Emerald Cut criteria

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/23/2007 11:24:18 PM
Author: Cehrabehra

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.

I agree...
btw the low dispersion comes from the old 60/60 camp modern ideals are more balanced.
What I have a problem with is trying to make the RB fit in every performance category a specialty cut is a much better option.
The RB can''t compete because it was designed to be brilliant and it brings into play too many other compromises to force it into a role it isn''t suited to fill.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 4/24/2007 12:41:20 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 4/23/2007 11:24:18 PM
Author: Cehrabehra

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.

I agree...
btw the low dispersion comes from the old 60/60 camp modern ideals are more balanced.
What I have a problem with is trying to make the RB fit in every performance category a specialty cut is a much better option.
The RB can''t compete because it was designed to be brilliant and it brings into play too many other compromises to force it into a role it isn''t suited to fill.

yeah I know low dispersion is a bit passe but I have put my stone against ags000 before and mine really rocks it with color if only for the fact that the facets are really just *big*. Its hard to compete with 4 square mm of blinding color LOL anyway - that doesn''t matter really... the reason I''m responding is because I''m interested in where you''re going with your comments above and Id like you to expand on it a bit....

 

[diagem]

Date: 4/23/2007 6:36:04 PM
Author: oldminer
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.

So I understand from your wordings that an RB that misses the defined range of "Ideal" by a fraction of a degree on either the crown or the pavilion angle becomes JUST a pretty Diamond?

So in your opinion the numbers/formula decide if a RB is just pretty or a gorgeous (ideal) Diamond?

Sorry, it just doesnt make sense to me...

 

[oldminer]

There is, by necessity, a place where categories change from the "Best" to "Next to the Best". Categories are totally human conventions applied over reality. No one says that the cross over zones from one grade to another are perfect or black and white.

Don''t you use the GIA categories of color grading with success and understanding? Don''t you say a diamond is "E" color instead of "D" color without a problem? My approach is the same thing.
If anyone would agree with you that D and E colors are pretty much the same, why not use "Colorless" for D and E instead. You have widened the best to include both, but I doubt you would do it that way. You'' d be all alone.

Think about the logic of your position and you may realize that there are categories where we can successfully grade diamond cut just like we grade color and clarity. Not every diamond is "best" in all respects. When that is the case, it surely is not the best of all diamonds. Widening the "Best" category, like GIA has done, makes the "excellent " grade just about meaningless. Its hardly a position anyone would take.

I won''t labor over this with you, but I hope you can appreciate my point of view as I do appreciate yours. We obviously disagree, but I think logic and our inherent human nature to categorize the quality of things will be the natural way the industry will proceed. Leaving the grade up to untrained consumers or to those woho would misrepresent every diamond as Ideally Cut is not going to be of benefit.

 

[emeraldd]

After reading all of your posts and looking at the ring again in person I actually like this stone better than the others that I have looked at with smaller tables. To me, the smaller table emeralds tend to have smaller flashes of light (which I have seen does make them slightly more brilliant) but the smaller table stones don''t seem to show off as much of the clarity as one in the 70% table range. I know that it isn''t ''ideal'', if there is such a thing, but my preference really is for the larger table stone.

THANKS for the debate and info filled postings, it has been very educational and enlightening for me. I guess there is no accounting for taste! hahaaha.

 

[diagem]

Date: 4/24/2007 7:46:06 AM
Author: oldminer
There is, by necessity, a place where categories change from the ''Best'' to ''Next to the Best''. Categories are totally human conventions applied over reality. No one says that the cross over zones from one grade to another are perfect or black and white.

Don''t you use the GIA categories of color grading with success and understanding? Don''t you say a diamond is ''E'' color instead of ''D'' color without a problem? My approach is the same thing.
If anyone would agree with you that D and E colors are pretty much the same, why not use ''Colorless'' for D and E instead. You have widened the best to include both, but I doubt you would do it that way. You'' d be all alone.

There is a whole industry out there that combine the colors D-E-F and some G''s into one category/assortment called "collection color"
or "Top Wesselton" in their everyday dealings..., it is usually done with either small sizes (below one carat) for commercial quantities and when the Diamonds have no Lab reports and are marketed by bunches (for example various layouts). Believe me it simplifies things...

The same goes for Clarity..., some Companies combine the grades as to VVS+ and VS1/2 assortments.
Some take it a step further and combine their top Clarity grades to a simple VS1+ assortment.

