Elements of attractiveness vs ugly

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 11/5/2009 6:17:43 PM
Author: platinumrock
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'.

I agree PR!

Of all the photos up there, Q is easily my favorite photo.
Another aspect of this that's lacking is that multiple photos of stones are necessary to gain better perspective of what we're looking at..

I'd love to see more pics of U, and G.
Personally I'd never buy stones like A,E,F,G, H, I,K, N, O,and V as the photos depict them as lifeless.
For me, dull is a deal breaker.
I don't like lifeless stones, but yes, there are people who will prefer opaque diamonds.
An exception: If letter U is accurate in terms of it's red color- it would be nice even if it was opaque.

 

[platinumrock]

Date: 11/5/2009 6:47:23 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 11/5/2009 6:17:43 PM
Author: platinumrock
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''.

I agree PR!

Of all the photos up there, Q is easily my favorite photo.
Another aspect of this that''s lacking is that multiple photos of stones are necessary to gain better perspective of what we''re looking at..

I''d love to see more pics of U, and G.
Personally I''d never buy stones like A,E,F,G, H, I,K, N, O,and V as the photos depict them as lifeless.
For me, dull is a deal breaker.
I don''t like lifeless stones, but yes, there are people who will prefer opaque diamonds.
An exception: If letter U is accurate in terms of it''s red color- it would be nice even if it was opaque.

David, you are far more forgiving than I am with these diamonds.

Honestly, I felt like I was going through diamond speed-dating when I was looking at these photos.

Here''s my initial and honest reaction:

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

I felt the most chemistry with Q and I''d love to have a second "date".

 

[Rockdiamond]

Well....I said I liked that photo best...I guess I should have been more clear....I don''t know that I like the diamond, or the was it''s represented. For that I''d need more, better, larger photos, and of course, the diamond in person.

It might be nice...I love and light browns....

 

[platinumrock]

All joking aside (and I hope you didn't take that diamond "second date" literally), a lot of consumers base their online diamond purchase on one photo. Sometimes they dismiss a diamond based on one bad photo or they fall in love with a diamond based on one good photo. But how many online vendors are willing to show multiple photos, let alone a video? I for one would never purchase a diamond online without having seen the video first.

In a sense, that one photo is the first (and sometimes only) impression. If "Q" was in a line-up of other high clarity, well-cut diamonds...who knows if I'd still be visually drawn to it?

It may just look average next to more symmetrical diamonds with superior color saturation.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 11/5/2009 6:47:23 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 11/5/2009 6:17:43 PM

Author: platinumrock

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''.

I agree PR!


Of all the photos up there, Q is easily my favorite photo.

Another aspect of this that''s lacking is that multiple photos of stones are necessary to gain better perspective of what we''re looking at..


I''d love to see more pics of U, and G.

Personally I''d never buy stones like A,E,F,G, H, I,K, N, O,and V as the photos depict them as lifeless.

For me, dull is a deal breaker.

I don''t like lifeless stones, but yes, there are people who will prefer opaque diamonds.

An exception: If letter U is accurate in terms of it''s red color- it would be nice even if it was opaque.

I find it kind of amusing that people will buy a stone like sunstone or jasper and put it in a ring and love all over it - but an opaque and heavily included piece of emerald is ugly and gross? They are not that different to me. Sure, if you''re looking for something translucent - anything opaque is not going to fit the bill. But that doesn''t mean there is something inherently wrong with opaque. If you want a super clear diamond a diamond filled with pepper and inclusions isn''t going to thrill you, but if what you seek is tons of ethereal wisps, or a big hunk of interestingly shaped garnet in the middle, a beautiful D flawless is going to look blah and plain and like it''s missing something. It''s all relative. A friend and I had a discussion about men''s noses and eyebrows recently - we don''t agree on beauty. She''s not into the latin lover type because she hates thick eyebrows and I''m not into the guys she likes because she LIKES big distinctive and interestingly shaped noses. I don''t find them a turn on at all. Beauty is not only subjective, it hinges on so many factors... she may put up with the dark skin and thick eyebrows to get the big interesting nose... faces don''t have to have every single ideal quality we hold to be beautiful. Another friend has a husband with a huge mole on his cheek - does nothing for me, I always think of that comedian imitating aaron neville "the chorizo on it''s growing" but she thinks its sexy and kisses him there all the time. I won''t venture a guess what else she does lol

I think if you say okay here are the boundaries - D-J Flawless-VS2 you can begin to narrow down some preferences in cut (but think bell curve, not absolutes) but as long as the board is wide open for such wild variety as you have above, people will have a wild variety of opinions.

