Evaluating Cut – time to add Light Performance to certifications

[DiamondDumbie]

Evaluating Cut – time to add Light Performance to certifications

First of all, I need to apologize for venting my frustration about how Cut is or is NOT thoroughly evaluated and quantified.

Second of all, I need to clarify why there is frustration. Instead of highjack another previous thread that was related to another subject matter, I am starting this thread because Cut Evaluation deserves to be the focus rather than the distraction of another thread subject.

The Four C’s are the important criteria for evaluating a white diamond to determine the diamond value. The carat, color and clarity are reasonably quantified and standardized. However, cut is only quantified and standardized with Polish and Symmetry. The consensus is P&S are truly not enough to evaluate the cut of a diamond. However, for decades, there has been equipment and technology available that provides a quantifiable result of how light reacts with a diamond. Therefore, the certification report can (and should) provide this result. This provides another variable that aids in the evaluation of the cut and how light reacts with the diamond. This could be called Light Performance % and the scale is based on the percentage of light that is returned from the diamond.

A person should understand what information from the certification report is important for the type or shape of diamond he or she is evaluating. For example, a person should not consider the Table% when comparing a Round cut to an Emerald cut. The Table% has no relevance when comparing two different cut shapes, such as Round versus Emerald. However, a person may consider the Fluorescence information for a Round cut versus an Emerald cut if the person finds this is an important element.

By the same token, a buyer may also consider the Light Performance% of a Round cut to an Emerald cut because this may be an important element for the buyer. It may be important because the buyer may be seeking Light Performance and this information can assist the buyer to select a certain cut per his or her desire for Light Performance. However, a buyer may also consider the Light Performance% of two Emerald cut diamonds and this may be the determining factor if the buyer spends more money for the higher cut quality or better Light Performance of one Emerald cut diamond versus another Emerald cut diamond.

As mentioned earlier, it is important to understand how the information on a certification pertains to certain types and shapes of diamonds. Light Performance% is no different. If the Light Performance% for an Emerald is lower than a Round, the individual takes this into consideration based on how certain shape cuts perform. As for Branded cut or fancy cut diamonds, such as the Tycoon cut, an individual can consider the Light Performance% between numerous Tycoon cut diamonds just as the individual considers the other information provided with a diamond certification, such as carat, color and clarity.

Light Performance can be quantified similar to how Color or Fluorescence is quantified. If one Tycoon cut diamond has a better Light Performance rating over another Tycoon cut with similar Carat, Color and Clarity ratings, the buyer can determine if the higher Cut rating (Light Performance%) is worth the extra money. Keep in mind, like many diamonds these days, a diamond may be purchased sight unseen so the certification is important during evaluation of many diamonds of like nature. Therefore, it is not always possible to look at the Light Performance of a diamond with one’s own eyes.

Bottom line is the white diamond industry believes Cut is typically the most import criteria of the Four C’s. Currently, individuals look with their own eyes at how the light reacts with the diamond. As mentioned, it is not always possible to view all the diamonds that are being considered. Therefore, if Cut is so important, why not test how the light reacts with the diamond and provide the results on the certification?

After all, the technology is already available and many vendors are utilizing this technology as a value added benefit. Now it is a matter of when will GIA and other certification companies begin to utilize this technology.

 

[Cehrabehra]

AGS already has light performance evaluations on their certificates. I would not use the word "certifications" because if I recall correctly, the stones are not "certified".

Do a search on AGS0 and you should have enough to chew on through the weekend.

 

[neatfreak]

AGS DOES have a rating for light performance...

 

[CaptAubrey]

Please do a search for "cut grading." There have been numerous threads on this subject over the past few years. This is far more complex than you realize, and it is in no way as simple as just "measuring light return."

 

[decodelighted]

A little information is a dangerous thing.

But, please do continue your call for revolution. OR-- you could do a little more reading & a little less rallying & maybe actually purchase that engagement ring you''re shopping for.

 

[JohnQuixote]

GIA's cut grade is based on external measurements (proportions).
Certain proportions sets have proven to be consistent performers. The system is limited to the round brilliant for now.

