Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Emerald Cut criteria

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

emeraldd

Rough_Rock
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
7
I''m looking at an EGL-USA cert. Emerald cut with the following...

0.91ct, G, VS1, 65.5% depth, 79.0% table, 7.9% crown, 54.2% pavillion, thin to thick girdle, no culet, good very good polish, and good symmetry, no flourescence.

My question is..is the table % too big to be considered a well cut stone?

Thanks for the opinions...
 

dani13

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 12, 2004
Messages
6,183
Yes.

The table is HUGE.

This diamond will look alot smaller for its carat wt. too. I say definitley pass on this one.

Good luck!!
 

Gypsy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
40,198
WAY TOO BIG a table.

Please do a search for asscher or emerald cut specs.

Generally :

Table: high fifties, low sixties.
Depth: Below 70-- with a discount above seventy. Personally I like depths of below 65 for spread.

7.9 crown is also too low, probably because of the gigantic table. You want to shoot above 10%... ideally 12-14% (I think).

And you want a even girdle. Thin to Thick is no good, IMO. Also anything very thin will chip... and thing Very Thick will loose you spread.

Symmetry is also KEY. You want at least VG with stepcuts.

No offense.. but that stone is a HECK NO.
 

emeraldd

Rough_Rock
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
7
Thanks for the replies...

Armed with my new info I talked with my Jeweler and they said that with the ''fancy'' shapes there are no set criteria for what makes an ideal cut. They went onto say that the most important thing is how it looks to the eye as well as how it plays in the setting, which I must say looks very nice.

Is there any truth to this?

Thanks.
 

diagem

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
4,940
Date: 4/22/2007 10:52:57 AM
Author: emeraldd
Thanks for the replies...

Armed with my new info I talked with my Jeweler and they said that with the ''fancy'' shapes there are no set criteria for what makes an ideal cut. They went onto say that the most important thing is how it looks to the eye as well as how it plays in the setting, which I must say looks very nice.

Is there any truth to this?

Thanks.
Yes, and there is no ideal cut for e/c yet!
But the majority thinks that a 79% table for an ec is too big!!!

But your eyes are the best judge.
 

oldminer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Sep 3, 2000
Messages
6,378
Here is the March 04 version of the Emerald and Radiant Cut chart. We will shortly have an update with slightly more flexibility in the crown height, but no other changes. It might help to screen some choices. There are Ideal Cut parameters although many just are not aware of them. For those who have seen these charts since I created them over fifteen years ago, I have had relatively little disagreement. I just graded two 2 1/2ct emerald cuts that had 1A cut grades. They were very pretty and even experts would be surprised how differently each looked from the other. Regardless of a cut grade, it remains quite subjective about which diamond any individual might prefer to own and wear.

chrt3 5-04.jpg
 

diagem

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
4,940
Date: 4/22/2007 11:55:39 AM
Author: oldminer
Here is the March 04 version of the Emerald and Radiant Cut chart. We will shortly have an update with slightly more flexibility in the crown height, but no other changes. It might help to screen some choices. There are Ideal Cut parameters although many just are not aware of them. For those who have seen these charts since I created them over fifteen years ago, I have had relatively little disagreement. I just graded two 2 1/2ct emerald cuts that had 1A cut grades. They were very pretty and even experts would be surprised how differently each looked from the other. Regardless of a cut grade, it remains quite subjective about which diamond any individual might prefer to own and wear.
Class 1A on your chart are the parameters range of "Ideal-Cut" for Step-Cut Emerald Cuts and for Brilliant Cut Radiant Cuts in one shot???
 

