For those in the trade

[pyramid]

Are 34/41 cuts less expensive at wholesale level than 34.8/40.8, to the industry?

Is EX VG VG (VG) okay on HCA?

Gemex can give very high for Fire and Scintillation on same stone where HCA gives VG instead of Excellent. Is Gemex very high the same as VG or the same as EX?

Would I see any shadow or a difference under the table to the naked eye due to different angles combination of 34/41 and 34.8/40.8?

Does the industry as a whole have different preferences for crown/angle combinations within the AGS ideal cut, what is seen as the best not just at Pricescope?

Would a person notice a difference in looking at the stone from the side with the naked eye between 34/41 and 34.8/40.8 proportions, would the first look shallower on top and deeper in the bottom?

Is it silly to debate about less than a degree?

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 7/8/2007 1:40:33 PM
Author:Pyramid

Are 34/41 cuts less expensive at wholesale level than 34.8/40.8, to the industry?

Is EX VG VG (VG) okay on HCA?

Gemex can give very high for Fire and Scintillation on same stone where HCA gives VG instead of Excellent. Is Gemex very high the same as VG or the same as EX?

Would I see any shadow or a difference under the table to the naked eye due to different angles combination of 34/41 and 34.8/40.8?

Does the industry as a whole have different preferences for crown/angle combinations within the AGS ideal cut, what is seen as the best not just at Pricescope?

Would a person notice a difference in looking at the stone from the side with the naked eye between 34/41 and 34.8/40.8 proportions, would the first look shallower on top and deeper in the bottom?

Is it silly to debate about less than a degree?

Where IS that ten foot pole when I need it???

Where to start and where can I step without standing in the quicksand?

Gemex is not well accepted by most gem labs, and for good reasons. HCA is an indicator not a final determinator.

Sadly, the majority of the trade at the retail level will not have a clue what you are talking about, unless they are cut junkies like those of us here on Pricescope.

It would take more time than I have to give right now to go enter all of the parameters into Diamcalc, but yes, there will be some visual differences, especially in the ASET 30/40 views. One of the stones will probably look better to someone with a large hairdo than the other. Maybe Garry has some extra time now that he is back from his travels...

Wink

 

[strmrdr]

Your reply cracks me up Wink :}
Since I answered this 3 times allready and aint in the trade im not gonna answer again LOL

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 7/8/2007 5:26:34 PM
Author: strmrdr
Your reply cracks me up Wink :}
Since I answered this 3 times allready and aint in the trade im not gonna answer again LOL

Me too. I must be in a funny mood today.

I went to plug in the numbers, to heck with the Appraisals (oops, evaluations for insurance purposes) that I have to do and the pictures I need to take for the website, where is the fun in that???

I missed your answers, I only see the two replies on this page, one from you and one from me.

Anyhow, here is the picture.

As you can clearly see from the ASET 30 view, both of these are nice stones. However the 34.8/40.8 is slightly darker in the middle, it may or may not be readily eye apparent, and it drops to an AGS 1 cut grade according to diamcalc. I started with the basic stone that comes up when you turn it on, an AGS 0 cut grade 6mm stone and changed only those two parameters..

The 34/41 stays an AGS 0 cut grade.

I would be proud to sell either of these two stones as being incredibly beautiful, but will always give the edge to the actual AGS 0 when it is determined by light return rather than polish or symmetry. (In my eyes, some AGS 1 cut grades are better than others. I have seen and sold, AGS 2 cut grades for polish or symmetry that looked better than some AGS 1 cut grades that were graded so for light return.)

I know this is not as thorough an answer as you were looking for, but it is all I have at this time.

Wink

 

[belle]

aaahhh...a new, more selective title...i guess i could have saved my breath (and time!)

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 7/8/2007 6:16:12 PM
Author: belle
aaahhh...a new, more selective title...i guess i could have saved my breath (and time!)

??

I am not understanding. First Storm and now you refer to having answered before. Did I miss another thread?