 

[BobR]

Date: 11/5/2009 5:06:30 PM
Author: Cehrabehra
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 agree totally with this.
I''m not a diamond expert and indeed am relatively new to the world of diamonds. As in any area of human aesthetics, a group of ''experts and enthusiasts'' will define (or try to) what is best (is best synonymous with beauty?). Normally this is based on things that can be objectively measured (the 4 ''C''s?). This then becomes the de facto standard, and elitism may start to raise its ugly head!!
As do most people, I enjoy listening to various types of musiic, and I know what I like?? (but not hopefully ''like what I know'') and music is so fundamental to the human experience that it has largely transcended the elitism I refer to; BUT to narrow the point to classical music, whilst the elitists wil tell me that the music of, for example, Bartok is to be admired for its mathematical organisation, I dislike it. I can be taught to understand and even appreciate the mathematical BEAUTY - but I still won''t like the music because it has no positive emotional impact on me! Conversely there are popular music compositions that I (and many millions of others) really enjoy that the elitists will call C**P.
Emotions are a particular individual experience, and as perception of beaty is very closely linked to emotion then beaty is in the eye of the beholder!!

As an aside, and as a newcomer to the forum, I don''t find it edifying or enlightening to see experts thowing mud at each other (it''s what turns me off politics)!!. But perhaps it supports my point??
Bob

 

[oldminer]

Platinumrock;
I loved the original format for your reply and using the speedating for diamonds termwas very original, too...Great response.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Of course, this is a highly flawed exercise. I do not search for what is ultimately beautiful, but do wish to get critics to understand that it is legitimate to find and categorize elements of an elusive intangible such as beauty in order to help people to find it when they shop. It is not some evil enterprise, but human nature to categorize data to better organize and understand it. If you personally want to create a better topic to address this issue, I encourage you to be creative and proactive. Criticizing an effort without suggesting a better methodology is wasting your time and advances no one.

The goal here was to get critics to admit that some diamonds do not come up to an acceptable level of beauty to be called equal to all others and that it is only personal taste. You have to develop personal taste first, in order to even appreciate beauty. Anyone who said or thought all diamonds may have equal beauty and personal taste is what determines it are now left in an obviously poor position. There are many ugly diamonds. A way of categorizing attractiveness would be helpful to novice consumers. That is my argument ond the point of this effort.

The AGA Cut Class system makes sellers explain why their "beautiful" diamond does not meet certain parameters. It does not preclude selling lower category stones, but leaves the choice to the customer. The price also encourages compromise on categories, too. Dealers do not like to explain any issues of cut, but consumers want disclosure.
The AGA Cut Class charts do not work with fancy colored diamonds because COLOR trumps the AGA parameters which were geared specifically for relatively colorless diamonds.

Always use your eyes to find beautiful diamonds. When you can''t see the diamond use screening tools to save shipping costs. Don''t disqualify a diamond which looks beautiful because of parameters which don''t have an effect on durability, but get the right price by shopping and comparing first. This isn''t flawed advice.

 

[HVVS]

I''d only look twice at these:
B - It''s some kind of old cut I''d want a closer look to see other photos.
Q - Looks patterned and might be a decent performer although tinted.
M & R - Have good color and clarity and at least a reasonable cut at first glance.

All others are either a degree of inclusion that I would not like, or they have poor symmetry.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 11/6/2009 6:10:37 AM
Author: oldminer
Platinumrock;
I loved the original format for your reply and using the speedating for diamonds termwas very original, too...Great response.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Of course, this is a highly flawed exercise. I do not search for what is ultimately beautiful, but do wish to get critics to understand that it is legitimate to find and categorize elements of an elusive intangible such as beauty in order to help people to find it when they shop. It is not some evil enterprise, but human nature to categorize data to better organize and understand it. If you personally want to create a better topic to address this issue, I encourage you to be creative and proactive. Criticizing an effort without suggesting a better methodology is wasting your time and advances no one.

The goal here was to get critics to admit that some diamonds do not come up to an acceptable level of beauty to be called equal to all others and that it is only personal taste. You have to develop personal taste first, in order to even appreciate beauty. Anyone who said or thought all diamonds may have equal beauty and personal taste is what determines it are now left in an obviously poor position. There are many ugly diamonds. A way of categorizing attractiveness would be helpful to novice consumers. That is my argument ond the point of this effort.

The AGA Cut Class system makes sellers explain why their ''beautiful'' diamond does not meet certain parameters. It does not preclude selling lower category stones, but leaves the choice to the customer. The price also encourages compromise on categories, too. Dealers do not like to explain any issues of cut, but consumers want disclosure.
The AGA Cut Class charts do not work with fancy colored diamonds because COLOR trumps the AGA parameters which were geared specifically for relatively colorless diamonds.

Always use your eyes to find beautiful diamonds. When you can''t see the diamond use screening tools to save shipping costs. Don''t disqualify a diamond which looks beautiful because of parameters which don''t have an effect on durability, but get the right price by shopping and comparing first. This isn''t flawed advice.

HI all!

Dave, the advice in blue is the furthest thing from flawed- it''s perfect IMO
Now, the part in red is the crux of this whole issue.
All due respect, but the AGA Cut Class Charts represent YOUR opinion.
We all agree that a lot of sellers offer commercial goods- that are not well made. For the purposes of this conversation, let''s eliminate those.
There are also jewelers that stock diamonds. Sellers that carry, and understand well cut goods.
Why should a jeweler who is looking at a diamond they consider to be well cut need to explain why your chart downgrades it arbitrarily?


