Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Elements of attractiveness vs ugly

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
oldminer

oldminer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Sep 3, 2000
Messages
6,739
Maybe we cannot or should not attempt to make a grading scale for beauty in diamonds. However, I think it is very fair to denote which components of appearance add or detract from what MOST people find appealing, attractive, of what they might call beautiful. The photo below shows a selection of Ebay items, all round shapes for simplicity''s sake.

What do you think make certain diamonds pretty, attractive, appealing, beautiful, or what makes them less of these attributes or even ugly.
Use the letters referring to each stone so that we all can follow along. Please don''t get lost in body color as some are unusual fancy colors, but in this case it is not about body color. The goal is to see if there is some consensus about the looks of diamonds and what human perception views as more or less attractive in appearance.

This is supposed to be a better photo of the one I posted yesterday, thanks to Andrey....

Daves_selection2.jpg
 
I imagine the same factors that determine how we perceive people as beautiful come in to play: bilateral symmetry and ratio of angles.

Q is the most attractive to me. It shows the most symmetrical patterns. For this reason, pear shaped diamonds are not attractive to me because my mind finds it hard to see a pattern.

If there were another choice that showed the same pattern as Q, but appeared "shinier", like letter M, I would choose that one.
 
What are the missing elements in some that you find less or unattractive? This, too, could be important since we tend to like screening tools rather than absolute grading tools for on-line shopping.
 
Date: 11/5/2009 8:14:46 AM
Author:oldminer
Maybe we cannot or should not attempt to make a grading scale for beauty in diamonds. However, I think it is very fair to denote which components of appearance add or detract from what MOST people find appealing, attractive, of what they might call beautiful. The photo below shows a selection of Ebay items, all round shapes for simplicity's sake.

What do you think make certain diamonds pretty, attractive, appealing, beautiful, or what makes them less of these attributes or even ugly.
Use the letters referring to each stone so that we all can follow along. Please don't get lost in body color as some are unusual fancy colors, but in this case it is not about body color. The goal is to see if there is some consensus about the looks of diamonds and what human perception views as more or less attractive in appearance.

This is supposed to be a better photo of the one I posted yesterday, thanks to Andrey....
Click to expand...
No there will never be any consensus as some "******* dealers" will always try to pass off their garbage gems as Ideal or as good as ideal stones.

Looking at the pictures in this thread:

nasty inclusions, crushed ice deadness under the table, fish eye, ring of death, dead zones, lack of symmetry, windows etc etc etc most experienced customers would hold their nose when viewing such stones,. However there will always be some "Used Car Salesman" who try to convince us that there eyes think something is pretty so therefore it must be just because they are trying to get rid of their inventory.

It has long been a practice in B&M and in less reputable Internet Vendors to buy cheap quality Diamonds (b stock, low color, poor cut, nasty inclusions, whatever) and pass them off as alternatives or even as good as ideals. Some vendors have calculated they can make a higher markup offering crap at a discount to the average price or even at ideal prices. The sales technique is misdirection, excess irrelevenat information and lack of comparison tools.

These vendors know exactly what they are doing and they shun safe ranges, reflector tests, and ideal cut diamonds.
It actually makes me sick one of them posts here and nauseatingly starts threads to advertise his inventory and to promote why you can throw all the rules out the window because everyone sees beauty differently.

If you want to use blowup pictures and describe each of the flaws individually in gemstones and why the are undesirable that would be great, for many types of flaws you would get almost unanimous agreement that a particular flaw makes a gem stone less attractive. However posting one diagram with tiny little pictures makes it pretty hard to point out the flaws and correctly lable them as beauty detractors.

Regards,
CCL
 
Maybe I''m misunderstanding this exercise but it feels like a stunt ... almost a rhetorical question. Its OBVIOUS that people want CLARITY and SYMMETRY in diamonds. Only two diamonds in your chart seem to possess both. Has the lesson been learned yet or does it still require further "study"?
 
I don't get the point of using those pics either.
I applaud the intent Davd but those diamonds (and their pics) are almost all pretty small, low res, and crummy.
You think someone is going to pick one of those many many heavily-included opaque diamonds as most beautiful?
Why even include (sorry for pun) them?

