Fancy Shape outline preference

[oldminer]

Karl K asked this concerning fancy shape outline preferences:

"What is the proper outline?
You opinion may be vastly different than mine.
I prefer the looks of wide short pears, others may like long skinny ones, some may like them in between.
Who is right? Who has the authority to say one outline is better than the other?"

Dealers have no "right per se" on any specific preference for shaping outlines, but they do have general and widespread ranges of what they prefer to put into stock and which shape outlines they personally prefer to invest in. GIA does not promote any particular shaping and they do not invest in diamond inventories, nor do they really teach much about outline shape preferences. Everyone says it is up to the end-user in many respects. However, if dealers are shown diamonds to buy they invariably select ones they prefer the shape of and haggle more over those which they do not prefer so much. The ones they do not like at all, they won't buy. IT IS THEIR RIGHT TO DECIDE NOT TO BUY and that is highly important knowledge for consumers to understand. When you purchase an odd shape or a diamond with what dealers tend to not prefer, you are buying a less salable commodity in the event you ever wish to sell. There is no harm in training your eyes to spot shaping issues which can later make selling more problematic or the value somewhat less than expected can be prevented by the proper selection process when buying. It is the only time YOU can make that decision, never later on without recutting and absorbing the risks associated. Beyond communication of outline preference, the Shape Selector tool is a training too for consumer use. It is not a design tool or put there to force anyone to adopt any set idea of shape preference other than what the diamond trade generally tends to prefer to put into inventory. Consumers need to grasp the concept that attractiveness of shape is not simply their personal preference, but that attractiveness of shape is a component of value and desirability in the market for diamonds. By seeing how an outline of various shapes can be grossly or slightly altered and how that has an effect on looks, one can better prepare to buy a diamond without problems of outline that expert eyes readily detect automatically. Everyone eventually understands that any "problem" with a diamond has the potential to alter marketability and value. The only time to address this is at the time of purchase.

I hope this clears the air on the reason for learning about fancy shape outline preferences without forcing any specific shape down anyone's throat. Dealers will gladly sell you any shape you pick while promoting the idea there are no rules about what makes a best shape, but they would argue over price or not even buy what they believe is a badly shaped diamond. This is why we need to be more transparent.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Hi Dave,
Been reviewing the book on Fancy Colored Diamonds by Eden Rachminov and he has also attempted lists of preferred parameters for LXW.
For e.g. he prefers pear shapes 1.5 to 1.7 longer than width. Emerald cut 1.2 to 1.4 times.
But truly it is in the eye of the beholder (with a wallet or credit card).

Al Gilbertson did a survey a few years back and got some really weird results published in a GIA article - but he did it by showing people photos produced in DiamCalc. And the people were not buying and my interpretation is that many of those people would not be buyers of fancy shapes anyway.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Great topic Dave!
From my perspective, Internet sales change this discussion quite a bit. Site feature 1000's of pics of diamonds they don't even own. They're not taking the time to cull for shape. So consumers may end up,buying unorthodox models in marquise, pear, etc.
That aspect has done a bit to equalize prices of what might have been considered optimal shape 10 years back as compared to non conventionally shaped stones.
I do agree that back in the day specific shaped marquise diamonds brought premiums. 2:1 was the desired shape.
Another good example of stones that generate higher prices based on specific shape requests are princess- obviously square is desired.
But I find prices of many shapes such as emerald cut, to be consistent over a wider range of variables.

 

[tyty333]

Hi OldMiner,
What I'm seeing is that most posters want to get as much size (length) out of their budget as possible so they are tending more
towards the longer pears. The downside is that I think rounder/fatter pears have a better chance of nice faceting pattern/light return
due to the fat end being more like a round brilliant (of course each stone must be evaluated on its own merits).

With respect to your other post, I went through and picked out 10 stones that fell into the Ideal range (had to ignore girdle because
very few fell into the ideal category). I only looked at numbers and did not look at images. After I found 10 stones I went and
looked at the images to see if I would recommend them. I was suprised to find that I would probably recommend about half of them.
I seriously didnt think it would come out that good. So I guess bottom line is that for someone who does not know how to visually
pick pears that using numbers will help them (to some extent) because it only came out about 50/50. And, actually the other stones
that I would not recommend tended to look "decent" but not great. I only considered 1 stone terribly ugly.

