Fancy Shape outline preference

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

BTW a big joke is that when JCK magazine et al do surveys asking retailers where their diamonds come from, 80% originate in Belguim. hahahaha
there are virtually no diamonds polished in Belguim today (OK, maybe less than 1%).

 

[Rockdiamond]

agreed.
Also about a cut grade taking into account the appearance and beauty.
I agree, deductions for small spread might be in order.
What about additions to overall score for the "spready" stones that might have weaker scores on other brilliance tests?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

agreed.
Also about a cut grade taking into account the appearance and beauty.
I agree, deductions for small spread might be in order.
What about additions to overall score for the "spready" stones that might have weaker scores on other brilliance tests?

HCA has been taking that factor into account already for 15 years David - it is one reason why there is a preference for spready shallow rounds.

These two are the same cost same grade actual stones I bought. 1.00ct round and 1.32ct oval.
The oval has the the same spread as a 1.50ct which would cost about 2x the 1ct round and 1.32 oval.
The oval is just as sparkly as the round of the same value, but has the added benefit of looking much larger = showy, bang for buck etc.

 

[diagem]

Sorry Garry, I automatically include elongated shapes in Fancy Shapes, Mia culpa.
Cutting to 3D optical precision in fancy shapes is a whole different ballgame, if you want to offer the real thing.
Marketing must change in order to move forward into the 3D optical world of Fancy Shapes...
Unfortunately the industry is still offering what we call super ideals just the same way it was offered a decade ago, maybe with the newest cry 360 videos

The labor it entails to achieve a 3D optical precision AGS (future GIA) ideal cut fancy shape cannot be compared to super ideals the industry presently offers & markets.
Thus they are not comparable neither in value nor appearance possibilities.

We (industry) must reinvent ourselves and our marketing options.

 

[Rockdiamond]

agreed.
Also about a cut grade taking into account the appearance and beauty.
I agree, deductions for small spread might be in order.
What about additions to overall score for the "spready" stones that might have weaker scores on other brilliance tests?

HCA has been taking that factor into account already for 15 years David - it is one reason why there is a preference for spready shallow rounds.

These two are the same cost same grade actual stones I bought. 1.00ct round and 1.32ct oval.
The oval has the the same spread as a 1.50ct which would cost about 2x the 1ct round and 1.32 oval.
The oval is just as sparkly as the round of the same value, but has the added benefit of looking much larger = showy, bang for buck etc.

Cool Garry!
I have noticed the comment on HCA regarding spread when you input a diamond......I didn't know how the score would be positively affected due to increased spread.
I can't envision a cut grading system that will incorporate a manner to compare an oval against a round...but I couldn't envision many things that someone else thought up
Seriously-- the point for me is that systems that rely on brilliance data will automatically favor the RBC- which gives consumers the idea it's a "better cut" or "it has superior light performance", and no mention of spread or visual size.
I know that of the countless thousands of people shopping for diamonds, a sizable percentage are very interested in how big the thing looks.....

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

agreed.
Also about a cut grade taking into account the appearance and beauty.
I agree, deductions for small spread might be in order.
What about additions to overall score for the "spready" stones that might have weaker scores on other brilliance tests?

HCA has been taking that factor into account already for 15 years David - it is one reason why there is a preference for spready shallow rounds.

These two are the same cost same grade actual stones I bought. 1.00ct round and 1.32ct oval.
The oval has the the same spread as a 1.50ct which would cost about 2x the 1ct round and 1.32 oval.
The oval is just as sparkly as the round of the same value, but has the added benefit of looking much larger = showy, bang for buck etc.

Cool Garry!
I have noticed the comment on HCA regarding spread when you input a diamond......I didn't know how the score would be positively affected due to increased spread.
I can't envision a cut grading system that will incorporate a manner to compare an oval against a round...but I couldn't envision many things that someone else thought up
Seriously-- the point for me is that systems that rely on brilliance data will automatically favor the RBC- which gives consumers the idea it's a "better cut" or "it has superior light performance", and no mention of spread or visual size.
I know that of the countless thousands of people shopping for diamonds, a sizable percentage are very interested in how big the thing looks.....

