Blast to the past

[elmo]

I got a kick out of finding this diamond buyer's guide from the 50s. Lots of timeless, good advice...it's funny how little things have changed in many ways. To put things into perspective, this is before standardized GIA grading criteria.

http://www.47th-street.com/weber/weber.htm

(Scroll to the bottom and press "Next page"...the index isn't hyperlinked.)

Enjoy.

 

[Magnum]

Elmo,
Thanks for the link. I skimmed through a lot of it, and it's definitely an interesting read when you consider it was written half a century ago.

I thought this was a pretty amusing quote when you consider all the discussions on this forum about cut.

"Today the art of diamond cutting has reached its peak, and correct cutting is an everyday affair. It can safely be said that no additional improvement will be accomplished in the future. "

If only they knew about super-ideal cut H&A's and Eightstar diamonds, not to mention all the relatively new variations on fancy cuts.

 

[diamondlil]

This is a fun read. Interesting that the price of a 1 ct round and marquise cut were the same. The price per ct of a 2 to 4 ct round was 10% LESS than the price per ct of the same size marquise.




DiamondLil

 

[mhtv]

"If only they knew about super-ideal cut H&A's and Eightstar diamonds......"

perhaps he grasped how little practical visual difference such cuts might actually make. i've seen them all, and am significantly unimpressed compared to non- super ideals, etc.

 

[aljdewey]

Well, if you're unimpressed, then I guess that's good enough for me.

What was I thinking?

 

[Magnum]

LOL

Al, you crack me up. Your quick wit is refreshing.

I've been a long time lurker on this forum and just recently found the nerve to start contributing.

Maybe there isn't a visual difference between Ideal H&A and non-ideal stones. And maybe the majority of people on this forum, myself included, are suffering from some sort of mass delusion. I don't claim to know enough to or intend to debate that fact. What I do know as a humble student of history and science is that just when you believe you've figured everything out, something will happen to change your whole perception of things. That was my only point. To think that there will never be any improvement on the cut of a diamond, especially with all the research that is going on is just silly.

Peace out.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Tell that to the 60:60 'Dinasaur Club' vendors

Great find Elmo - just forwarded it to a local trade mag journo writting a story about how consumers know heaps more these days

 

[valeria101]

I found it a much easier read than the PS tutorial... And a couple of pieces on cut caught my eye. First, it seems that the writer was used with stones with small tables and deep crowns: the numbers they cite are quite unusual, and the proportions used for the diamond outlines throughout the text support this... I think.

 

[valeria101]

But their simple, very redable and visual explanation of Brilliance as a value factor is really high up there! As far as I can tell, one could add all the details on 'ideal cuts' below this excerpt, and add little more than technicalities. The piece of text underlined below would make, I think, a great intro to a description of H&A these days

It may be that buyers have much more info seeping from the other side of the counter, but is that a great thing? one does get some extra protection from bad deals, but sellers will always have both more info and a way to manipulate what the buyer gets to know, I supose.

No need to explain specialized terms (such as fish-eye, lickeage, ring of death...) to get this message through, and it does say quite a bit. No room for things like 'contast' but how many go to the length to consider details beyond 'light return' and 'sparkle' among but the most throrough H&A buyers ?

All in all, the text needs lots of updating and can be vastly expanded - if this is desirable for a buyers' guide anyway - but it is not bad at all, and some bits might be worth dusting

PS: the first cited phrase seems to account for the lower colors (cape, light browns) and clarities (I, P, Declasse, whatever) one would not get onto PS for, most of the time.

 

[elmo]

----------------
On 3/29/2004 2:30:21 AM valeria101 wrote:

First, it seems that the writer was used with stones with small tables and deep crowns: the numbers they cite are quite unusual, and the proportions used for the diamond outlines throughout the test support this... I think.
----------------

It depends on how you interpret the pictures...I think he may be dead-on with what discriminating pricescope buyers want

: for a 61% depth stone with 43% pavilion and 15% crown (relative to diameter), the 43 pavilion is 70% of the total height (measured table to culet).

Something tells me that if you had a h&a and idealscope, a handful of cutters were probably producing nice symmetrical ideals back then even. Did the girdling machines that are used now to get things really round come later though?

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 3/29/2004 8:21:04 AM elmo wrote: [...] Did the girdling machines that are used now to get things really round come later though?----------------

Those were in place. The precision of cut angles (also determining facet layout as a component of 'symetry'), polish and the speed of cutting have improved since this text appeared. The outline of stones was not a problem already...