I also ran a test where I picked out stones that I would recommend (visually, without looking at numbers). Again, I had to ignore
girdles because a lot of them went into the Slightly Thick+ category. Most stones fell into
the 1A/B and 2A/B categories but I did have a few outliers (2 out of 10 stones) that had either depth/table that fell into the 3A
range.

So, not really sure what to take from these little test that I ran. I think sticking to the "Ideal" numbers may help someone find a
pear that is nice but it also knocks out a lot of pears that I would consider worthy of recommending. I personally still like posting
pictures of what to look for in a pear...I think this helps a user more than telling them to search by the numbers. If I HAD to pick
a pear sight unseen for some strange reason...I probably would stick with the Ideal numbers because I think it might* increase my
chances of receiving a decent pear.

tyty

 

[oldminer]

What looks very good may not fall into 1A or 1B all the time. I have seen 2A, 2B and the rare 3A in fancy shapes which I felt deserved credit for looking great. Using your eyes is not a bad thing to practice. That is how we perceive most everything in the world. Diamonds have some very special attributes beyond what we see. The fine divisions of color grades are nearly impossible to notice one step at a time, the VVS clarity range is no different that IF or flawless to our human eyes, just like many SI1 diamond look flawless to nearly everyone but experts, too.

The fact that you found you would eliminate some charming stones based solely on thick girdles, is an honest response. I don't care if someone chooses a diamond with a wide girdle, but they likely could find a diamond with a medium girdle and a bit more spread for the same weight if they shopped a bit more. Maybe not every time, but most of the time this could be true. There are features of diamonds that are negatives which consumers are not well aware of unless they learn about it or use some screening tool to do some of the work for them. These consumers will end up with a diamond that has no "issues" if they succeed and they will understand the "issues" if they select a stone with some slight or more major screened issue detected and revealed. No one says "Don't buy a diamond with a minor quirk in its cut". What my goal was, and still is, is to allow consumers to know when they buy what they are getting rather than finding out much later they might have done a better job.

I very much appreciate you taking your time to examine what gets screened out and what portion are in the top grades. Because of no accepted system there are many fancy shapes which look super, but have unrevealed cut issues which an accepted system would surely report. Someday a more refined system for screening or even cut grading all fancy shapes will come into acceptance and the cut of fancy shapes will be improved by market demand. Round diamonds have been vastly improved by the demand for better proportions. Princess cuts to a lesser extent, as the market for mediocre ones with loads of extra weight retained, has remained fairly strong while the AGS000 market has taken its own share with high quality cut stones.

I foresee pear shapes and others with cut grading applied will generate lots of AGS000 work or even GIA XXX ones, too.

 

[Karl_K]

Dealers prejudices on what consumers should buy is getting less and less powerful with shorter pipelines and the
fewer filters between the consumers and the cutters.
Consumer to consumer sale possibilities nullifies the resale argument.
These trends will only increase as technology becomes more prevalent and the ability to access
light performance remotely becomes more widespread.
Smart cutters and dealers should be looking to expand these opportunities not suppress them.
This is even more vital for smaller businesses as large companies dominate more and more of the "standard" market.
Doing business like you did 20 10 or even 5 years ago is a sure fire recipe for getting left behind.

 

[distracts]

Yeah, I think I like much longer and skinnier emeralds than a lot of people like. But fat emeralds just kind of... don't do it for me. I see that guideline of 1.2-1.4 lxw but I like more like... 2 times. And more steps than maybe is usual? They're pretty hard to find. I can recognize other emeralds look nice but they're not... emeraldy enough for me. Whatever that means.

 

[Karl_K]

Yeah, I think I like much longer and skinnier emeralds than a lot of people like. But fat emeralds just kind of... don't do it for me. I see that guideline of 1.2-1.4 lxw but I like more like... 2 times. And more steps than maybe is usual? They're pretty hard to find. I can recognize other emeralds look nice but they're not... emeraldy enough for me. Whatever that means.