Crummy-looking diamonds only sell because many buyers are size queens.
Their budget will not get them a nice-looking diamond that's large enough.
Nobody actually falls in love with frozen spit, no matter what they say to us, or how they rationalize it to themselves.

Plus photography and lighting can make the same diamond look wonderful or horrible.

Ultimately beauty is subjective, but obviously only after a few essential qualities are there - eye clean, high light return, symmetry, scintillation, contrast, and pleasing pattern, to name a few.

Oh, and I agree about scumbags.
There's no other word for someone who protects their sales by fighting against educating the public (their potential customers) about good cut.
They protect their sales by introducing doubt while hiding behind the concept of respecting diversity of tastes.
[Why don't we have a barfing smiley?]

Some people will only say things that are nice.
I strive to only say what I see as true.
 
I wanted to see if the naysayers would claim that every one of these is beautiful. So far, we have not found it to be the case. I wonder why. So long as we don't stick to facts and hard images, we get minority opinions that flaunt actual reality, but given a real dose of reality, where are the crazy opinions and their providers?

Yes, this is an obvious effort to most of us. I am certain most people can define elements of what they find attractive and beautiful with little effort other than putting it into words is not so easy for many people. Also, what makes some diamonds not so pretty can be shown visually quite well with even miserable, tiny photos.

I do believe we can see beauty and that we can give guidelines to people about hunting for it even if they do not have a degree in fine arts, architecture, or design...... Some have openly disagreed with this concept, so here are images which might stimulate a response from what I would term the less vocal majority. Please speak up so as not to be buried by those with an agenda of ...(whatever you want to call it)......
 
Date: 11/5/2009 11:37:18 AM
Author: oldminer
I wanted to see if the naysayers would claim that every one of these is beautiful. So far, we have not found it to be the case. I wonder why. So long as we don''t stick to facts and hard images, we get minority opinions that flaunt actual reality, but given a real dose of reality, where are the crazy opinions and their providers?

Yes, this is an obvious effort to most of us. I am certain most people can define elements of what they find attractive and beautiful with little effort other than putting it into words is not so easy for many people. Also, what makes some diamonds not so pretty can be shown visually quite well with even miserable, tiny photos.

I do believe we can see beauty and that we can give guidelines to people about hunting for it even if they do not have a degree in fine arts, architecture, or design...... Some have openly disagreed with this concept, so here are images which might stimulate a response from what I would term the less vocal majority. Please speak up so as not to be buried by those with an agenda of ...(whatever you want to call it)......
Click to expand...
Hmmm. Was I one of the people with ''crazy opinions''? I don''t recall anyone saying that ANY diamond is beautiful - just that there are beautiful diamonds that aren''t perfectly symetrical, and that while some might have an inclusion or two, they can be clean to the eye, and not intefere with beauty.
 
Take U for example - traditionally perhaps an ''ugly'' stone, but I like it! I wouldn''t wear it in place of a traditional clear white stone, but it has a unique flavor to it that I find appealing. Of course, I have been looking for a granite looking emerald and those seem very unpopular and for me luckily darn inexpensive!

I like something Diagem said a while back, "No such thing as an ugly diamond". It really is in how you look at it.
 
Well yeah, even the most heavily-included salt and pepper in a fogstorm diamond is kind of cool and interesting and I''d like to have it, but I think we are talking about a more classic universal beauty here - something he would be proud to propose with.
 
Date: 11/5/2009 11:37:18 AM
Author: oldminer
I wanted to see if the naysayers would claim that every one of these is beautiful. So far, we have not found it to be the case. I wonder why. So long as we don''t stick to facts and hard images, we get minority opinions that flaunt actual reality, but given a real dose of reality, where are the crazy opinions and their providers?


Yes, this is an obvious effort to most of us.
Click to expand...

I find this mildly offensive.
 
Date: 11/5/2009 12:01:51 PM
Author: kenny
Well yeah, even the most heavily-included salt and pepper in a fogstorm diamond is kind of cool and interesting and I''d like to have it, but I think we are talking about a more classic universal beauty here - something he would be proud to propose with.
Click to expand...