Bobr- we agree totally.
One aspect that might not be clear here:
David Atlas is a professional. I respect him, and like him personally.
Although we disagree, I take great care NOT to sling mud, or impugn a well respected tradesperson, simply because we disagree about Cut grading charts.


The mudslinging taking place in this thread was done not be experts, but consumers that , for whatever reason, seem to be offended that I am here disagreeing with other experts. Bear in mind at almost every other expert here has a position on this that''s different than mine.
I''ve been grading diamonds my entire adult life, so it is important to me to at least try and show that there is another way to look at this.

We agree that the exercise of grading beauty is flawed.

 

[purrfectpear]

If those photographs were the best the seller could offer, I''d happily pass on every one of those dogs, including Q and M.

I''ve purchased diamonds from eBay and it takes a much, much better photo to give me a warm fuzzy. I find it interesting when people get all defensive about diamond grading. It''s often the case that they either sell diamonds that rate poorly or own one

Personally I have an antique cushion that''s probably close to 100 years old. I like it just fine. That doesn''t mean I would hold it up as being a stellar example of an ideal cut. Why get defensive?

 

[noob2010]

As my screen name suggests, I''m new to all of this so I''m not sure I really know what I''m looking at.

From the pics posted, I like M. I thought a good diamond means it has to be clear (like glass, but reflective). Maybe I''m way off base? Why do so many like Q? It looks cloudy to me.

 

[oldminer]

Of course, most folks would pass on every one of these diamonds if these photos were the best efforts of the seller. It would be pretty obvious that the seller didin''t have a clue abut what makes consumers tick today. The point of this demonstration was to show those who often generalize about there being no way we can pick what is beautiful diamond looks like from parameters, images or other consistently measured light behavior characteristics are wrong in their generalizational appraoch. Sure, it is a better thing to select what is pretty in person, but it is not the way business is being done and I propose we create better ways to describe diamonds to assist distant consumers. Some people just don''t want to see this happen and others definitely are working on it. I believe it is positive progress to make communication of beauty part of the information given to consumers. Maybe we should not create a grading scale of beauty because it is so subjective, but we can absolutely define elements that do not contribute to beauty or create "ugly". This is how screening tools work now and I''d hope we can make them even better without making consumers avoid potentially great looking dianmonds they might like because they miss the screening tool acceptance level by a tiny bit. We need a good tool, but not one that eliminates everything but artificially marketed "ideal'' cuts which may or may not have special merit.

I hope you can see the narrow tightrope that must be walked to do such work. We want no one to select blindly and to be unhappy that the tool malfunctioned. We also don''t want to see vendors with superb stones eliminated by a faulty design in the tool that cuts their diamond out of possible purchase competition with a very good reason. I''d bet there are many very deserving AGS1 and AGS2 cut range stones which would be most attractive in beauty and also in price. How many of these do you find in a search? This is because of marketing, not beauty.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 11/16/2009 3:41:56 PM
Author: oldminer
Of course, most folks would pass on every one of these diamonds if these photos were the best efforts of the seller. It would be pretty obvious that the seller didin''t have a clue abut what makes consumers tick today. The point of this demonstration was to show those who often generalize about there being no way we can pick what is beautiful diamond looks like from parameters, images or other consistently measured light behavior characteristics are wrong in their generalizational appraoch. Sure, it is a better thing to select what is pretty in person, but it is not the way business is being done and I propose we create better ways to describe diamonds to assist distant consumers. Some people just don''t want to see this happen and others definitely are working on it. I believe it is positive progress to make communication of beauty part of the information given to consumers. Maybe we should not create a grading scale of beauty because it is so subjective, but we can absolutely define elements that do not contribute to beauty or create ''ugly''. This is how screening tools work now and I''d hope we can make them even better without making consumers avoid potentially great looking dianmonds they might like because they miss the screening tool acceptance level by a tiny bit. We need a good tool, but not one that eliminates everything but artificially marketed ''ideal'' cuts which may or may not have special merit.

I hope you can see the narrow tightrope that must be walked to do such work. We want no one to select blindly and to be unhappy that the tool malfunctioned. We also don''t want to see vendors with superb stones eliminated by a faulty design in the tool that cuts their diamond out of possible purchase competition with a very good reason. I''d bet there are many very deserving AGS1 and AGS2 cut range stones which would be most attractive in beauty and also in price. How many of these do you find in a search? This is because of marketing, not beauty.

Dave, I so much agree with the overall aspects of what you are talking about.
I bolded the parts that do cause me a lot of concern based on systems currently in place.

I hope you''re not including me in the group who does not want to see this happen as I''ve spent the last 10 years working on transparency in online diamond representation.
I''ve done this using my own methods which is by no means the same as a standardized scale. Part of me thinks a standardized scale is impossible, though I agree it could be very beneficial.

If there was some way to offer a meaningful scale that was not graded on basis of taste- yet provided info that assisted consumers in picking a stone they loved, it would be great.

 

[rhbgirl24]

I think I would say I like M the best out of the bunch. But to tell you the truth the one that draws me the most is A - reminds me of some of the quartz pieces I really like.