AGSL used to be proportions-based. Now a diamond is scanned and ray-tracing is used to arrive at numerical values for light performance. They are currently grading the light performance of round, princess, emerald and (soon) ovals. More shapes to come.

This thread may be of interest: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/ags-to-introduce-new-dqd-report-format.59690/

EGL has just begun using Imagem technology to provide a direct-measure of light behavior in that metric. I don't know if this is for all shapes or just rounds. Other labs incorporate different systems (usually themes on proportions or direct-measure).

Each system has pros and cons: Proportions grading doesn't actually look at performance but configurations that have historically proven themselves are rewarded. The AGSL metric is 'light source independent' so two diamonds with similar scores may perform differently in different lighting. The EGL/direct measure metrics are 'light source dependent' so you're only getting a report of the diamond's behavior in one mechanical environment.

In the last 10 years it's come a long way. As a leader in the trade, GIA's incorporation of a cut grade in 2006 has moved consumer awareness of cut far forward from where it was prior to then. The salespeople in many stores still may not even mention cut/performance grades. Pricescope is a good place to loiter if you want to hear the 'latest & greatest' on these subjects.

 

[strmrdr]

buying an EC/SE based in light return only is a huge mistake.
As a matter of fact a prominent PS vendor started carrying better asshers when they stopped using the b-scope on them.
The highest light return does not the most beautiful diamond make in any cut.
The best diamond is one that combines several elements in a pleasing to the eye combination.
With rounds it is possible to get near the max light return and keep other properties but even the best super-ideal diamond trades some raw light return for fire and contrast.

Further: do a search on contrast brilliance.
Brilliance without contrast is less bright.
http://www.acagemlab.com/articles/Describing.htm

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 7/26/2007 1:29:39 PM
Author: strmrdr
The highest light return does not the most beautiful diamond make in any cut.

Well said. Absolutely agree.

 

[DiamondDumbie]

Date: 7/26/2007 1:13:16 PM
Author: decodelighted
A little information is a dangerous thing.

But, please do continue your call for revolution. OR-- you could do a little more reading & a little less rallying & maybe actually purchase that engagement ring you''re shopping for.

Actually, reading is what got me here. If you only knew how many hours I have read, researched and discussed diamonds, you would be shocked. Honestly... shocked!

I believe the revolution was here before I got here. There is a plethora of topic pertaining to Cut evaluations with the IdealScope, BrillanceScope, Sarin, etc, etc, etc. The common themes are nobody agrees what is best for evaluating Cut and there is no standard used for evaluating Cut. So I am sorry to disappoint the "pirate", but I’ve already searched all the Cut threads available.

I must also thank you for the kick in the backside.

If I didn’t know any better, I would say you are trying to knock me off the fence so I will let the cut issue rest long enough to purchase the ring. After all, that is why I started this process.

 

[DiamondDumbie]

Date: 7/26/2007 1:29:39 PM
Author: strmrdr
buying an EC/SE based in light return only is a huge mistake.
As a matter of fact a prominent PS vendor started carrying better asshers when they stopped using the b-scope on them.
The highest light return does not the most beautiful diamond make in any cut.
The best diamond is one that combines several elements in a pleasing to the eye combination.
With rounds it is possible to get near the max light return and keep other properties but even the best super-ideal diamond trades some raw light return for fire and contrast.

Further: do a search on contrast brilliance.
Brilliance without contrast is less bright.
http://www.acagemlab.com/articles/Describing.htm

If you are evaluating diamonds that you are buying sight unseen (via the internet or a distant retail store), how do you determine the best diamond when you cannot see the diamond? Nobody is going to send you multiple (2 or 3) diamonds to see which one is more pleasing to the eye. Are they?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/26/2007 1:37:10 PM
Author: decodelighted

Date: 7/26/2007 1:29:39 PM
Author: strmrdr
The highest light return does not the most beautiful diamond make in any cut.

Well said. Absolutely agree.

hey deco
Just a note for those following along here,,,
Please don''t take that statement out of context.
I know deco knows what I mean but that one line does not stand on its own.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 7/26/2007 1:41:19 PM
Author: DiamondDumbie

Date: 7/26/2007 1:29:39 PM

Author: strmrdr

buying an EC/SE based in light return only is a huge mistake.