To me NONE of these fall into the "beauty" range of diamonds that most people here are forking their money out for - but to seek a definitive line is silly because if you throw up the stones like that, that are all quirky, it''s easy to enjoy some of the MOST quirky ones there as the favorites even if they would be THE worst choices relative to a DFlawless Ideal. I was thinking that I liked the salt and pepper one 2nd best in *this* group of diamonds, and yet if I were to ONLY look at it from the D flawless ideal perspective it might be more on the losing end of the group above.
 
There''s a fundamental problem with judging diamonds from small, still photos. I have no idea what these diamonds would look like in real life. I suspect I would find them ugly, but I can''t tell for sure.

It''s even harder to judge when the differences are more subtle, like a G VS1 GIA excellent steep-deep vs. a G VS1 AGS ideal. I doubt I could tell them apart by looking at a pair of small still photos, but it''s possible I would prefer one in person.
 
You are making more of this than the intent. Don''t be offended unless you want to be offended. It is not anti-any person I can think of, including the offended one. I have never referred to anyone else''s opinion in this thread and rarely, if ever, do that kind of personal attacking mode. Please don''t do it to me unless you have good reason which I hope never to provide to anyone on purpose, only by accident, ever.

It is a simple effort. We have small photos. Some, a few, of them look like potentially nice diamonds which one might purchase to become engaged. Some look like imperfect, low light return, non-transparent diamonds which would not be typical of an engagement ring''s center stone, but there is a market for them although I am not sure where Those who buy them will not need to have them appraised and I rarely see them being used.

The question remains, do some of these diamonds look potentially pretty from even these small photos? Do some of them look so bad that you would never go to the next step if you wanted to buy a pretty diamond? I think the answers are very obvious, but maybe this message has not getting through to the readers due to some lack of communication skill on my part.

The questions are what features lead you to say certain diamonds have attractive natures? What diamonds lead you to believe they may be unatttractive and why? Can we create a reliable list of attributes which could assist people in finding an attractive diamond? IS there a good reason not to create such a list of attributes? I don''t see this as an attack on a person or anything else. These are simple, scientific, factual and objective questions whioch could be responded to without looking for the hidden agenda, an agenda which does not exist.
 
I have said this many times I think already here. I am not a fan of most round diamonds. I do not care for a "pattern" in stones. So when I see the arrows that many go for it is a sudden turn off for me. Same with seeing "X"s in most square shapped stones. Ironically I don''t have an issue with asschers at all. The step cuts have the whole hall of mirrors effect that causes the pattern to shift differently where as a round or square with the patterns don''t shift. They are constant. I like movement in my gems with the flashes. I hope that makes sense.

That said, there are quite a few of those diamonds that appeal to me. I go for eye clean first in rounds. I love color so many of those would be right up my alley.

Granted I would love to see larger pictures to see if what I am seeing is poor resolution or inclusions. Based on what I see I really like the following:

D, J, L, M, P, Q & R

Again my idea of beauty in a round is clarity only. I prefer the older style of cuts where there are no arrow but more of "petals" of flashes if htat makes sense. Again I cannot tell if the stones not mentioned are included or not, but that is a major turn off. And by included I am adding in the milky colors as well.
 
I think the stones with brightness, contrast, and discernible patterns are the most beautiful. Additionally bold colors, whether they be white, yellow, blue, red, green, etc. are also beautiful.
 
Thank you, Jean and Joe.
 
David, what a neat exercise. The photos aren''t too small -- they serve their purpose.

I am not at all an expert, but I like quite a few of the diamonds I see here. e, p, r and t look interesting to me. Are these highly flawed stones I would probably not buy? Maybe, but they look interesting from what I can see.

I am a real plebeian when it comes to diamonds. I have a high tolerance for color and even a tolerance for a less than ideal cut, which apparently nobody here shares with me. For me, the interest and beauty of a diamond isn''t contingent on how it looks compared to superior stones inside of a jewelry store, which is so often how consumers are encouraged to view them. The only quality I really harbor an active dislike for is the "crushed ice" or milky look of some diamonds. Other than that, I like almost every diamond I see. I know it''s pretty un-chic to reveal oneself as so lacking in discrimination, but there you have it. I like a lot of the diamonds in your photos!
2.gif
 
Q and M are the most pleasing to my eye. They look like they'd be the most brilliant (and evenly so, if that makes sense), which is what I'm looking for in a round diamond.
 