David the OctoNus - Lexus - Lemon TechnoMist team have produced diamonds with either more fire, or more brightness than optimum rounds. They have not yet, to my knowledge, managed to outperform optimum round brilliant cuts across the range of beauty factors.
But bear in mind the approach we have always used is to compare every cut to the optimum round (the etalon). We are sad that AGS chose to cheat (as in represent their AGS O princess for example as 'IDEAL' which implies that the stone has the very very bestest ever possible performance). The same applies to Gemex and all other organisations that offer grades. What this does is stymie future development of improvements in any diamond cutting by saying "90% of what we know is the best possible is good enough so we will call this cushion with blah blah blah IDEAL."
If someone is able to produce a princess cut that has 98% performance, AGS will still give it AGS 0. The system is the problem. Change the system and give people real information, not real sales information, please.

 

[Serg]

agreed.
Also about a cut grade taking into account the appearance and beauty.
I agree, deductions for small spread might be in order.
What about additions to overall score for the "spready" stones that might have weaker scores on other brilliance tests?

HCA has been taking that factor into account already for 15 years David - it is one reason why there is a preference for spready shallow rounds.

These two are the same cost same grade actual stones I bought. 1.00ct round and 1.32ct oval.
The oval has the the same spread as a 1.50ct which would cost about 2x the 1ct round and 1.32 oval.
The oval is just as sparkly as the round of the same value, but has the added benefit of looking much larger = showy, bang for buck etc.

Cool Garry!
I have noticed the comment on HCA regarding spread when you input a diamond......I didn't know how the score would be positively affected due to increased spread.
I can't envision a cut grading system that will incorporate a manner to compare an oval against a round...but I couldn't envision many things that someone else thought up
Seriously-- the point for me is that systems that rely on brilliance data will automatically favor the RBC- which gives consumers the idea it's a "better cut" or "it has superior light performance", and no mention of spread or visual size.
I know that of the countless thousands of people shopping for diamonds, a sizable percentage are very interested in how big the thing looks.....

David the OctoNus - Lexus - Lemon TechnoMist team have produced diamonds with either more fire, or more brightness than optimum rounds. They have not yet, to my knowledge, managed to outperform optimum round brilliant cuts across the range of beauty factors.
But bear in mind the approach we have always used is to compare every cut to the optimum round (the etalon). We are sad that AGS chose to cheat (as in represent their AGS O princess for example as 'IDEAL' which implies that the stone has the very very bestest ever possible performance). The same applies to Gemex and all other organisations that offer grades. What this does is stymie future development of improvements in any diamond cutting by saying "90% of what we know is the best possible is good enough so we will call this cushion with blah blah blah IDEAL."
If someone is able to produce a princess cut that has 98% performance, AGS will still give it AGS 0. The system is the problem. Change the system and give people real information, not real sales information, please.

it very important also to have same score scale for different diamond mass( carat size).
1.5ct Round has more Fire than 1ct Round.
1.2ct good Oval/Cushion may overperform "Ideal 1Ct Round "
Optical performance report has to give this very important information for consumer instead Bla, Bla, Bla about "ideal cuts with standard proportion". Sales system has to use performance grade for real diamonds in one scale instead to grade proportions .
Until now AGS and GIA grades just proportions instead Brilliancy and Fire which depend from size, shape, proportions , material, polishing quality.

 

[Karl_K]

If someone is able to produce a princess cut that has 98% performance, AGS will still give it AGS 0. The system is the problem. Change the system and give people real information, not real sales information, please.

I have a princess design that is around 1.07 Diamcalc stereo brightness and high fire.
The numbers are weird and as I recall it would get an overall grade of AGS1 maybe 2 but would get 0 light performance easily.
You can not get there with a princess cut inside what is considered standard proportion sets.
The biggest issue is with princess cuts and almost all fancies for that matter is depth % does not equal spread.
Paul ran into the same issue with his AGS0 princess cuts, the numbers were weird when compared to what are considered standard proportion sets.