I use this system on a day to day basis..., and I am not alone!

Think about the logic of your position and you may realize that there are categories where we can successfully grade diamond cut just like we grade color and clarity. Not every diamond is ''best'' in all respects. When that is the case, it surely is not the best of all diamonds. Widening the ''Best'' category, like GIA has done, makes the ''excellent '' grade just about meaningless. Its hardly a position anyone would take.

I won''t labor over this with you, but I hope you can appreciate my point of view as I do appreciate yours. We obviously disagree, but I think logic and our inherent human nature to categorize the quality of things will be the natural way the industry will proceed. Leaving the grade up to untrained consumers or to those woho would misrepresent every diamond as Ideally Cut is not going to be of benefit. You got it.

 

[oldminer]

"There is a whole industry out there that combine the colors D-E-F and some G''s into one category/assortment called "collection color" or "Top Wesselton" in their everyday dealings..., it is usually done with either small sizes (below one carat) for commercial quantities and when the Diamonds have no Lab reports and are marketed by bunches (for example various layouts). Believe me it simplifies things..."
"The same goes for Clarity..., some Companies combine the grades as to VVS+ and VS1/2 assortments. Some take it a step further and combine their top Clarity grades to a simple VS1+ assortment. "


I am familiar with the traditional system of color and clarity that the trade uses with large lots of diamonds. I doubt you sell diamonds to consumers with that set of categories. Retailers and consumers want and expect D/E/F/G/ or H color grades not a wide range under a single word descriptor. GIA like grading is the norm for most business although many larger retailers and all dealers are perfectly comfortable with wider, old style categories. The point I am making is that Cut Grading is becoming more closely categorized, just like color and clarity have become in the past 40 years. The fact that you don''t need it doesn''t mean that others won''t want it. Many sellers and end users will find Cut Grading very useful. There is nothing impractical or dishonest with finer tuned categorization. It is the wave of the future.

How many consumers want a Collection Color diamond versus the number who already understand a D or F color grade?
What consumer would take a single diamond based on a VS1+ grade? They''d have little idea of the meaning.

Diamond prices have evolved from the relatively simple Rapaport 2 axis matrix into something which more accurately defines the pricing structure. Buyers and sellers will find it more useful. Profit margins are squeezed anyway near the limit so I see no downside at this point. Cutters will work harder to give consumers finer makes and there will be a better and broader market for better cuts than ever. The better the cut, the prettier the stone.....in nearly every case.

 

[diagem]

Author: oldminer
There is, by necessity, a place where categories change from the ''Best'' to ''Next to the Best''. Categories are totally human conventions applied over reality. No one says that the cross over zones from one grade to another are perfect or black and white.
Don''t you use the GIA categories of color grading with success and understanding? Don''t you say a diamond is ''E'' color instead of ''D'' color without a problem? My approach is the same thing.
If anyone would agree with you that D and E colors are pretty much the same, why not use ''Colorless'' for D and E instead. You have widened the best to include both, but I doubt you would do it that way. You'' d be all alone.


Relax Dave,

You were aiming it towards me...
And i was clarifying the way I do things...

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 4/24/2007 4:24:54 PM
Author: oldminer
I am familiar with the traditional system of color and clarity that the trade uses with large lots of diamonds. I doubt you sell diamonds to consumers with that set of categories. Retailers and consumers want and expect D/E/F/G/ or H color grades not a wide range under a single word descriptor. GIA like grading is the norm for most business although many larger retailers and all dealers are perfectly comfortable with wider, old style categories. The point I am making is that Cut Grading is becoming more closely categorized, just like color and clarity have become in the past 40 years. The fact that you don''t need it doesn''t mean that others won''t want it. Many sellers and end users will find Cut Grading very useful. There is nothing impractical or dishonest with finer tuned categorization. It is the wave of the future.

How many consumers want a Collection Color diamond versus the number who already understand a D or F color grade?
What consumer would take a single diamond based on a VS1+ grade? They''d have little idea of the meaning.

Diamond prices have evolved from the relatively simple Rapaport 2 axis matrix into something which more accurately defines the pricing structure. Buyers and sellers will find it more useful. Profit margins are squeezed anyway near the limit so I see no downside at this point. Cutters will work harder to give consumers finer makes and there will be a better and broader market for better cuts than ever. The better the cut, the prettier the stone.....in nearly every case.