Sounds awesome.
I love those in gemstones they would be even more kewl in diamond.
Lack of rough would be the biggest stumbling block.
It might be a good design for cvd mmd.

 

[Gypsy]

I guess I am weird.

I don't really have shape preferences in terms of outlines. I like them fat, I like them skinny, I like them short, I like them tall, I like them all.

Dr. Seuss moment aside, it's true.

For me performance and personality are the most important to me. The overall beauty of the stone.

I don't believe in kicking out gorgeous stones with great performance because of their outlines except in extreme cases-- and sometimes not even then.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I guess I am weird.

I don't really have shape preferences in terms of outlines. I like them fat, I like them skinny, I like them short, I like them tall, I like them all.

Dr. Seuss moment aside, it's true.

For me performance and personality are the most important to me. The overall beauty of the stone.

I don't believe in kicking out gorgeous stones with great performance because of their outlines except in extreme cases-- and sometimes not even then.

You might be weird Gypsy.... but not in the case of your opinion here
My experience speaking to many thousands of consumers completely jibe with your post. People take into account things like like hand size and shape and overall surface area.
As I mentioned above, the preponderance of websites showing pictures of diamonds based only upon their presence on a list means they don't eliminate the "weird and wonky". And people are buying them. Based on this we can see that trying to assign numerical values to shapes ignores personal preference.
Even if 80% of buyers prefer a given proportion set doesn't mean everyone will. In fact it's guaranteed to give a wrong result for a percentage of buyers.
These are the reasons I've always been against guides that place grades on proportion sets. This aspect of personal preference is essential to continued diversity in shapes.
I mean ....imagine if all pear shapes were cut to the same proportion....BORING

 

[Karl_K]

I guess I am weird.

I don't really have shape preferences in terms of outlines. I like them fat, I like them skinny, I like them short, I like them tall, I like them all.

Dr. Seuss moment aside, it's true.

For me performance and personality are the most important to me. The overall beauty of the stone.

I don't believe in kicking out gorgeous stones with great performance because of their outlines except in extreme cases-- and sometimes not even then.

You might be weird Gypsy.... but not in the case of your opinion here
My experience speaking to many thousands of consumers completely jibe with your post. People take into account things like like hand size and shape and overall surface area.
As I mentioned above, the preponderance of websites showing pictures of diamonds based only upon their presence on a list means they don't eliminate the "weird and wonky". And people are buying them. Based on this we can see that trying to assign numerical values to shapes ignores personal preference.
Even if 80% of buyers prefer a given proportion set doesn't mean everyone will. In fact it's guaranteed to give a wrong result for a percentage of buyers.
These are the reasons I've always been against guides that place grades on proportion sets. This aspect of personal preference is essential to continued diversity in shapes.
I mean ....imagine if all pear shapes were cut to the same proportion....BORING

Well said both of you.

I actually find super-ideal rounds kinda boring, that does not mean they are not the right diamond for a lot of people and that they are not beautiful diamonds. I like the looks of them but I just don't find them as interesting intellectually as fancy cuts.

 

[pyramid]

Are gemstones like ruby not harder to set when the pavilion is shallower and the crown higher? Also I saw one in a jeweller's window and wondered why I could see right through to the bottom of the stone and its facets rather than looking at the crown facets and then I noticed it was shallow but tall. It did look dark ruby like but not proportioned as nice as one with a larger pavilion.

 

[Karl_K]

Are gemstones like ruby not harder to set when the pavilion is shallower and the crown higher? Also I saw one in a jeweller's window and wondered why I could see right through to the bottom of the stone and its facets rather than looking at the crown facets and then I noticed it was shallow but tall. It did look dark ruby like but not proportioned as nice as one with a larger pavilion.

Overly dark materials are often cut that way to lighten the overall stone.
They would be over dark if cut in a more standard manner.