The procedure you mention transformed those nice OMC into OEC long before the decade talked about here - at least from what I know.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 3/28/2004 9:29:03 PM aljdewey wrote:


Well, if you're unimpressed, then I guess that's good enough for me.

What was I thinking?
----------------

We shouldn't confuse our pretty little heads

Silly me.

Elmo, interesting read. Maybe my reading comprehension skills are off - but for the time period - I think this guy discussed the art of cutting quite at length.

 

[mhtv]

"Well, if you're unimpressed, then I guess that's good enough for me.
What was I thinking?"

apparently, what you were 'thinking" was how to be insulting. i gave my opinion, made no personal remark against you or anyone, and you decide to make a snide remark.

i didn't ask you to agree with my opinion, or to find it "good enough". so your snide remark was purely gratuitous, and unpleasant. good job. and i'm glad that at least one other found you amusing. classy stuff.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

MHTV you need not be too touchy.

It was not I am sure meant to be an offensive post.

There is no description of who you are - should you care to explain your experiance maybe people will treat you as an expert

 

[Magnum]

mhtv,
I apologize if anything I posted may have insulted you. I definitely wouldn't want anyone's feelings hurt. I guess in my line of work, good light-hearted sarcasm is pretty much the norm, and I don't think Al meant aynthing mean by her post. I just noticed a little condescension in your post criticizing the post I made, and appreciated that Al had my back. From what I can tell, this is a very open and accepting forum, and I'm sure no one would purposely say anything insulting.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 3/29/2004 8:15:49 PM mhtv wrote:










apparently, what you were 'thinking' was how to be insulting. i gave my opinion, made no personal remark against you or anyone, and you decide to make a snide remark.

i didn't ask you to agree with my opinion, or to find it 'good enough'. so your snide remark was purely gratuitous, and unpleasant. good job. and i'm glad that at least one other found you amusing. classy stuff.
----------------

My response was tongue-in-cheek -- sorry that was lost on you. My comment wasn't meant to be insulting at all. Perhaps a little clarification might help you understand better.

MHTV, you have been here on PS just shy of two months. You've never indicated that you have any position in the industry, so a comment that suggests you've "seen it all" sounds like all the newbies who come here and think they've seen everything under the sun when they don't even know what a diamond's "make" is.

Additionally, in the time you've been posting here, the overwhelming majority of your posts *seem* directed at defending a vendor who doesn't even participate here. Said vendor may have some arguable or debatable points, but can't seem to express them in a civil manner. In fact, you sound remarkably like said vendor, but let's not digress into the similarities.

Regarding "expressing your opinion" and whether or not you asked anyone to agree with it.....you posted your opinion on a public forum, where it is open for debate and response. If that notion bothers you, then perhaps this isn't the right format for you.

Point in case: three months ago, there was a poster here who presented himself as a graduate gemologist......and was giving HORRIBLY inaccurate information and "opinion" to folks who didn't know enough to realize the information was erroneous. He was nothing of the sort......he was a garden variety, Joe average poster with NO affiliation/experience in the industry and no club about diamonds.

So.......the point of my post was simply.......great for you! You're unimpressed by super-ideals, etc. Congratulations......good for you....you've seen them ALL. Forgive me, but a health dose of skepticism is just about *required* when someone presumes to have "seen it all." Smart people DO question such brash statements. Perhaps you didn't realize how condescending *your* comments sounded to the rest of us. Keep in mind that you are not the only one here capable of being a skeptic, and if you choose to express yourself as such, then you should expect an equal response.

Hopefully, you'll be able to afford a little indulgence to others here who haven't "seen it all" and DO like super-ideals, and equally respect their differing opinions.

 

[beowulf33]

Great find! My favorite part is the following, from the section "Diamonds Spell Safety":

"First, there is the most imminent danger, atomic war within the next few years. In case of atomic attack, assuming you are not killed immediately, you will want to get to a place of safety if you can, and in any event your normal pattern of life will be disrupted. Normal means of security may not be available -- the bank's records may be destroyed, your house may be demolished (and who would be buying real estate at the moment?), and there may be no time for complicated preparations. But, if you own diamonds you still have security. You can carry them with you easily, and they can be sold without trouble at any time."

I suspect that the diamond market in a world of nuclear war might not be as robust as the author believes.