The biggest reason people give a hoot about the difference between a D and an F is because YOU GUYS tell us there''s a difference worthy of $$ difference. Are you telling me that when you purchase these diamonds D/E/F is all the same price point for you guys? (and YOU and YOU GUYS refer to any/all in the $diamond$ business).

Even here on this forum where the consumers are amongst the most educated diamond consumers in the land - we take what you feed us. You tell us a D is more valuable than an F and thus more desirable because it COSTS MORE. You tell us we should want all red on our IS and by golly we want that too. You tell us we should want a 34.5 crown angle but not a 34.8 crown angle and yes we want that too. Of course a few of us (storm and I) question authority on a regular basis and are not content to just be spoonfed what we should want. If there is something that consumers demand it is because the industry has encouraged us to demand it. This is NOT a consumer driven industry (though it may one day become one as technology and disclosure become more advanced), this industry is more akin to the emperor''s new clothing, each of us not wanting to be a fool, but wanting to own the most majestic fabric known to man. I for one am okay with this, but you cannot convince me that the only reason the industry divides the D from the E is because people like me demand it. Oh no.... I absolutely believe it is so the people selling have a reason to charge more for one over the other. A *few* people demand a D color but the rest of us have a range (however narrow) that we accept. If madison avenue and debeers tells everyone that P colored diamonds are the in thing (oh this lovely shade of light yellow) how much you want to bet there is an insurgence of sales in P colored diamonds? Doesn''t mean the D will no longer have its value, but people are swayed by what they''re told is fashionable and preferable and "more elite" ALL the time.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 4/24/2007 4:24:54 PM
Author: oldminer

How many consumers want a Collection Color diamond versus the number who already understand a D or F color grade?
What consumer would take a single diamond based on a VS1+ grade? They''d have little idea of the meaning.

Diamond prices have evolved from the relatively simple Rapaport 2 axis matrix into something which more accurately defines the pricing structure. Buyers and sellers will find it more useful. Profit margins are squeezed anyway near the limit so I see no downside at this point. Cutters will work harder to give consumers finer makes and there will be a better and broader market for better cuts than ever. The better the cut, the prettier the stone.....in nearly every case.

Why do you think consumers are less apt to accept generalizations over specifications? The vast majority of consumers out there will take whatever you give them without question. By saying "they''d have little idea of the meaning" you''re implying that the vast majority of consumers out there even understand D E F G etc grading or what the difference between a VS1 and a SI1 are. You bet I''d accept anything vs1 or above because as far as I''m concerned there is no *real* difference betwen IF and VS1 in any part of *my* head and I do know the actual difference between them - I just don''t care. I''d do the same for color, particularly in the higher colors - in the lower colors the windows are wider and there is more difference that is visible. But still - color is the least important C in my book of all 5 of them and so 4 categories would suffice for me. Clearless, Off White, Light Yellow, Dark Yellow. Done. I''ll take an off white please!


As for your last comment - the better the cut the prettier the stone - both are subjective. Cut A will produce visual A and if that is the look you want then cut A is "the better" cut for you. If what you prefer is visual B, then cut B will be "the better" cut for you. Brilliant bright white diamonds were the bomb not too long ago, and my stone would SUCK in that market. But for what I want it to do *those* stones suck for what I prefer. One opinion is not more valid than another - they''re different. And as long as the industry is telling people "you want white" or whatever, that''s generally what people will ask for. Except the few like myself still willing to put their neck out to advocate for 31 flavors and not just chocolate and vanilla. If all the industry wants to provide is choc and van then fine, but don''t tell me it''s because I don''t like strawberry!!!! Own it.

 

[oldminer]

Sara: I read your post and it sounds like you are playing the devil''s advocate. I am really attempting to be fair and offer sound advice without any agenda. You and a few others might like to be kept in the dark about modern and more exacting quality standards, but nearly all the thousands of consumers I have worked with prefer to know the proper color or clarity of a diamond. If they can be additionally advised, by an expert, as to how well a stone is fashioned AND how well the stone handles light, they can still make their personal choice of strawberry and not vanilla or chocolate. A grade does not dictate a choice. If the cut and light grades are properly categorized, then better grades will correlate to what numerous unbiased observers feel makes a diamond look better, ie "prettier". These obervers have been employed on a broad basis to assist in creating statistically accurate samples of opinion. Of course, individual choices may vary widely, but a primary purpose of categorization is to provide major, statistically valid, generalizations about human perception and combine the results with the inherent physical properties of diamond.