Cehrabehra

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 29, 2006
Messages
11,071
Date: 4/22/2007 1:07:55 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 4/22/2007 11:55:39 AM
Author: oldminer
Here is the March 04 version of the Emerald and Radiant Cut chart. We will shortly have an update with slightly more flexibility in the crown height, but no other changes. It might help to screen some choices. There are Ideal Cut parameters although many just are not aware of them. For those who have seen these charts since I created them over fifteen years ago, I have had relatively little disagreement. I just graded two 2 1/2ct emerald cuts that had 1A cut grades. They were very pretty and even experts would be surprised how differently each looked from the other. Regardless of a cut grade, it remains quite subjective about which diamond any individual might prefer to own and wear.
Class 1A on your chart are the parameters range of ''Ideal-Cut'' for Step-Cut Emerald Cuts and for Brilliant Cut Radiant Cuts in one shot???
He once suggested using princess parameters to choose a cushion... princess or oval for an elongated cushion and round for a square. I''ll quote him:

I won''t be making a cushion cut chart, but it is apparent to me that traditionally cut cushions relate more to ovalls and princess cuts when they are not square and if they are square then they must relate more to the round chart.

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/cushion-cut-parametric-screening.59737/
 

peridot83

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
299
If you've looked at a bunch of emerald cuts at a lot of different jewelers (esp. GIA certified) to compare, and you really like the one this jeweler picked out for you go for it. It's definitely true that the most important thing is how it looks to you =).

My deep fear when looking at emeralds is that they would like pieces of glass (not enough facets to really flash light). The numbers on your diamond suggest that it probably doesn't have much "fire" i.e. bright flashes of light because the crown height is so short, coupled with a really large table (most people like tables between 59%-65%) If you can get a picture to show us that may help.

However, again, numbers don't tell the whole story. With fancy cuts, even pictures won't tell all! If you look at this diamond and its reflecting tons of light back at you, doesn't look too dark in the center, doesn't look like a piece of glass, totally go for it and you're probably getting a good deal on the price as well because of the unusual numbers!

Good luck with your search.
 

peridot83

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
299
Err...the diamond to the right in the setting looks incredibly yellow, and your center diamond looks yellow as well. Assuming, that''s just cause of the environment....the center stone looks very dull from the picture. The only place on that diamond that looks like its shinning is the very top, the rest looks like its not flashing any light back.

If the jeweler you were talking to tried to convince you this was a well cut diamond, I would look for another jeweler. You can definitely do much better even if you have to go down in carat weight (well worth it).

I would definitely pass on this diamond! How much are you looking to the spend? Have you looked at emerald cuts posted on this site in the show me the ring forum?

If you do have a limited budget please consider that a well cut, reputable stone at .7 will look much better than a dull stone at .9
 

emeraldd

Rough_Rock
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
7
This is another pic that I took while I was at the store. The earlier pic was one that they sent me becuase I told them that the one I took wasn''t very clear. I assure you that the stones are all eye-clean and colorless to the naked eye.

emeraldringpicture.JPG
 

diagem

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
4,940
Date: 4/22/2007 2:35:43 PM
Author: peridot83
If you''ve looked at a bunch of emerald cuts at a lot of different jewelers (esp. GIA certified) to compare, and you really like the one this jeweler picked out for you go for it. It''s definitely true that the most important thing is how it looks to you =).

My deep fear when looking at emeralds is that they would like pieces of glass (not enough facets to really flash light). The numbers on your diamond suggest that it probably doesn''t have much ''fire'' i.e. bright flashes of light because the crown height is so short, coupled with a really large table (most people like tables between 59%-65%) If you can get a picture to show us that may help.

However, again, numbers don''t tell the whole story. With fancy cuts, even pictures won''t tell all! If you look at this diamond and its reflecting tons of light back at you, doesn''t look too dark in the center, doesn''t look like a piece of glass, totally go for it and you''re probably getting a good deal on the price as well because of the unusual numbers!

Good luck with your search.
Remember!!! "Even pictures won''t tell all!"

Especialy "blurry" images...
 

kmglcg

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Apr 28, 2006
Messages
137
Yes. It looks crooked. The baguettes do not look of even size at any angle. The table is too large giving it that "glassy" look. You should pass on this one. There are much better stones to be had out there. I looked for my emerald cut diamond for almost a year.