 

[diagem]

If someone is able to produce a princess cut that has 98% performance, AGS will still give it AGS 0. The system is the problem. Change the system and give people real information, not real sales information, please.

I have a princess design that is around 1.07 Diamcalc stereo brightness and high fire.
The numbers are weird and as I recall it would get an overall grade of AGS1 maybe 2 but would get 0 light performance easily.
You can not get there with a princess cut inside what is considered standard proportion sets.
The biggest issue is with princess cuts and almost all fancies for that matter is depth % does not equal spread.
Paul ran into the same issue with his AGS0 princess cuts, the numbers were weird when compared to what are considered standard proportion sets.

Maybe Fancy shapes shouldn't be just all about max LP? They need to be judged on their own merits (Character/play of light they show). In fancy shapes there are more factors to take into consideration. Contrast and partial leakage (light entering the Diamond from below the girdle) play a crucial role in its light design potential.

If this industry wants to move on to the next stage of Diamond Cut/light design, the marketing of these labor intensive cuts needs to be addressed differently than selling triple X/0 cuts as been done in the last decade+.

Just saying....

 

[Karl_K]

If someone is able to produce a princess cut that has 98% performance, AGS will still give it AGS 0. The system is the problem. Change the system and give people real information, not real sales information, please.

I have a princess design that is around 1.07 Diamcalc stereo brightness and high fire.
The numbers are weird and as I recall it would get an overall grade of AGS1 maybe 2 but would get 0 light performance easily.
You can not get there with a princess cut inside what is considered standard proportion sets.
The biggest issue is with princess cuts and almost all fancies for that matter is depth % does not equal spread.
Paul ran into the same issue with his AGS0 princess cuts, the numbers were weird when compared to what are considered standard proportion sets.

Maybe Fancy shapes shouldn't be just all about max LP? They need to be judged on their own merits (Character/play of light they show). In fancy shapes there are more factors to take into consideration. Contrast and partial leakage (light entering the Diamond from below the girdle) play a crucial role in its light design potential.

If this industry wants to move on to the next stage of Diamond Cut/light design, the marketing of these labor intensive cuts needs to be addressed differently than selling triple X/0 cuts as been done in the last decade+.

Just saying....

I agree with you to a large extent but it is possible to do both as we have proven.
This is also why you have to actually cut a design and view it in the real world to see if a good design is a great one.
There are a lot of factors beyond raw light return that go into a great design.

 

[Rockdiamond]

If someone is able to produce a princess cut that has 98% performance, AGS will still give it AGS 0. The system is the problem. Change the system and give people real information, not real sales information, please.

I have a princess design that is around 1.07 Diamcalc stereo brightness and high fire.
The numbers are weird and as I recall it would get an overall grade of AGS1 maybe 2 but would get 0 light performance easily.
You can not get there with a princess cut inside what is considered standard proportion sets.
The biggest issue is with princess cuts and almost all fancies for that matter is depth % does not equal spread.
Paul ran into the same issue with his AGS0 princess cuts, the numbers were weird when compared to what are considered standard proportion sets.

Maybe Fancy shapes shouldn't be just all about max LP? They need to be judged on their own merits (Character/play of light they show). In fancy shapes there are more factors to take into consideration. Contrast and partial leakage (light entering the Diamond from below the girdle) play a crucial role in its light design potential.

If this industry wants to move on to the next stage of Diamond Cut/light design, the marketing of these labor intensive cuts needs to be addressed differently than selling triple X/0 cuts as been done in the last decade+.

Just saying....

THIS THIS THIS!!!
LP ( light performance ) may be based on scientific aspects- but any sort of evaluation of these numbers involves subjectivity.
What AGSL considers "max LP" May not coincide with someone else's idea of max LP is.
And Serg also brings up an excellent point. Size has a big impact on certain aspects of LP, such as fire.

For these reasons, I feel that AGSL type grading for fancy shapes provides inaccurate results for many buyers, and having more shapes defined like this would hurt diversity of fancy shapes.