As a matter of fact a prominent PS vendor started carrying better asshers when they stopped using the b-scope on them.

The highest light return does not the most beautiful diamond make in any cut.

The best diamond is one that combines several elements in a pleasing to the eye combination.

With rounds it is possible to get near the max light return and keep other properties but even the best super-ideal diamond trades some raw light return for fire and contrast.


Further: do a search on contrast brilliance.

Brilliance without contrast is less bright.

http://www.acagemlab.com/articles/Describing.htm

If you are evaluating diamonds that you are buying sight unseen (via the internet or a distant retail store), how do you determine the best diamond when you cannot see the diamond? Nobody is going to send you multiple (2 or 3) diamonds to see which one is more pleasing to the eye. Are they?

Yes they will often send a few stones to an appraiser to be evaluated by you or them. Otherwise you rely on sarin images, idealscopes, ASET's, etc. to make the most educated decision you can. Trust us, if it were so easy to pick "the perfect stone", we wouldn't have so much discussion going on here...

ALSO what is perfect to one person isn't going to be the same for another...

 

[DiamondDumbie]

Thank you John,

This is good information. I understand there is not a perfect solution to evaluating cut. However, it is also not rocket science. It has almost been 40 years since we put a man on the moon, so this is achievable.

Consider the IdealScope, it is a simple yet brilliant and affective means to evaluate the cut of any diamond. It may not be the best solution, but it is a solution. Even if AGS or GIA utilized the IdealScope, it would add information to their reports that is beneficial for evaluating a diamond.

From there, it can evolve and improve like everything else typically does.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/26/2007 1:41:19 PM
Author: DiamondDumbie


If you are evaluating diamonds that you are buying sight unseen (via the internet or a distant retail store), how do you determine the best diamond when you cannot see the diamond? Nobody is going to send you multiple (2 or 3) diamonds to see which one is more pleasing to the eye. Are they?

easier with rounds as the differences are well studied.
With any of the super-ideal RBs delt with around here the differences are going to be personality not so much performance.
Where the balance drawn between light return, contrast and fire is the difference.
Its enough that some people may say I like this one better but they will blow most diamonds out of the water.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/26/2007 1:49:31 PM
Author: DiamondDumbie

Thank you John,

This is good information. I understand there is not a perfect solution to evaluating cut. However, it is also not rocket science. It has almost been 40 years since we put a man on the moon, so this is achievable.

Consider the IdealScope, it is a simple yet brilliant and affective means to evaluate the cut of any diamond. It may not be the best solution, but it is a solution. Even if AGS or GIA utilized the IdealScope, it would add information to their reports that is beneficial for evaluating a diamond.

From there, it can evolve and improve like everything else typically does.

AGS uses ASET look it up.
It is not that easy because there is not one best combo and the best combo may vary person too person.
On top of that a person may love very different diamonds.
I love rounds slightly tuned for light return over fire but I also love fiery OEC,EC,SE cuts and would take a well cut SE over any round once the size hits 5.5mm or so.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/26/2007 1:41:19 PM
Author: DiamondDumbie


If you are evaluating diamonds that you are buying sight unseen (via the internet or a distant retail store), how do you determine the best diamond when you cannot see the diamond? Nobody is going to send you multiple (2 or 3) diamonds to see which one is more pleasing to the eye. Are they?

Ah, but what is "best?" We have ways to assure high performance. Beyond that it's a matter of taste. Once you have identified several diamonds which are all top performers in their class & clategory there are still slight differences. It's like the finalists in the Miss America pageant. They all have great pedigree, top appeal and wonderful character but the subtle nuances of which finalist suits your personal taste "best" is something only you can decide. PS enables conversation and brings a host of experienced people together to help those who would like to go as far as possible sight-unseen. Most people walking the earth just want something sparkly. For those wanting to put even the top finalists through a '27 point personality questionnaire' you have PS.

 

[CaptAubrey]

Date: 7/26/2007 1:49:31 PM
Author: DiamondDumbie

This is good information. I understand there is not a perfect solution to evaluating cut. However, it is also not rocket science. It has almost been 40 years since we put a man on the moon, so this is achievable.

It is achievable, but the science is still in its infancy, and there are really only a handful of serious scientists working in this area. This isn''t the Manhattan Project.