Start another search using the chart posted above. I relied on that chart for my initial search parameters, then relied on the professional opinions, then the last stop was the eyes! The eyes will have it! Once you have seen a well cut emerald cut diamond, believe me, you will know....and you will be glad you waited.


Keep checking back in here at P/S. There are so many helpful people that really know their stuff!!


Good luck!
 

emeraldd

Rough_Rock
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
7

Thanks for all the advice, I guarantee the stone isn''t crooked, it just looks that way because of the tilt of the ring and the non-traditional cut of the baguettes (they are tapered)...based upon what everyone is saying I think I will keep looking, or maybe just see if I can get a different stone put in the setting.


I did compare the center stone to a couple of others and I sort of liked the look of the clarity (due to the larger table) of this center stone compared to the others, but I guess it is considered ''sub-par'' due to the large table. I''ll have to take another look at it in person.

Thanks again for all the comments.
 

oldminer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Sep 3, 2000
Messages
6,378
"Class 1A on your chart are the parameters range of "Ideal-Cut" for Step-Cut Emerald Cuts and for Brilliant Cut Radiant Cuts in one shot???"
Antique Diamond-Gem.

Yes, you are reading the chart correctly. Now, I don''t mind constructive criticism and have defintely had some over the years since I began to compile these charts. I started in 1985 and have gone a long way toward making them useful. Do you have advice that reflects a high degree of experience in this sort of compilation, or are you just surprised?


One cut that is notably missing is the cushion shape. I have said several times that it is the most elusive one since it is the one cut with the greatest variety of acceptable shapes and configurations. Not only do we have old mine cuts, we have more modern variations of old cuts. Then, too, we have some super performance square cushions cut like H&A rounds which are great diamonds, but far from what others might expect out of a cushion shaped look. I didn''t want to limit choice, so I have avoided splitting them up or attempting to define this particular shape. Of course, all diamond material has inherent light handling characteristics which outward shape always works with. Cushion is the hardest one to screen for performance and combine it with cut quality, however.
 

diagem

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
4,940
Date: 4/23/2007 7:26:02 AM
Author: oldminer

''Class 1A on your chart are the parameters range of ''Ideal-Cut'' for Step-Cut Emerald Cuts and for Brilliant Cut Radiant Cuts in one shot???''
Antique Diamond-Gem.

Yes, you are reading the chart correctly. Now, I don''t mind constructive criticism and have defintely had some over the years since I began to compile these charts. I started in 1985 and have gone a long way toward making them useful. Do you have advice that reflects a high degree of experience in this sort of compilation, or are you just surprised?


One cut that is notably missing is the cushion shape. I have said several times that it is the most elusive one since it is the one cut with the greatest variety of acceptable shapes and configurations. Not only do we have old mine cuts, we have more modern variations of old cuts. Then, too, we have some super performance square cushions cut like H&A rounds which are great diamonds, but far from what others might expect out of a cushion shaped look. I didn''t want to limit choice, so I have avoided splitting them up or attempting to define this particular shape. Of course, all diamond material has inherent light handling characteristics which outward shape always works with. Cushion is the hardest one to screen for performance and combine it with cut quality, however.
Can you define an Ideal cut Emerald Cut or Radiant Cut?? I didnt know they exist.
I know AGS are pushing HARD!!! But the trade seem to not notice their effort (at all)...

Dave, I have seen some pretty awesome E/C''s that:
-have a table % way below 60%.
-have a much higher crown height than 16.2%.
-were much shallower than 57% td.
-were much deeper than 69.9% td.

The face up appearance (beauty as some call it) of E/C are calculated in the step facets..., their angles seperate and ''combined'', the step facet sizes and positions, and number of facets used in the design.

You can find two different E/C''s with the same exact Table %, TD %, Lenght vs. width ratio, crown height..., and each of the two would look completely different. Actually like black and white.