They are not that much harder to set for someone who sets gemstones, all fancies are a little trickier to set than rounds and gemstones are often harder to set than diamonds because they are not as uniform. Each has little tricks to get them right.
Nothing a good bench cant handle.

 

[Gypsy]

I guess I am weird.

I don't really have shape preferences in terms of outlines. I like them fat, I like them skinny, I like them short, I like them tall, I like them all.

Dr. Seuss moment aside, it's true.

For me performance and personality are the most important to me. The overall beauty of the stone.

I don't believe in kicking out gorgeous stones with great performance because of their outlines except in extreme cases-- and sometimes not even then.

You might be weird Gypsy.... but not in the case of your opinion here
My experience speaking to many thousands of consumers completely jibe with your post. People take into account things like like hand size and shape and overall surface area.
As I mentioned above, the preponderance of websites showing pictures of diamonds based only upon their presence on a list means they don't eliminate the "weird and wonky". And people are buying them. Based on this we can see that trying to assign numerical values to shapes ignores personal preference.
Even if 80% of buyers prefer a given proportion set doesn't mean everyone will. In fact it's guaranteed to give a wrong result for a percentage of buyers.
These are the reasons I've always been against guides that place grades on proportion sets. This aspect of personal preference is essential to continued diversity in shapes.
I mean ....imagine if all pear shapes were cut to the same proportion....BORING

Well said both of you.

I actually find super-ideal rounds kinda boring, that does not mean they are not the right diamond for a lot of people and that they are not beautiful diamonds. I like the looks of them but I just don't find them as interesting intellectually as fancy cuts.

Karl, I agree with you.

Thank you David.

 

[pyramid]

Thanks Karl K.

 

[oldminer]

The process of commodization of diamonds includes standardization of shaping. I agree that ideal cut rounds are now mostly cut with a degree of consistency which many would consider boring. There are strong forces attempting to make 1.01ct diamonds into a trading vehicle rather than a jewelry gemstone. Their influence is having a lot of effect on our diamond business.

However, the marketing of such consistent cuts has vastly helped Internet marketers deliver products to consumers who will definitely and safely find the end result highly attractive. Thankfully, there is far more room to work with fancy shapes. My own experience tells me there is plenty of pent up demand for fancy cut standards. Such standards help to bring dependability to buying an expensive and often distant diamond. While sophisticates responding here want the wonderful variety of fancy shapes, the large mass of the consuming public wants beauty combined with a measurement of light return and a promise that everything about their purchase is transparent. They do not want to discover that the bulginess of their pear shape's shoulders is some kind of detriment they knew nothing about. They do not want to discover later that the needle-like or fat shape of their marquise leads dealers to criticize the "make" when they thought, or were even told the cut was fabulous, perfect, ideal, fine, when it was more an oddity or not as described.

The rough that lends itself to those special shapes forces cutters to be creative and inventive in order to combine beauty with weight retention. There is a small, but very willing to grow larger, subset of retail consumer who want high light performance fancy shapes and don't wish to have any significant deviation from the most highly accepted range our cut parameter and outline configuration. The Shape Selector tool, the one this thread is about, does not grade outline, but only displays variations in a simple way so that everyone can speak a common language. It allows some education without pointing a finger at anyone's diamond. Even though Paul from Antwerp and Gypsy disagrees with me on fancy shape proportions, there are several vendors on Pricescope, including Paul, who offer AGS000 princess cuts which offer a very consistent pattern of crafting.

If one day we have AGS000 pear shapes, marquise, oval, etc, I think they will conform to a fairly tight yet not controversial length to width ratio range. They will likely promote outlines with what most diamond dealers would call classic shaping, neither extremely long or needle-like, not short and squat, nor with humps in spots where smooth curves would simply look right. There will remain in production and already in supply many more non-AGS000 fancy shaped stones in the market, but the sellers will promote "Ideal" once there are standards that the GIA or AGSL set, since those labs are the key leaders in this arena.