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 7/26/2007 1:49:31 PM
Author: DiamondDumbie

Consider the IdealScope, it is a simple yet brilliant and affective means to evaluate the cut of any diamond. It may not be the best solution, but it is a solution. Even if AGS or GIA utilized the IdealScope, it would add information to their reports that is beneficial for evaluating a diamond.

You might be right - in that it could give consumers MORE info ... but (unfortunately) most retail endeavors are not set up for the benefit of CONSUMERS. Ultimately the reponsibility for seeking out more info falls on the people doing the BUYING -- not the people doing the selling, or even the ones doing the analysing. For instance ... if a car does poorly on a crash test ... does the dealer put that on the invoice? Publicize it? No. Do airlines offer search engines that compare their prices on flights to other airlines? No. But you can buy a Consumer Reports magazine (key word: buy) -- and see their independent assessment of cars. Or, in the case of airlines you can go to a Travelocity or Orbitz & compare prices. I guess you''re wishing there was a kind of not-for-profit diamond evaluation panel. Or even a paid one. But, as many people have said, it''s just impossible. Because the factors involved are AESTHETIC ... INDIVIDUAL TASTES ... a soup of too many flavors & potentially awesome/horrific combos to accurately 100% of the time predict what''s "best".

It is easy & even enjoyable to slide into the vortex of diamond talk!

It''s fascinating & puzzling & full of interesting characters! Lots of smart people start shopping for an e-ring and then end up in this philosophical Rabbit Hole!

BUT -- as you said, there is an abiding, specific *reason* for your interest. And some others of us are WAY more interested in *that part*

Also: many, many PICTURES!

 

[DiamondDumbie]

Date: 7/26/2007 1:47:38 PM
Author: neatfreak

Date: 7/26/2007 1:41:19 PM
Author: DiamondDumbie

Date: 7/26/2007 1:29:39 PM

Author: strmrdr

buying an EC/SE based in light return only is a huge mistake.

As a matter of fact a prominent PS vendor started carrying better asshers when they stopped using the b-scope on them.

The highest light return does not the most beautiful diamond make in any cut.

The best diamond is one that combines several elements in a pleasing to the eye combination.

With rounds it is possible to get near the max light return and keep other properties but even the best super-ideal diamond trades some raw light return for fire and contrast.


Further: do a search on contrast brilliance.

Brilliance without contrast is less bright.

http://www.acagemlab.com/articles/Describing.htm

If you are evaluating diamonds that you are buying sight unseen (via the internet or a distant retail store), how do you determine the best diamond when you cannot see the diamond? Nobody is going to send you multiple (2 or 3) diamonds to see which one is more pleasing to the eye. Are they?

Yes they will often send a few stones to an appraiser to be evaluated by you or them. Otherwise you rely on sarin images, idealscopes, ASET''s, etc. to make the most educated decision you can. Trust us, if it were so easy to pick ''the perfect stone'', we wouldn''t have so much discussion going on here...

ALSO what is perfect to one person isn''t going to be the same for another...

Several people get using the phrase, “Perfect stone or diamond”.

That is not the point. It is not about picking the “perfect” stone or diamond. It is about picking the “diamond you want” based on what you know.

Imagine if the diamond industry did not believe Color or Clarity could be quantified and standardized, but Carat was quantified and standardized. Nobody would know what they were buying or selling. There would be price ranges for every 1.0 carat diamond with no understanding what you were buying or selling.

Obviously, there once was a time when diamonds were sold in this manner. However, based on the times we live in today with the technology that is available, there is no reason Cut cannot not be quantified and standardize like Carat, Color and Clarity.

Is there really that much difference between a Color scale and a Light Performance scale? It is all relative. Different shades of color and different amounts of light performance. Measure it and report it. Is it really that difficult? Honestly, I do not know. It is just hard to imagine this cannot be done within an industry with so much history, experience and intelligence.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/26/2007 1:49:31 PM
Author: DiamondDumbie


Thank you John,

This is good information. I understand there is not a perfect solution to evaluating cut. However, it is also not rocket science. It has almost been 40 years since we put a man on the moon, so this is achievable.