Am I correct?
 

oldminer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Sep 3, 2000
Messages
6,378
That''s exactly why I tell folks to LOOK at the stone and not choose without a personal examination. No one wants to see diamond bought without appreciation of how they look. I encourage making a personal choice, but find most smart cutters do not cut ugly emerald cuts or radiant cuts WITHIN the parameters I have given as 1A to 2B. Of course, there are pretty diamonds outside those parameters, but I wanted to create advice that can be used as a screening tool which gives a higher probability of a better looking stone. I doubt you will find a 1A that looks bad. Cutters are smart about making a stone look good. It is more common to find some 2B stones which look okay, but are not exceptional in appearance.

Within the cut parameters I use for 1B or 1A most cutters can, and naturally would, cut a pretty diamond. After we get past the 2B range, only by accident or an unusual nature of the rough will a cutter produce a truly attractive diamond regarldess of skill. Exceptions to general rules always exist, but cannot be used to say generalizations are wrong. When general rules are correct nearly all the time, we find them to be helpful and that''s what I''m after, being helpful. If one looks with their own eyes, they can appreciate when an exception may have happened.
 

diagem

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
4,940
Date: 4/23/2007 8:33:25 AM
Author: oldminer
That''s exactly why I tell folks to LOOK at the stone and not choose without a personal examination. No one wants to see diamond bought without appreciation of how they look. I encourage making a personal choice, but find most smart cutters do not cut ugly emerald cuts or radiant cuts WITHIN the parameters I have given as 1A to 2B. Of course, there are pretty diamonds outside those parameters, but I wanted to create advice that can be used as a screening tool which gives a higher probability of a better looking stone. I doubt you will find a 1A that looks bad. Cutters are smart about making a stone look good. It is more common to find some 2B stones which look okay, but are not exceptional in appearance.

I dont believe in "ugly" Diamonds...

Within the cut parameters I use for 1B or 1A most cutters can, and naturally would, cut a pretty diamond. After we get past the 2B range, only by accident or an unusual nature of the rough will a cutter produce a truly attractive diamond regarldess of skill. Exceptions to general rules always exist, but cannot be used to say generalizations are wrong. When general rules are correct nearly all the time, we find them to be helpful and that''s what I''m after, being helpful. If one looks with their own eyes, they can appreciate when an exception may have happened.
I agree!!!

The only ??? I still have is your categorizing Emerald cuts and Radiants as "Ideal"...
Can you please elaborate more?
 

oldminer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Sep 3, 2000
Messages
6,378
"Ideal" when it is used in terms of diamonds implies the diamonds have no CUTTING faults which would have any effect on Durability, Finish or Size to weight relationship. This is what I call "DFS".

"Ideal" also implies the LOOK of the diamond is AMONG the best group in VISUAL appearance and/or in MEASURED Light Behavior.

When we think of an "Ideal" cut diamond we represent there is very little to no cutting fault, polish, or symmetry fault, or situation such as overly deep combined with what we believe are visual attributes of beauty without visual fault or lack of light performance.

The AGA Cut Class charts help people find diamonds within the upper ranges of DFS and a far more likely better or best visual look. The visual look is done with the eyes and sometimes with devices, too. That''s why I promote the I-S, the ASET, the HCA, the VeriGem and Gemex tools. These tools give us a remote way of judging something meaningful about visual appearance on top of the DFS attributes. We can do some of the visual things with our own eyes, but some of the finite measurements made with VeriGem or Gemex are beyond human perception ability, but still subject to our own opinion anyway.

Low clarity or lack or transparency also has an effect on how beautiful a diamond may look. It can have an effect of how durabile a diamond might be also, but clarity is not part of the AGA Cut Claass and DFS system. We leave clarity effects into how it has an effect on beauty and appearance. When we look with our eyes or with machines, we can detect clarity problems in Light Perfromance. Low clarity sometimes has little effect on beauty, but oftentimes low clarity detracts from visual eye appeal and might remove a diamond from being really "Ideal". We think the judgment of customers is sufficient to rule those stones out or to accept them. Price is such a concern at the low end of clarity, that it may outweigh cut quality for many of those customers anyway.