Yes, screening tools do eliminate some diamonds needlessly, but that is exactly what they are intended to do. Expert dealers don't use screening tools. They use their eyes, loupes, tweezers, diamond reports and know their sources. What is a consumer to do to assist them to make the safest decisions? Diamond dealers use a sieve when screening out larger or smaller diameters of round diamonds. A sieve is not a perfect way to measure the diameter of every diamond with perfect accuracy, but used properly, it saves a ton of time and the end result are piles of small diamonds with highly similar diameters. A few diamonds will get sieved incorrectly, but you find them as you use up the others up and put them where they should be saved. Consumers who use screening tools often have budgets which do not allow them to find the ideal cut diamond of their dreams within the weight range they know is required or expected. By using a screening tool, just like a dealer uses a sieve, one can somewhat hope to predict that some stones of higher weight will be somewhat less costly than Ideal cuts of that weight with the same color and clarity. The consumer is informed about the specific compromise being made, to the extent they wish to know, and is able to still purchase what they believe meets their needs.

Anyway, the Shape Selector does nothing to change any diamond. It demonstrates some of the variety that consumers may not know about and hopefully helps them to look for a diamond which will please them the most when they do decide to make a deal. The AGA Cut Class screening tool will disqualify some stones, but usually there is a good reason(s) which is provided in the result produced by the automated system. The Grader does not predict light return, but gives a result closely aligned to what dealers would say are the cut characteristics of a particular diamond, sharing this judgment with novice diamond consumers, about the merits or demerits of each component and the total, overall package for the craftsmanship of the diamond. Since not every diamond is properly cut, there must be some which don't make it to the top grades and are "screened" out. Someone will buy them, no doubt, but not typically the most informed consumers. Truthfully, that makes me feel like things are working ok, but I know it bothers those who have responded in the negative. I am gratified that so many readers have not felt compelled to be negative. I assume many are mixed in their feelings, some may not wish to post anything and even a few consumers and dealers may agree with a good deal of my approach and tools. Rest assured, it isn't for any financial outcome or personal vendetta. Had I been aware of the painting and digging issues of the facets near the girdle, or more sensitive to the length of pavilion facets, in the 1990's and early 2000's, those features would have also been in the AGA Cut Class screening tool. Dealers and cutters have accommodated their cutting to prevent adverse reports of such improper cut parameters. Labs screen these stones out and disqualify them as Ideal or EX yet the diamonds may really look lovely.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Dave based on a conversation with Jim Shigley at JCK, I think we will see GIA coming out with a fancy shape cut grade within our lifetimes (and that should enable them to improve their round grading too).
BTW for those who do not know us, we are closer to the Donalds age than most.

If / When GIA release a cut grade for rounds we will quickly see an improvement in all fancy shapes - and the cheated lousy fancy shapes will no longer be produced.
Those of you who own really nice fancies could send them to GIA and get top grades and make your smart purchses worth more.

All this of course depends on GIA's ability to get it right. On the plus side, from the names i see on GIA patents - they seem to have got the message to not employ as many geochemists and more people with physics backgrounds - and that is a big leap forward.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Dave based on a conversation with Jim Shigley at JCK, I think we will see GIA coming out with a fancy shape cut grade within our lifetimes (and that should enable them to improve their round grading too).
BTW for those who do not know us, we are closer to the Donalds age than most.

If / When GIA release a cut grade for rounds we will quickly see an improvement in all fancy shapes - and the cheated lousy fancy shapes will no longer be produced.
Those of you who own really nice fancies could send them to GIA and get top grades and make your smart purchses worth more.

All this of course depends on GIA's ability to get it right. On the plus side, from the names i see on GIA patents - they seem to have got the message to not employ as many geochemists and more people with physics backgrounds - and that is a big leap forward.

middle paragraph wrong way around:
If / When GIA release a cut grade for FAncy shapes we will quickly see an improvement in all fancy shapes - and the cheated lousy fancy shapes will no longer be produced.

 

[distracts]

Yeah, I think I like much longer and skinnier emeralds than a lot of people like. But fat emeralds just kind of... don't do it for me. I see that guideline of 1.2-1.4 lxw but I like more like... 2 times. And more steps than maybe is usual? They're pretty hard to find. I can recognize other emeralds look nice but they're not... emeraldy enough for me. Whatever that means.