Consider the IdealScope, it is a simple yet brilliant and affective means to evaluate the cut of any diamond. It may not be the best solution, but it is a solution. Even if AGS or GIA utilized the IdealScope, it would add information to their reports that is beneficial for evaluating a diamond.

From there, it can evolve and improve like everything else typically does.

No problem. If you delve into Ideal-Scope and ASET you'll see they form the foundation of AGSL's cut grade.

I know you said you had read many of the threads. You may have seen this in the FAQ? https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/ags-grading-system-aset-angular-spectrum-evaluation-tool.30509/

Here are a few video webinars. If you're really bored and want to see a little history (from 70s to present) on the evolution of reflectors used to develop cut-precision and light return assessment, click here: http://vyou.pricescope.com/player.aspx?recID=990b4282-d6e7-4f1d-bbf1-889cf99a7819

Another by Wink on the ASET: http://vyou.pricescope.com/player.aspx?recID=931e84e6-3b45-4314-bd8f-c8fe80c7eadb

And a description of the AGS old system (proportions) vs new system (performance): http://vyou.pricescope.com/player.aspx?recID=fb970ea3-0c6d-414e-93eb-d5907c469bbf

Much of this was developed relative to the round brilliant (though ASET is useful for fancy shapes). We're just getting started on how to evaluate fancies, because there is so much more geometric diversity to those shapes - and they have an appeal which is not as related to volume of light return/contrast via obstruction as the round is.

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 7/26/2007 2:06:57 PM
Author: DiamondDumbie
there is no reason Cut cannot not be quantified and standardize like Carat, Color and Clarity.

I love John's Miss America analogy. Sure you can analyze contestants based on COLOR or WEIGHT. Those are observable, OBVIOUS. But ATTRACTIVENESS is subjective.

Also: "light performance" to "attractiveness" would be like judging TEETH WHITENESS of the Miss America contestants. Just one SMALL part of the "attractiveness" package.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/26/2007 2:06:57 PM
Author: DiamondDumbie



Is it really that difficult? Honestly, I do not know. It is just hard to imagine this cannot be done within an industry with so much history, experience and intelligence.

Actually that is one of the biggest things holding cut grading back.
The tradition of trust me in the industry.
Sadly that trust has often not extended to consumers which has led to grading reports and the huge labs dominating the consumer end of the market.
Too understand the diamond market you have to understand the history.
It has been a very controlled market and the controlling parties control is slipping more and more every day.
This is leaving people in a scramble to compete and put food on the table.
It happened in other industries starting in the 70s but because of the tight control of the industry it lasted longer in the diamond industry.
Now it is going threw a very painful realignment.
One local shop closed its door last month, the owner retired and his son found it easier to make money selling used cars than diamonds and wanted nothing too do with the trade.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/26/2007 1:29:39 PM
Author: strmrdr
buying an EC/SE based in light return only is a huge mistake.
As a matter of fact a prominent PS vendor started carrying better asshers when they stopped using the b-scope on them.
The highest light return does not the most beautiful diamond make in any cut.
The best diamond is one that combines several elements in a pleasing to the eye combination.
With rounds it is possible to get near the max light return and keep other properties but even the best super-ideal diamond trades some raw light return for fire and contrast.

Further: do a search on contrast brilliance.
Brilliance without contrast is less bright.
http://www.acagemlab.com/articles/Describing.htm

I love that you think like this storm.... kudos!

 

[DiamondDumbie]

Date: 7/26/2007 2:05:28 PM
Author: decodelighted

Date: 7/26/2007 1:49:31 PM
Author: DiamondDumbie

Consider the IdealScope, it is a simple yet brilliant and affective means to evaluate the cut of any diamond. It may not be the best solution, but it is a solution. Even if AGS or GIA utilized the IdealScope, it would add information to their reports that is beneficial for evaluating a diamond.