I hope this makes sense.
 

diagem

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
4,940
Date: 4/23/2007 10:02:54 AM
Author: oldminer
''Ideal'' when it is used in terms of diamonds implies the diamonds have no CUTTING faults which would have any effect on Durability, Finish or Size to weight relationship. This is what I call ''DFS''.

''Ideal'' also implies the LOOK of the diamond is AMONG the best group in VISUAL appearance and/or in MEASURED Light Behavior.

When we think of an ''Ideal'' cut diamond we represent there is very little to no cutting fault, polish, or symmetry fault, or situation such as overly deep combined with what we believe are visual attributes of beauty without visual fault or lack of light performance.

The AGA Cut Class charts help people find diamonds within the upper ranges of DFS and a far more likely better or best visual look. The visual look is done with the eyes and sometimes with devices, too. That''s why I promote the I-S, the ASET, the HCA, the VeriGem and Gemex tools. These tools give us a remote way of judging something meaningful about visual appearance on top of the DFS attributes. We can do some of the visual things with our own eyes, but some of the finite measurements made with VeriGem or Gemex are beyond human perception ability, but still subject to our own opinion anyway.

Low clarity or lack or transparency also has an effect on how beautiful a diamond may look. It can have an effect of how durabile a diamond might be also, but clarity is not part of the AGA Cut Claass and DFS system. We leave clarity effects into how it has an effect on beauty and appearance. When we look with our eyes or with machines, we can detect clarity problems in Light Perfromance. Low clarity sometimes has little effect on beauty, but oftentimes low clarity detracts from visual eye appeal and might remove a diamond from being really ''Ideal''. We think the judgment of customers is sufficient to rule those stones out or to accept them. Price is such a concern at the low end of clarity, that it may outweigh cut quality for many of those customers anyway.

I hope this makes sense.
What you call DFS..., makes perfect sense to me.... (and should be used instead of Ideal.)
But when vendors (I am not pointing to you) categorize fancy shaped Diamonds they market as ''Ideal'' Diamonds...., that is where I think it reaches a border.
It could be pretty missleading...

Every individual will have a different opinion for "their Ideal" fancy shaped Diamond.
Some prefer spready Diamonds, some build-up...
Some prefer long and narrow Pear shapes or Marquise shaped..., some short and stubby...
and the list goes on and on and on........

I hope you see where I am coming from..., and where I am trying to head to!
 

oldminer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Sep 3, 2000
Messages
6,378
WHere you are coming from I do understand. That''s why I have never specified grading scertain preferences such as length to width or bulge factors. Fancy shapes need a lot of freedom of choice which is up to the tast of a consumer.

However, diamonds have inherent characteristics which only experts can properly address. Those are covered in the DFS. With these broad ranges of shapes we can have a huge variety of Ideal cut fancy shapes compared to the rather limited range of round stones. I have promoted this wide range concept for years. Now people are hearing it, finally.

The trade should not restirct Ideal to preconceived notions of outline. Thgis is within the choice of a customer. The trade should spell out where there is a problem, like too thin or too thick a girdle, too much depth which makes a stone weigh a lot, but give up a lot of its looks. Those are factors which do count regardless of the cut.
 

diagem

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
4,940
Date: 4/23/2007 11:32:49 AM
Author: oldminer
WHere you are coming from I do understand. That''s why I have never specified grading scertain preferences such as length to width or bulge factors. Fancy shapes need a lot of freedom of choice which is up to the tast of a consumer.

However, diamonds have inherent characteristics which only experts can properly address. Those are covered in the DFS. With these broad ranges of shapes we can have a huge variety of Ideal cut fancy shapes compared to the rather limited range of round stones. I have promoted this wide range concept for years. Now people are hearing it, finally.
That is where I personaly have a problem with "Ideal", the consumer was well educated that the round shape diamond "Ideal" is super narrow in range..., so a wide range or broad range "Ideal" for fancy shapes is misleading. In that range you will find thousands of different looks for the same numbers..., and that is wrong. (in my opinion...)