Sounds awesome.
I love those in gemstones they would be even more kewl in diamond.
Lack of rough would be the biggest stumbling block.
It might be a good design for cvd mmd.

So are the rough constraints why most of the long skinny emerald-cut diamonds I find in the sub-1-ct range and usually I1 or fairly dodgy Si2, like maybe they had to cut around inclusions and that's why they ended up out of the ordinary?

 

[Karl_K]

Yeah, I think I like much longer and skinnier emeralds than a lot of people like. But fat emeralds just kind of... don't do it for me. I see that guideline of 1.2-1.4 lxw but I like more like... 2 times. And more steps than maybe is usual? They're pretty hard to find. I can recognize other emeralds look nice but they're not... emeraldy enough for me. Whatever that means.

Sounds awesome.
I love those in gemstones they would be even more kewl in diamond.
Lack of rough would be the biggest stumbling block.
It might be a good design for cvd mmd.

So are the rough constraints why most of the long skinny emerald-cut diamonds I find in the sub-1-ct range and usually I1 or fairly dodgy Si2, like maybe they had to cut around inclusions and that's why they ended up out of the ordinary?

The rough of a suitable shape tends to be pretty included.
They would usually be cut into marquise or multiple rounds, which hides inclusions much better.

 

[diagem]

Dave based on a conversation with Jim Shigley at JCK, I think we will see GIA coming out with a fancy shape cut grade within our lifetimes (and that should enable them to improve their round grading too).
BTW for those who do not know us, we are closer to the Donalds age than most.

If / When GIA release a cut grade for rounds we will quickly see an improvement in all fancy shapes - and the cheated lousy fancy shapes will no longer be produced.
Those of you who own really nice fancies could send them to GIA and get top grades and make your smart purchses worth more.

All this of course depends on GIA's ability to get it right. On the plus side, from the names i see on GIA patents - they seem to have got the message to not employ as many geochemists and more people with physics backgrounds - and that is a big leap forward.

middle paragraph wrong way around:
If / When GIA release a cut grade for FAncy shapes we will quickly see an improvement in all fancy shapes - and the cheated lousy fancy shapes will no longer be produced.

I guess it will take some time getting used to writing such (bolded) words....

If at all
getting optimistic with age Garry?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Yoram,
Good timing...
I was curious- as someone who looks at a lot of rough...is Karl's statement accurate about certain rough being more included?

snip.....
The rough of a suitable shape tends to be pretty included.
They would usually be cut into marquise or multiple rounds, which hides inclusions much better.

Garry- you know I love you...but "cheated fancy shapes??" No longer produced???
I'm glad Yoram is here for this one as well- he's also used that ( cheated) term.
Even if ( a big if) GIA completes the Fancy Shape Cut grade.....it's my feeling that creative diamond cutters will find ways to utilize oddly shaped rough that simply can't for cut into the more traditional shapes. I don;t thank that would go away- at least I hope it won't

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Hi Yoram,
Good timing...
I was curious- as someone who looks at a lot of rough...is Karl's statement accurate about certain rough being more included?

snip.....
The rough of a suitable shape tends to be pretty included.
They would usually be cut into marquise or multiple rounds, which hides inclusions much better.

Garry- you know I love you...but "cheated fancy shapes??" No longer produced???
I'm glad Yoram is here for this one as well- he's also used that ( cheated) term.
Even if ( a big if) GIA completes the Fancy Shape Cut grade.....it's my feeling that creative diamond cutters will find ways to utilize oddly shaped rough that simply can't for cut into the more traditional shapes. I don;t thank that would go away- at least I hope it won't

Rock and Yoram,
You would both acknowledge that the GIA cut grades for round diamonds 10 years ago had a huge impact on the number of stones meeting the Excellent cut standard (we may not all agree with the steeper deeper proportion sets), but there are relatively few stones polished today that fall outside Ex cut. Take a large sample of goods offered before then and we would see between 2 times and 10 times as many bad rounds as we do today.