You might be right - in that it could give consumers MORE info ... but (unfortunately) most retail endeavors are not set up for the benefit of CONSUMERS. Ultimately the reponsibility for seeking out more info falls on the people doing the BUYING -- not the people doing the selling, or even the ones doing the analysing. For instance ... if a car does poorly on a crash test ... does the dealer put that on the invoice? Publicize it? No. Do airlines offer search engines that compare their prices on flights to other airlines? No. But you can buy a Consumer Reports magazine (key word: buy) -- and see their independent assessment of cars. Or, in the case of airlines you can go to a Travelocity or Orbitz & compare prices. I guess you''re wishing there was a kind of not-for-profit diamond evaluation panel. Or even a paid one. But, as many people have said, it''s just impossible. Because the factors involved are AESTHETIC ... INDIVIDUAL TASTES ... a soup of too many flavors & potentially awesome/horrific combos to accurately 100% of the time predict what''s ''best''.

It is easy & even enjoyable to slide into the vortex of diamond talk!

It''s fascinating & puzzling & full of interesting characters! Lots of smart people start shopping for an e-ring and then end up in this philosophical Rabbit Hole!

BUT -- as you said, there is an abiding, specific *reason* for your interest. And some others of us are WAY more interested in *that part*

Also: many, many PICTURES!

Am I missing something? GIA and AGS are not the Sellers. These reports give important information to the Buyer, just like your example of Consumer Reports. There is no need for a non-profit organization to recreate the wheel that GIA, AGS and other similar companies already created. Your statement has no merit, unless the diamond retailers finance the GIA and AGS companies so their reports benefit the retailer. Correct me if I am wrong, but GIA and AGS are independent companies providing a service to both the buyer and seller.

In addition, if everyone was closed minded, we would stay status quo without improvements through innovation. You say it is “just impossible”. Wow! That is a telling statement. It is pretty clear why you have taken the position you have taken. First of all, nothing is impossible. Without question, quantifying the Cut criteria is FAR from impossible especially since it is already being done. However, by choice, it is just not being done with GIA.

Furthermore, nobody suggested that aesthetic or personal taste should not be factors when valuing or buying a diamond. The point was to add a factor, which is quantifying the Cut criteria with Light Performance or other similar methods that ARE already being used today by numerous sources.

If everyone chose a diamond based on aesthetic or personal taste alone, why not just eliminate Color and Clarity from the GIA or AGS reports. Who needs them? Consumers and Sellers can just assume the value of a diamond based on what is aesthetically pleasing to their personal taste.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/26/2007 2:59:07 PM
Author: DiamondDumbie





Am I missing something? GIA and AGS are not the Sellers. These reports give important information to the Buyer, just like your example of Consumer Reports. There is no need for a non-profit organization to recreate the wheel that GIA, AGS and other similar companies already created. Your statement has no merit, unless the diamond retailers finance the GIA and AGS companies so their reports benefit the retailer. Correct me if I am wrong, but GIA and AGS are independent companies providing a service to both the buyer and seller.

In addition, if everyone was closed minded, we would stay status quo without improvements through innovation. You say it is “just impossible”. Wow! That is a telling statement. It is pretty clear why you have taken the position you have taken. First of all, nothing is impossible. Without question, quantifying the Cut criteria is FAR from impossible especially since it is already being done. However, by choice, it is just not being done with GIA.

Furthermore, nobody suggested that aesthetic or personal taste should not be factors when valuing or buying a diamond. The point was to add a factor, which is quantifying the Cut criteria with Light Performance or other similar methods that ARE already being used today by numerous sources.

If everyone chose a diamond based on aesthetic or personal taste alone, why not just eliminate Color and Clarity from the GIA or AGS reports. Who needs them? Consumers and Sellers can just assume the value of a diamond based on what is aesthetically pleasing to their personal taste.

This brings up a good question .. who do the labs work for?
answer:
The trade.... They are the ones that pay the bills....

While AGS is doing worthwhile work and has brought to market a good system that is exactly what they have done brought it too market.
Market considerations play a role in the system tempered by research.
I think the really huge breakthroughs are going to come from individuals and small companies and they arent here yet or they are playing in other sandboxes such as tools rather than raw research.

 

[DiamondDumbie]

Date: 7/26/2007 2:22:52 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 7/26/2007 2:06:57 PM
Author: DiamondDumbie




Is it really that difficult? Honestly, I do not know. It is just hard to imagine this cannot be done within an industry with so much history, experience and intelligence.

