"Beauty" as it pertains specifically to diamonds.

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 11/2/2009 5:53:28 PM
Author: 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...

Yoram,
We also need to consider that not every cutter is cutting round diamonds, or colorless ones.
A 2.99 Fancy Intense Yellow is not subjected to the same type of discounting a 2.99ct D/VS1 would be.
Therefore cutters of yellows will have different benchmarks on which to judge the quality of the work.

Karl- wouldn''t you agree that trade members posting must draw distinctons between their own preferences and actual facts?

 

[diagem]

Date: 11/2/2009 6:17:10 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 11/2/2009 5:53:28 PM
Author: 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...

Yoram,
We also need to consider that not every cutter is cutting round diamonds, or colorless ones.
A 2.99 Fancy Intense Yellow is not subjected to the same type of discounting a 2.99ct D/VS1 would be.
Therefore cutters of yellows will have different benchmarks on which to judge the quality of the work.

Karl- wouldn''t you agree that trade members posting must draw distinctons between their own preferences and actual facts?

But still benchmarks...

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Yoram- by the way, could you please call me David?


Yes, there are "benchmarks" when cutting fancy colored diamonds- and I believe that using them as an example is illuminating in this conversation.

As I mentioned earlier, a one point difference in a colorless diamond can be a financial tragedy- but fancy colored diamonds are different.
One Fancy Intense Yellow can be noticeably darker than another.
One Fancy Intense Yellow may show some brown- yet still get a grade of "Fancy Intense Yellow"

For these reasons one fancy intense yellow can be worth substantially more than another. Based on how it looks.
Here, rather than use the word "beauty" we can instead note that depth of color is less subjective.


The reward for the cutter comes when he can change a few facets, and increase the body color.

But the bottom line is that when people use their own perceptions of beauty to accuse others of bad behavior there is something wrong.

 

[diagem]

Date: 11/2/2009 6:32:47 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Hi Yoram- by the way, could you please call me David?


Yes, there are ''benchmarks'' when cutting fancy colored diamonds- and I believe that using them as an example is illuminating in this conversation.

As I mentioned earlier, a one point difference in a colorless diamond can be a financial tragedy- but fancy colored diamonds are different.
One Fancy Intense Yellow can be noticeably darker than another.
One Fancy Intense Yellow may show some brown- yet still get a grade of ''Fancy Intense Yellow''

For these reasons one fancy intense yellow can be worth substantially more than another. Based on how it looks.
Here, rather than use the word ''beauty'' we can instead note that depth of color is less subjective.

Depth of color is a small part of the beauty when it comes to fancy colored Diamonds..., I believe there are way more factors when it comes to color & beauty.

The reward for the cutter comes when he can change a few facets, and increase the body color.

You mean face up color..., right?

But the bottom line is that when people use their own perceptions of beauty to accuse others of bad behavior there is something wrong.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I believe we agree Yoram- there's many factors that go into the beauty- and value - of a Fancy Colored Diamond.
But the depth and purity of color is a very important aspect in determining value.
I'm sure this has been said here before, but how important is the symmetry of the Hope Diamond?


Yes of course- face up is what counts in Fancy Colors. It's also what counts in colorless, although that part is not in practice.....

 

[diagem]

Date: 11/2/2009 6:55:10 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
I believe we agree Yoram- there's many factors that go into the beauty- and value - of a Fancy Colored Diamond.
But the depth and purity of color is by far the most important aspect in determining value.

Yep..., and it purely subjective.

I'm sure this has been said here before, but how important is the symmetry of the Hope Diamond?

The symmetry of the hope is actually surprisingly good for a Diamond cut around the 1800's..., I could only wish more cutters would cut Fancy colored Diamond to standard cuts

.

Yes of course- face up is what counts in fancy Colors. It's also what counts in colorless, although that part is not in practice.....

See..., this is subjective as well...
I dont think 'face-up' is the only side that counts in Fancy colored Diamonds...
I believe if the color is not truly in the material..., its only half Fancy

And the value aspect agrees!

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 11/2/2009 7:21:34 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 11/2/2009 6:55:10 PM

Author: Rockdiamond

I believe we agree Yoram- there's many factors that go into the beauty- and value - of a Fancy Colored Diamond.

But the depth and purity of color is by far the most important aspect in determining value.


Yep..., and it purely subjective.



I'm sure this has been said here before, but how important is the symmetry of the Hope Diamond?


The symmetry of the hope is actually surprisingly good for a Diamond cut around the 1800's..., I could only wish more cutters would cut Fancy colored Diamond to standard cuts

.