 

[Karl_K]

Hi Yoram,
Good timing...
I was curious- as someone who looks at a lot of rough...is Karl's statement accurate about certain rough being more included?

snip.....
The rough of a suitable shape tends to be pretty included.
They would usually be cut into marquise or multiple rounds, which hides inclusions much better.

David I could be wrong and Yoram can correct me, but I believe that most long thin rough would be twinned crystals which tend to have more inclusions and crystal defects.
It could also be pieces of other shapes also that broke off in recovery, crushing or in nature.

 

[diagem]

Hi Yoram,
Good timing...
I was curious- as someone who looks at a lot of rough...is Karl's statement accurate about certain rough being more included?

snip.....
The rough of a suitable shape tends to be pretty included.
They would usually be cut into marquise or multiple rounds, which hides inclusions much better.

Garry- you know I love you...but "cheated fancy shapes??" No longer produced???
I'm glad Yoram is here for this one as well- he's also used that ( cheated) term.
Even if ( a big if) GIA completes the Fancy Shape Cut grade.....it's my feeling that creative diamond cutters will find ways to utilize oddly shaped rough that simply can't for cut into the more traditional shapes. I don;t thank that would go away- at least I hope it won't

Rock and Yoram,
You would both acknowledge that the GIA cut grades for round diamonds 10 years ago had a huge impact on the number of stones meeting the Excellent cut standard (we may not all agree with the steeper deeper proportion sets), but there are relatively few stones polished today that fall outside Ex cut. Take a large sample of goods offered before then and we would see between 2 times and 10 times as many bad rounds as we do today.

Sure I do but I can't seem to visualize the consumer/jeweler get used to elongated fancy shapes which will need to be cut with out of norm proportions/depths (mostly pav depth) which will make triple 0 princesses look like a flat shape.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Hi Yoram,
Good timing...
I was curious- as someone who looks at a lot of rough...is Karl's statement accurate about certain rough being more included?

snip.....
The rough of a suitable shape tends to be pretty included.
They would usually be cut into marquise or multiple rounds, which hides inclusions much better.

Garry- you know I love you...but "cheated fancy shapes??" No longer produced???
I'm glad Yoram is here for this one as well- he's also used that ( cheated) term.
Even if ( a big if) GIA completes the Fancy Shape Cut grade.....it's my feeling that creative diamond cutters will find ways to utilize oddly shaped rough that simply can't for cut into the more traditional shapes. I don;t thank that would go away- at least I hope it won't

Rock and Yoram,
You would both acknowledge that the GIA cut grades for round diamonds 10 years ago had a huge impact on the number of stones meeting the Excellent cut standard (we may not all agree with the steeper deeper proportion sets), but there are relatively few stones polished today that fall outside Ex cut. Take a large sample of goods offered before then and we would see between 2 times and 10 times as many bad rounds as we do today.

Sure I do but I can't seem to visualize the consumer/jeweler get used to elongated fancy shapes which will need to be cut with out of norm proportions/depths (mostly pav depth) which will make triple 0 princesses look like a flat shape.

Hold on, wheeehhee. Stop
Elongated shapes will be almost impossible to create in top perfoming stones.
I never said that Yoram.

 

[Karl_K]

Yea getting hung up on numbers is an issue with elongated fancy cuts.
Because of the way depth is reported a stone same length, half as wide as another with the
exact same depth(mm not %) would be reported as twice as deep(%).
You cant change physics, so perceptions would have to be modified.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Yoram,
Good timing...
I was curious- as someone who looks at a lot of rough...is Karl's statement accurate about certain rough being more included?

snip.....
The rough of a suitable shape tends to be pretty included.
They would usually be cut into marquise or multiple rounds, which hides inclusions much better.

David I could be wrong and Yoram can correct me, but I believe that most long thin rough would be twinned crystals which tend to have more inclusions and crystal defects.
It could also be pieces of other shapes also that broke off in recovery, crushing or in nature.

Hi Karl, I did a little asking around- it's not possible to equate imperfections with shape of rough. For one thing, rough is generally assorted before being offered for sale- we can't get an accurate picture statistically.
But just speaking to a few cutters there doesn't seem to be that feeling.