I agree with Ebree, only Q and M call my name.
 
The photos were taken from Ebay and nearly in order from those on the site with the criteria being round shape. Most of them are Very Very low clarity and few would be close to "well cut". But, they each have individual attributes of appearance although they were not photgraphed in identical lighting. What I am attempting to prove here is that one can make some sort of choice about attractiveness, appeal or even beauty from pretty small and low res photos. If I asked folks to grade them on a 0 to 10 scale I realize there would not be consistent or reliable results because to many variables exist, but subjectively, we don't have a problem making choices, decisions, about how they appeal to us. Most are un-appealing and I did that on purpose. It proves that not all diamonds are inherently pretty and that it is NOT simply a matter of personal taste. Some diamonds are not pretty and nearly everyone can agree even if they have various reasons. Can you spell B O G U S?

In previous posts on this same subject, others have clearly said that you can't grade beauty or shouldn't do it. I won't attempt to grade it with these pictures, for sure. But, I see that with enough information, it would be easy enough to screen diamond images for several levels of atttractiveness to assist the general consuming public. It would not be rocket science and every category has a gray borderline to the next level, so it would never be perfect. However, we seem to like screening tools such as HCA, I-S, AGA, ASET etc and this could be part of the process for some stones and some consumers.

If there were three Excellent levels of atractiveness, one Very Good level, one Good level, 1 Fair and 1 Commercial (poor) level, you'd have a total of seven levels. I won't call them "grades" because I understand the resistance to grading attractiveness. Admittedly, diamonds are strongly marketed by how attractive they are, but sellers don't want this quantified except under their own terms. I understand how sensitive this subject is to them.'
 
Q & M catch my eye and I would take a closer look at these 2 stones. I can understand that people have differing views as to what is beautiful. There is much written here on PS as to what to look for when purchasing a diamond, but sometimes you have to let your eyes be the determining factor and not just the numbers or angles.
 
HI All,
I find the way certain people have posted in this thread to be HUGELY offensive- I don't believe using such vulgar language is appropriate here.

The fact that there will never be a consensus has nothing to do with any dealer- or any individual. It's just part of how we appreciate things.

Dave- The photos are ...well, really bad.
I agree , there's a ton of junk on eBay, but surely you could have found some better quality photos- and stones to use for such an experiment.

What some very closed minded people seem to do is take a comment that beauty is subjective- and that not all people will agree with some very vocal posters here, gets turned into accusations- ugly ones at that- that people are here trying to promote badly cut diamonds.


Demon makes a great point...who is saying that EVERY diamond is beautiful to everyone?
Who's saying included stones are beautiful to all?
That's just as one sided as saying an AGS000 is the most beautiful to everyone
Clearly a huge number of interested parties prefer less than symmetrical diamonds- such as Old Mine cuts.
Dave- a far more illuminating test would show attractive photos of attractive diamonds that are less than conventional.
 
Dave- a far more illuminating test would show attractive photos of attractive diamonds that are less than conventional.

If I had done that, you would declare that only personal taste should decide and I sort of agree with you on the subject of generally attractive looking diamonds being made available to consumers and their personal tastes. I went to extremes to prove my point here. HOWEVER, I have been repeatedly attacked on the basis that no standards for quantifying beauty, attractiveness or eye appeal can be formulated to use as shopping tools. With that assertion, I must disagree.

Now I see even you find some of the "ugly" diamonds selected for this thread don''t meet your discerning eye. So, not every diamond is good enough to be pretty to your eyes. Somewhere between butt ugly and superb lies the vast majority of pretty, but not fabulous diamonds. I think it a good thing to put some standards in place. You have taken the stance previously that it won''t work. Now, in this thread, you are saying you see that some diamonds don''t make even your liberal standard for atractiveness. You have proven my case for the need for some reliable categories which all of us can agree upon. It does not need to ruin the market, but only to bring some common sense and order to it.