The trade should not restirct Ideal to preconceived notions of outline. Thgis is within the choice of a customer. The trade should spell out where there is a problem, like too thin or too thick a girdle, too much depth which makes a stone weigh a lot, but give up a lot of its looks. Those are factors which do count regardless of the cut.
As you point out that a deeper stone will take away from it "larger" looks..., I can point out the opposite..., I usually point out that a Diamond should have a three dimensional look to it..., and that is where I think the sculpture effect in a Diamond is necessary visual effect.
A lot of consumers I deal with prefer a Diamond that "sticks out" of the mounting...., and that effect is lost when a stone is shallow and looks bigger.
 

oldminer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Sep 3, 2000
Messages
6,378
There are many possible "Ideal" cuts, especially when it comes to fancy shapes. As long as the trade can agree not to tamper with consumer preference or dictate only a limited number of choices when many more rightfully exist, I have no problem with the situation. If the trade limits the use of the term, "IDEAL" to a limited set of configurations for each shape regardless of their beauty, then a mistake is being made. Both of us hope for freedom and flexibility. From a Marketing standpoint, I think it VERY desireable to award the title of "IDEAL" to any shape diamond that meets excellent DFS and excellent Light Behavior (visual and/or measured) criteria. Let the consumer judge if they accept it as a great diamond or reject it for another.

For many years my firm dealt in old cut diamonds. The look of old cuts is often 3 dimensional and sculptural. Few of them rate as high as modern cut ideal stones in light return or DFS, but they can be very beatiful in their own right. Not every consumer follows the herd. Some will buy a special diamond which simply looks "right" to them. That diamond may be far from the scientific "best" or even the prettiest to expert eyes, but to them, it is the one they want to own or give. If you look at the value, the market price, on such diamonds, you will find some correlation of DFS and Visual appeal to the asking prices. People who buy unusual makes, deeper or shallower diamonds, get some price benefits for choosing their own course of action. We don''t term those stones "Ideal", but we can fairly value them and appreciate their special characteristics, too.
 

diagem

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
4,940
Date: 4/23/2007 1:17:28 PM
Author: oldminer
There are many possible ''Ideal'' cuts, especially when it comes to fancy shapes. As long as the trade can agree not to tamper with consumer preference or dictate only a limited number of choices when many more rightfully exist, I have no problem with the situation. If the trade limits the use of the term, ''IDEAL'' to a limited set of configurations for each shape regardless of their beauty, then a mistake is being made. Both of us hope for freedom and flexibility. From a Marketing standpoint, I think it VERY desireable to award the title of ''IDEAL'' to any shape diamond that meets excellent DFS and excellent Light Behavior (visual and/or measured) criteria. Let the consumer judge if they accept it as a great diamond or reject it for another.

I believe the trade does just that with the rounds...

For many years my firm dealt in old cut diamonds. The look of old cuts is often 3 dimensional and sculptural. Few of them rate as high as modern cut ideal stones in light return or DFS, but they can be very beatiful in their own right. Not every consumer follows the herd. Some will buy a special diamond which simply looks ''right'' to them. That diamond may be far from the scientific ''best'' or even the prettiest to expert eyes, but to them, it is the one they want to own or give. If you look at the value, the market price, on such diamonds, you will find some correlation of DFS and Visual appeal to the asking prices. People who buy unusual makes, deeper or shallower diamonds, get some price benefits for choosing their own course of action. We don''t term those stones ''Ideal'', but we can fairly value them and appreciate their special characteristics, too.
I dont believe the beauty of a Diamond is measured only based on light return. There are more aspects to measuring "beauty" in a Diamond than light return...
 