Actually that is one of the biggest things holding cut grading back.
The tradition of trust me in the industry.
Sadly that trust has often not extended to consumers which has led to grading reports and the huge labs dominating the consumer end of the market.
Too understand the diamond market you have to understand the history.
It has been a very controlled market and the controlling parties control is slipping more and more every day.
This is leaving people in a scramble to compete and put food on the table.
It happened in other industries starting in the 70s but because of the tight control of the industry it lasted longer in the diamond industry.
Now it is going threw a very painful realignment.
One local shop closed its door last month, the owner retired and his son found it easier to make money selling used cars than diamonds and wanted nothing too do with the trade.

Finally, the truth!! Or at least this is what makes the most sense. This was my first reaction and speculation. Logically, it does not make sense that Cut has been left open to interpretation and value is affected by various degrees of interpretation. However, being a newbie, I had to ask and find out why.
It is time for me to stop my rant. Hopefully, improvements will continue in such a way that both the retails and buyers can benefit.

 

[DiamondDumbie]

Thank you again John. You input was constructive and very much appreciated!!!

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 7/26/2007 2:59:07 PM
Author: DiamondDumbie

Date: 7/26/2007 2:05:28 PM
Author: decodelighted
Ultimately the reponsibility for seeking out more info falls on the people doing the BUYING -- not the people doing the selling, or even the ones doing the analysing. I guess you're wishing there was a kind of not-for-profit diamond evaluation panel. Or even a paid one. But, as many people have said, it's just impossible. Because the factors involved are AESTHETIC ... INDIVIDUAL TASTES ... a soup of too many flavors & potentially awesome/horrific combos to accurately 100% of the time predict what's 'best'.

Am I missing something? GIA and AGS are not the Sellers.
I DIDN'T SAY THEY WERE THE SELLERS ... I SAID "OR EVEN THE ONES DOING THE ANALYZING" THE GIA & AGS ARE "ANAYLZERS" BUT NOT "JUDGES" AS I DO BELIEVE "JUDGING" IS IMPOSSIBLE.

You say it is “just impossible”. Wow! That is a telling statement. It is pretty clear why you have taken the position you have taken. First of all, nothing is impossible. Without question, quantifying the Cut criteria is FAR from impossible especially since it is already being done.
WAIT A DAY, A MONTH, A YEAR ... TASTES CHANGE. NOT LONG AGO PEOPLE THOUGHT 60/60 DIAMONDS WERE "SUPER IDEAL" -- PERFECTION IS A MOVING TARGET, THERFORE UNKNOWABLE.

Is Jessica Alba more beautiful than Kate Hudson? You can map out the geometry of their faces and analyze the symmetry but - c'mon ... WHY WOULD YOU? Or wait, is it because they have no intrinsic value? They're not on "the market" -- well, yes they are. Who makes a larger salary per movie? Who commands more for endorsements? That value is based on more than LUMINESCENSE I'd bet.

 

[aljdewey]

Well, let me issue a challenge.

Since this is such a "simple thing" to fix in your eyes, why don''t you feel free to add to this thread your suggestions on precisely how this should be done.

Before you do that, please know that there are many learned minds in the field who contribute to these forums---MIT graduates, people with 30-40 years in the business, major players at grading labs, etc. I''m sure they''ll read your suggestions with great interest.

Unless you relish completely embarassing yourself, I''d suggest taking a quick read-through on some of their threads first to get a feel for what paths have already been covered. Then, when you are ready to unveil your suggested solution that everyone else has missed, I''m sure they''ll all be waiting to hear it.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/26/2007 3:15:27 PM
Author: DiamondDumbie




Finally, the truth!! Or at least this is what makes the most sense. This was my first reaction and speculation. Logically, it does not make sense that Cut has been left open to interpretation and value is affected by various degrees of interpretation. However, being a newbie, I had to ask and find out why.

It is time for me to stop my rant. Hopefully, improvements will continue in such a way that both the retails and buyers can benefit.

Just relax and enjoy all the information around here.
This is the largest gathering of diamond cut nuts anywhere.
Just dont be shocked when we dont agree and fight a bit :}
Too some questions there are multiple right answers and you just have too decide for yourself who you want to listen too and how much weight you want to give an opinion or tool.