People who take comfort in using advice for important purchases may choose to follow this advice or choose to make their own individual preference in a final selection. As long as people have good information, the choice of what they deem correct remains very personal and not something I would want to interfere with. Grading strategies are something very human. If an individual wants to go their own way or categorize things more generally, no problem. I am a very strawberry sort of guy myself. I have had almost one of everything in cars and motorcycles over the years. I don''t always follow good advice, but I sure have had a very good time.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 4/24/2007 7:42:10 PM
Author: oldminer
Sara: I read your post and it sounds like you are playing the devil''s advocate. I am really attempting to be fair and offer sound advice without any agenda. You and a few others might like to be kept in the dark about modern and more exacting quality standards, but nearly all the thousands of consumers I have worked with prefer to know the proper color or clarity of a diamond. If they can be additionally advised, by an expert, as to how well a stone is fashioned AND how well the stone handles light, they can still make their personal choice of strawberry and not vanilla or chocolate. A grade does not dictate a choice. If the cut and light grades are properly categorized, then better grades will correlate to what numerous unbiased observers feel makes a diamond look better, ie ''prettier''. These obervers have been employed on a broad basis to assist in creating statistically accurate samples of opinion. Of course, individual choices may vary widely, but a primary purpose of categorization is to provide major, statistically valid, generalizations about human perception and combine the results with the inherent physical properties of diamond.

People who take comfort in using advice for important purchases may choose to follow this advice or choose to make their own individual preference in a final selection. As long as people have good information, the choice of what they deem correct remains very personal and not something I would want to interfere with. Grading strategies are something very human. If an individual wants to go their own way or categorize things more generally, no problem. I am a very strawberry sort of guy myself. I have had almost one of everything in cars and motorcycles over the years. I don''t always follow good advice, but I sure have had a very good time.

I know David and I know the diamond you wear is unconventional to your recommendations as well so sometimes it baffles me how loyal you are to "ideals" but I know where it comes from both in terms of good business AND consumer ease (we all know that most consumers just really don''t care as much as say I do LOL) I don''t feel like I''m advocating for the devil or even just trying to be obstinate, I guess I hope for a few things from the industry and I guess I am advocating for those... I wish the industry would provide "floorplans" or "facet plots" or printed sarin (or other) scans on the certificates..... I wish the industry would define and present MORE THAN ONE "ideal" rather than a vague and somewhat arbitary (at least along the edges) range. Garry gets kinda close with the BIC/TIC/FIC thing but I dunno, I guess I just worry about creating a singluar ideal - because of everything I said before... people DO take what the experts say and run with it - most of the time having an expert say "oh you want this or that" makes people think yeah I want that! And I get frustrated because I know you spent most of your life with old cut stones and then it seems like you no longer have an advocate voice for them and that bums me out. And I know you haven''t created a cushion ideal and I think that''s wise with all the insane variables there... but I don''t think comparing them to other cuts is entirely helpful... they may be more like an oval than a radiant (some of them at least) but I do think they need more depth than an oval to do that magical thing that they do - who knows maybe a deep oval with a huge crown would do equally amazing color play... now I''m just babbling but hopefully where I am coming from is a shred clearer...

 

[oldminer]

Sara:

I still love old cuts that look good. They are a wonderful and different choice some people will choose to buy and cherish.

I do promote a wide range of visual options when it comes to what we consider to be the "ideal" choices. Every shape will have many configurations, not just one. The fancy shapes do allow far more choices than rounds.

My own taste in diamonds is not what I try to force on others. I have valid expertise, but personal opinions are kept apart. It is a spearte hat to wear which I occasionally show on Pricescope, but rarely during an appraisal.

Glad we are having this discussion. I imagine those reading along may find the thread very enlightening.

 

[richipat]

This is an interesting discussion. We all want "perfection" and in mother nature there is really very little perfection.

After a long and extensive diamond search--- I analyzed, I compared, I requested all sorts of info -- and in the end, for me, it came down to which diamond "spoke to me." I know this sounds silly, but sometimes when you look at a stone, there is just something about him that speaks to you and tells you to take him home and make him your diamond.

Sweating over a small percentage difference will drive you crazy

and after you buy, you will always find a "better" stone.

(Of course, it helps to look at the best quality your pocketbook can afford.)