Cehrabehra

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 29, 2006
Messages
11,071
Date: 4/23/2007 4:03:50 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 4/23/2007 1:17:28 PM
Author: oldminer
There are many possible ''Ideal'' cuts, especially when it comes to fancy shapes. As long as the trade can agree not to tamper with consumer preference or dictate only a limited number of choices when many more rightfully exist, I have no problem with the situation. If the trade limits the use of the term, ''IDEAL'' to a limited set of configurations for each shape regardless of their beauty, then a mistake is being made. Both of us hope for freedom and flexibility. From a Marketing standpoint, I think it VERY desireable to award the title of ''IDEAL'' to any shape diamond that meets excellent DFS and excellent Light Behavior (visual and/or measured) criteria. Let the consumer judge if they accept it as a great diamond or reject it for another.

I believe the trade does just that with the rounds...

For many years my firm dealt in old cut diamonds. The look of old cuts is often 3 dimensional and sculptural. Few of them rate as high as modern cut ideal stones in light return or DFS, but they can be very beatiful in their own right. Not every consumer follows the herd. Some will buy a special diamond which simply looks ''right'' to them. That diamond may be far from the scientific ''best'' or even the prettiest to expert eyes, but to them, it is the one they want to own or give. If you look at the value, the market price, on such diamonds, you will find some correlation of DFS and Visual appeal to the asking prices. People who buy unusual makes, deeper or shallower diamonds, get some price benefits for choosing their own course of action. We don''t term those stones ''Ideal'', but we can fairly value them and appreciate their special characteristics, too.
I dont believe the beauty of a Diamond is measured only based on light return. There are more aspects to measuring ''beauty'' in a Diamond than light return...
I''ve been watching you guys go back and forth in this but here I had to speak up because I absolutely 100% agree with you on both of these counts DiaGem!
 

oldminer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Sep 3, 2000
Messages
6,378
1. I am for a wide range of choices. I think this is correct for all shapes including fancy shapes. Rounds are pretty well defined, but fancy shapes have far more variables.

2. You will NEVER find an Ideally cut diamond with less than excellent Light return. Its not going to occur. You may find a pretty diamond with less than high performance, but it won''t ever get a top rating. if there ever is a system we come together on.
 

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295
Date: 4/23/2007 6:36:04 PM
Author: oldminer
2. You will NEVER find an Ideally cut diamond with less than excellent Light return. Its not going to occur. You may find a pretty diamond with less than high performance, but it won''t ever get a top rating. if there ever is a system we come together on.
Then the cut grade system will fail, its the contrast patterns that make many cuts what they are especially EC and SE cuts cutting/grading/selecting them for max light return is a huge mistake.
I already went thru that with Jon on asschers and made him see the light, selecting asschers and EC''s using tools like the b-scope that don''t take contrast patterns into account is a very huge mistake!!!!
 

Cehrabehra

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 29, 2006
Messages
11,071
Date: 4/23/2007 8:41:21 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 4/23/2007 6:36:04 PM
Author: oldminer
2. You will NEVER find an Ideally cut diamond with less than excellent Light return. Its not going to occur. You may find a pretty diamond with less than high performance, but it won''t ever get a top rating. if there ever is a system we come together on.
Then the cut grade system will fail, its the contrast patterns that make many cuts what they are especially EC and SE cuts cutting/grading/selecting them for max light return is a huge mistake.
I already went thru that with Jon on asschers and made him see the light, selecting asschers and EC''s using tools like the b-scope that don''t take contrast patterns into account is a very huge mistake!!!!
I''d add the refractive power of huge crowned and deep "antique style" cushions to this... they might not be the brightest stones in the bunch, but they can hang with the best (and even edge them out) in the rainbow department. Of course I''ve heard dispersion is not a positive quality in a diamond or something like but I disagree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    Lucky Alhambra Bracelet
    Lucky Alhambra Bracelet
    Handmade diamond studs
    Handmade diamond studs
    5 Diamond Misconceptions: Part 1
    5 Diamond Misconceptions: Part 1

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top