In terms of long stones, true about light performance as it's discussed here, however such stones can be extremely beautiful and desirable.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Yoram,
Good timing...
I was curious- as someone who looks at a lot of rough...is Karl's statement accurate about certain rough being more included?

snip.....
The rough of a suitable shape tends to be pretty included.
They would usually be cut into marquise or multiple rounds, which hides inclusions much better.

Garry- you know I love you...but "cheated fancy shapes??" No longer produced???
I'm glad Yoram is here for this one as well- he's also used that ( cheated) term.
Even if ( a big if) GIA completes the Fancy Shape Cut grade.....it's my feeling that creative diamond cutters will find ways to utilize oddly shaped rough that simply can't for cut into the more traditional shapes. I don;t thank that would go away- at least I hope it won't

Rock and Yoram,
You would both acknowledge that the GIA cut grades for round diamonds 10 years ago had a huge impact on the number of stones meeting the Excellent cut standard (we may not all agree with the steeper deeper proportion sets), but there are relatively few stones polished today that fall outside Ex cut. Take a large sample of goods offered before then and we would see between 2 times and 10 times as many bad rounds as we do today.

I agree with this Garry. But there's also other factors. In my experience, considering the past 5 years, overall cutting standards have risen unrelated to GIA cut grade- I'm talking about fancy shapes. I believe it must be technology- though others here can surely provide more detailed reasons.
But I'm fortunate in that I get to look at massive amounts of goods- I don't know exactly why, but India in particular has truly raised their game. This relates to the topic at hand in terms of the creativity I've noticed.
For me, cut is a lot more than a number- it's a result.
I love to see cutters use rough in ways that result in unique stones- maybe a 45% depth emerald cut. Which is why I can't envision a cut grade that would be able to accommodate the many stones that fall outside the norm.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

You would both acknowledge that the GIA cut grades for round diamonds 10 years ago had a huge impact on the number of stones meeting the Excellent cut standard (we may not all agree with the steeper deeper proportion sets), but there are relatively few stones polished today that fall outside Ex cut. Take a large sample of goods offered before then and we would see between 2 times and 10 times as many bad rounds as we do today.

I agree with this Garry. But there's also other factors. In my experience, considering the past 5 years, overall cutting standards have risen unrelated to GIA cut grade- I'm talking about fancy shapes. I believe it must be technology- though others here can surely provide more detailed reasons.
But I'm fortunate in that I get to look at massive amounts of goods- I don't know exactly why, but India in particular has truly raised their game. This relates to the topic at hand in terms of the creativity I've noticed.
For me, cut is a lot more than a number- it's a result.
I love to see cutters use rough in ways that result in unique stones- maybe a 45% depth emerald cut. Which is why I can't envision a cut grade that would be able to accommodate the many stones that fall outside the norm.

India moved from village rough buyers sharing rough around with families polishing in the homes, then the buyer taking the goods back to the market to sell and buy more rough.
Today the multi storey air conditioned factories in Surat, where two thirds to 90% of the worlds diamonds are polished, are technological marvels. The way Indian diamond cutters embraced technology from the early 90's left Israel and other places so far behind. Also the mainly Jain family model is to educate the children in what ever field they are best at, so many of the top family companies have a spread of children and grandchildren covering engineers (factory) and marketing and accounting people. As the families grew it made sense for children to move overseas and open sales offices in Antwerp, NYC, HK, Dubai etc. The rest is history. Today big brands are owned by Indian companies. Until recently Hearts on Fire was largely owned by Indian firm Rosy Blue.

A properly designed cut grading system will be based on the appearance and beauty of a diamond David. Of course there should be penaltys for small spread, bad polish, too thin girdles etc. What we have now as a GIA round system was totally covered in my patent for HCA (the patent had additional factors that were outside my capacity to incorporate the data base for). It is a rejection based method, not a selection system. Any system that gets developed in the future MUST be better than what a simple trinket flogger, who has looked at a few diamonds, in Melbourne down under can devise on his dining room table and a lap top using an early version of DiamCalc.