Karl ( or others) feel takes beauty away.


Implying that diamond cutters are purposely trying to produce sub par cut diamonds impugns an entire group with no evidence whatsoever. there is ample evidence that some are.

 

[diagem]

Date: 11/2/2009 5:19:00 PM
Author: Karl_K

Date: 11/2/2009 5:05:14 PM
Author: DiaGem
strmrdr..., what does performance have to do with beauty/attractiveness..., let alone ''a reasonable level of performance''...


Guys (& gals) lets face it..., we cant ignore the beauty aspect let alone quantify it...


There is room for both..., Diamonds cut to top ''light'' perfpormance..., and Diamond cut to freestyle facet design..., both can be equally beautiful.

Diamond beauty is a large part about how it handles light even in freeform cuts.
That does not mean every cut should be cut for max light return sometimes you trade off some for patterns or a certain look and that is fine.
Contrast patterns is a part of performance.

Exactly..., and we cant quantify or measure ''how'' it handles light...
Contrast are only a part of the performance and/or beauty..., but they are not always a must..., patterns have unlimited options...

There are Diamonds that are cut to uniformed appearances but some are just cut to compliment themselves...

 

[Rockdiamond]

Karl- in your answers you are again making it seem as though your idea of beauty is a benchmark

Diamond beauty is a large part about how it handles light even in freeform cuts.
That does not mean every cut should be cut for max light return sometimes you trade off some for patterns or a certain look and that is fine.
Contrast patterns is a part of performance.

Above is your opinion, framed as though it''s fact.
This is a problem, as it''s confusing for consumers.

This would also mean that the "evidence" you have regarding these diamond cutters is also quite subjective, not based on fact at all.
No question some cutters are far superior to others.
Maybe it''s a function of skill and equipment, as opposed to some greedy motivation.

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 11/2/2009 5:29:54 PM
Author: DiaGem
Exactly..., and we cant quantify or measure ''how'' it handles light...

Contrast are only a part of the performance and/or beauty..., but they are not always a must..., patterns have unlimited options...


There are Diamonds that are cut to uniformed appearances but some are just cut to compliment themselves...

We can control how it handles light:
From my portfolio:
"Diamond design is painting with light.
This is done by controlling the virtual facets by changing the actual facets to make the diamond look
the way I want it to look."

 

[diagem]

Date: 11/2/2009 5:38:32 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Karl- in your answers you are again making it seem as though your idea of beauty is a benchmark

Diamond beauty is a large part about how it handles light even in freeform cuts.
That does not mean every cut should be cut for max light return sometimes you trade off some for patterns or a certain look and that is fine.
Contrast patterns is a part of performance.

Above is your opinion, framed as though it''s fact.
This is a problem, as it''s confusing for consumers.

This would also mean that the ''evidence'' you have regarding these diamond cutters is also quite subjective, not based on fact at all.
No question some cutters are far superior to others.
Maybe it''s a function of skill and equipment, as opposed to some greedy motivation.

RD...

For many years a good cutter was one who produced for its owner the highest yield & pretty Diamond..., whenever cutters managed to stay above benchmark (weight) numbers..., a bonus would be earned.

These days a good cutter gets a bonus when achieving the benchmarked ''cut'' numbers...

Obviously things work slow in our industry..., and habits are hard to get rid off...

But at-least we are in the right direction...

 

[diagem]

Date: 11/2/2009 5:47:31 PM
Author: Karl_K

Date: 11/2/2009 5:29:54 PM
Author: DiaGem
Exactly..., and we cant quantify or measure ''how'' it handles light...

Contrast are only a part of the performance and/or beauty..., but they are not always a must..., patterns have unlimited options...


There are Diamonds that are cut to uniformed appearances but some are just cut to compliment themselves...

We can control how it handles light:
From my portfolio:
''Diamond design is painting with light.
This is done by controlling the virtual facets by changing the actual facets to make the diamond look
the way I want it to look.''

Exactly again..., but every cutter envisions his own vision within the rough rock.
Again..., the options are endless.