Yes of course- face up is what counts in fancy Colors. It's also what counts in colorless, although that part is not in practice.....

See..., this is subjective as well...

I dont think 'face-up' is the only side that counts in Fancy colored Diamonds...

I believe if the color is not truly in the material..., its only half Fancy

And the value aspect agrees!

This is an important distinction. Perception of color is less subjective.

If we line up 6 diamonds ( D, I, M, S-T, Y-Z, Fancy Intense Yellow), and ask 100 humans to grade the color by arranging the stones lightest to darkest, the results would be very consistent. Face up or face down.
I agree that a specific diamond's color grade is subjective, but not color as a characteristic. As opposed to the beauty of a diamond's cut.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

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

Sergey and Dave, here is a human beauty system.
http://www.sld.cu/galerias/pdf/sitios/protesis/anatomy_of__a_beautiful_face_&_smile.pdf
I am not sure how well it works but it is perhaps a littl analogous with LR etc measurements or Imagem etc?

 

[oldminer]

I used the same analogy several years ago when I presented this topic at the JCK Diamonds Show in NYC during their education sessions. Here is a photo from that talk of agreed "beautiful faces". You may not think they are the most beautiful on a personal level, but these are consensus opinions derived from research and interviews. I do believe beauty can be deduced by some means, but it is not a perfect science.

 

[zabak80]

To me, part of the beauty is in the craftsmanship of a diamond and ring.

The canvas alone is not beautiful. The paint alone is not beautiful.

It is not until an artist puts them together that we have a thing of beauty.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/3/2009 2:58:05 PM
Author: zabak80
To me, part of the beauty is in the craftsmanship of a diamond and ring.


The canvas alone is not beautiful. The paint alone is not beautiful.


It is not until an artist puts them together that we have a thing of beauty.

Zabak does science count as a contributor?
With diamond cut there can be a lot of science of light

 

[Serg]

Date: 11/3/2009 10:11:53 AM
Author: oldminer
I used the same analogy several years ago when I presented this topic at the JCK Diamonds Show in NYC during their education sessions. Here is a photo from that talk of agreed ''beautiful faces''. You may not think they are the most beautiful on a personal level, but these are consensus opinions derived from research and interviews. I do believe beauty can be deduced by some means, but it is not a perfect science.

re: Here is a photo from that talk of agreed ''beautiful faces''You may not think they are the most beautiful on a personal level, but these are consensus opinions derived from research and interviews.

Looks as robots. it is far away from my taste . it is very good example of limitation such technology .

 

[zabak80]

Science is definitely part of it.

Take Leonardo Da Vinci. All the angles and mathematics he put into his paintings is truly amazing.

Science can improve the methods of an artist.

 

[oldminer]

There is another way to attack this problem of what makes a diamond attractive, visually appealing and ultimately a beautiful object. I will be making it in a contest format with a small prize to be awarded for some lucky participant. The many responses in this thread indicate great interest in this topic although no one has offered what I would have anticpated. In fact, the thread went counter to my own thought process. Nevertheless, it has been full of good conversation and valid opinion.

 

[JSM]

Date: 11/3/2009 10:11:53 AM
Author: oldminer
I used the same analogy several years ago when I presented this topic at the JCK Diamonds Show in NYC during their education sessions. Here is a photo from that talk of agreed ''beautiful faces''. You may not think they are the most beautiful on a personal level, but these are consensus opinions derived from research and interviews. I do believe beauty can be deduced by some means, but it is not a perfect science.

I''m not citing here, but I remember hearing that human beings are/can be (subconsciously) attracted to others based on facial and body symmetry. It makes sense, good symmetry can be indicative of good health and genes. This reminds me of that.

I personally love symmetry in a diamond, my brain finds perfect symmetry much more appealing than random flashes. I like order. Of course not everyone agrees with me, but maybe (could be wrong) humans as a whole are attracted to symmetry? In faces, objects, and diamonds?

 

[clgwli]

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.

Responding to your bolded part. I do not at all like an AGS000 round diamond. In fact they are bottom of my list. The patterns created by ideal cut round diamonds bothers me totally. I''d rather nearly any other diamond other than one of those. I seek out other types of cuts and shapes above that.

I am very OCD about a lot of things in life and I know what I dislike about these rounds. The very thing I dislike are what other seek out and make sure they find using all the tools like ideal scopes and aset images.

I have been looking at a ton of diamonds lately from some local jewelers I trust. I am finding what is seen as ideal for many is exactly what I want to avoid.

So now you can say you have "met" someone who dislikes and AGS000 diamond. I would never pay for one and not sure I would ever want to wear one given to me.