One cannot sell see-through diamonds as if they were the equal to brilliant, sparkly ones. They may have their own attractiveness, but the general population will find sleepy diamonds less desirable overall and prices asked in the wholesale market where experts know value, reflect this reality. Retail asking prices don''t have to make sense at all and often don''t. Of course, the descriptions given to cut quality at the retail level often don''t make sense either. We could do better.
 
I like this topic - I like seeing ALL stones, because the terrible ones only make mine look better, in comparison!
28.gif


R really appeals to me; the cut and color really work well together (in my eyes).

I find O the very least attractive. It almost makes my head hurt - because of the hazy clouding effect, I can''t even really seem to focus on one plane of perception!
32.gif
 
Praytell, what exactly IS the point of this exercise? You have been trying to pinpoint and define "beauty" for years now and I just don''t think there is a zenith.

I know a guy who thinks Megan Fox is IT. I think she looks a bit like a rodent. There is no single Zenith in "beauty" and everything is relative to everything else.

I think your exercise is flawed and the conclusion you continue to grasp for, elusive.
 
I like M & R, but, again, I think we''re a singular audience. Unfortunately, the pictures just aren''t going to speak to some of the other factors which drive people''s perceptions of beauty, no matter how hard we try. For instance, I know you said not to focus on body color, but would I chose that lovely red-brown G over M or R? Maybe. And there are probably plenty of people out there who''d choose one of the less well-cut ones if it were significantly larger than the others.
 
Date: 11/5/2009 4:08:29 PM
Author: oldminer
Dave- a far more illuminating test would show attractive photos of attractive diamonds that are less than conventional.


If I had done that, you would declare that only personal taste should decide and I sort of agree with you on the subject of generally attractive looking diamonds being made available to consumers and their personal tastes. I went to extremes to prove my point here. HOWEVER, I have been repeatedly attacked on the basis that no standards for quantifying beauty, attractiveness or eye appeal can be formulated to use as shopping tools. With that assertion, I must disagree.


Now I see even you find some of the 'ugly' diamonds selected for this thread don't meet your discerning eye. So, not every diamond is good enough to be pretty to your eyes. Somewhere between butt ugly and superb lies the vast majority of pretty, but not fabulous diamonds. I think it a good thing to put some standards in place. You have taken the stance previously that it won't work. Now, in this thread, you are saying you see that some diamonds don't make even your liberal standard for atractiveness. You have proven my case for the need for some reliable categories which all of us can agree upon. It does not need to ruin the market, but only to bring some common sense and order to it.


One cannot sell see-through diamonds as if they were the equal to brilliant, sparkly ones. They may have their own attractiveness, but the general population will find sleepy diamonds less desirable overall and prices asked in the wholesale market where experts know value, reflect this reality. Retail asking prices don't have to make sense at all and often don't. Of course, the descriptions given to cut quality at the retail level often don't make sense either. We could do better.
Click to expand...

I DO NOT think every diamond is beautiful. I do think that each of us has our own idea of what is beautiful.
Dave, I have said, many times, that I disagree with the cut grading charts on your site.
I have also written, many times, that I respect you , and acknowledge that although I disagree with the charts, they were designed to assist consumers. I don't believe that's an attack.
Anybody ever call you a scumbag here for making a chart, or saying what you believe in your heart?
Being attacked for stating a strongly held conviction is upsetting. Being called a disgusting name is an attack.
Accusing someone of writing things they believe to be untrue just to make a sale is an attack.
I love really well cut diamonds. I have a strong conviction that the charts- and other techniques used here DO NOT guarantee a consumer will get a well cut diamond they truly love.
I honestly feel it's misleading to assign narrow grades, and pass them of as fact .
What about Steep Deep? Is GIA trying to promote badly cut stones as "EX" cut grade?
 
I can''t WAIT for the future "Hot" or "Not" diamond posting section to come. Lets VOTE! Oh, wait -- that''s all we ever do around here anyway.
3.gif
 
Call me shallow, but that "Q" diamond is HOT!!! It has the best clarity and cut out of all the other choices. It probably sparkles like crazy in real life!

Also, I''m more attracted to colored diamonds, so it would be more "my type".
31.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top