Wink

 

[belle]

the other thread was started earlier this morning. the contents are the same but the title is different. https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/question-for-experts.65101/

 

[pyramid]

No Belle, your answer was very helpful to me also, the reason I had to write it again is because I had put in a link to a dealers stone, I then read a reply from Storm to Ellen where I was told that dealers are not allowed to reply in threads where another dealers inventory was being discussed. So the only way to get information from good folks like Wink was to do another thread. I am not seeing what you write as any less than this I just wanted to get it from all sides, dealers/appraisers and consumers.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 7/8/2007 6:27:04 PM
Author: belle
the other thread was started earlier this morning. the contents are the same but the title is different. https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/question-for-experts.65101/

Oh, I see. I did not know this or I would not have posted, I hope it will be all right with the admin since I did not know of the other thread.

If it is appropriate I will not be offended if my responses are removed. My apologies to any vendors who may have been offended, especially if something else about the stone that received the AGS 1 in Diamcalc had been changed to keep it in the AGS 0 grade, which is entirely possible.

I will not respond any more to this thread.

Wink

 

[pyramid]

No Wink certainly did not know. However is it still wrong then as I rewrote the question removing the details? If it is I am sorry Admin too.

 

[belle]

Date: 7/8/2007 6:29:03 PM
Author: Pyramid
No Belle, your answer was very helpful to me also, the reason I had to write it again is because I had put in a link to a dealers stone, I then read a reply from Storm to Ellen where I was told that dealers are not allowed to reply in threads where another dealers inventory was being discussed. So the only way to get information from good folks like Wink was to do another thread. I am not seeing what you write as any less than this I just wanted to get it from all sides, dealers and consumers.

thank you for the explanation pyramid. it is hard to communicate things via the written word alone and when i saw that there was no response from you in your original thread and another one with a different and more selective title started, i deduced that replies from anyone other than those in the trade specifically, were not needed.
fwiw...vendors are allowed to comment in ALL threads, they are just not allowed to comment on specific diamonds belonging to other vendors. so, if it was too late to remove the link, the responses could still have been made by any vendor in the other thread wihtout referncing the diamond and everything would be fine. i don''t think anyone was going to use the link as a commentary ''specimen'' anyway. my replies were to your specific questions and not the linked stone, as i think would be the case for anyone else answering as well.

 

[pyramid]

Thanks Belle. Yes I normally do want to thank people for replies the reason I had not replied in that other thread is because I thought it would need to fall down the page as this one was separate without the link. Yes it was too late to edit the link. I understand what you are saying now, I thought after Storms reply the link needed to be removed as I said.

 

[belle]

Date: 7/8/2007 6:36:47 PM
Author: Pyramid
No Wink certainly did not know. However is it still wrong then as I rewrote the question removing the details? If it is I am sorry Admin too.

no, wink didn''t know but again, it doesn''t matter. ....unless you were asking questions about THAT specific diamond, then he would not be able to comment. i didn''t think you were, so i answered your general questions as you put them for in your post. i never even clicked on the link. i thought the questions were in general and not specific. i hope wink feels free to continue in this thread because, as you say, he has very valuable information to add.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 7/8/2007 5:19:13 PM
Author: Wink

Sadly, the majority of the trade at the retail level will not have a clue what you are talking about, unless they are cut junkies like those of us here on Pricescope.

Isn''t it so interesting, and odd, that this is true?

Still...just to remind everybody of the sort of evidence and pattern Pyramid is talking about...you can easily use the search by cut table here, sort by (either) crown or pavilion angle, and see, for example, the large preponderance of pavilion angles at either 40.7 or 40.8.

I guess Pyramid''s question...with respect to pricing, at least...is if this is pattern is merely coincident...or if there is any useful data mining to be done with it.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/8/2007 7:08:57 PM
Author: Regular Guy

Date: 7/8/2007 5:19:13 PM
Author: Wink

Sadly, the majority of the trade at the retail level will not have a clue what you are talking about, unless they are cut junkies like those of us here on Pricescope.

Isn't it so interesting, and odd, that this is true?

Still...just to remind everybody of the sort of evidence and pattern Pyramid is talking about...you can easily use the search by cut table here, sort by (either) crown or pavilion angle, and see, for example, the large preponderance of pavilion angles at either 40.7 or 40.8.

I guess Pyramid's question...with respect to pricing, at least...is if this is pattern is merely coincident...or if there is any useful data mining to be done with it.

40.75-40.8 have the widest range of crown angles that work well for them so they are a good target to hit.
Most of WF stones are in that range and since they have so many listed it will move the average also.
Frankly its much ado over nothing... both combos can be super-ideal high performance diamonds when everything else is right and both can be dogs when everything else is wrong.
There will be some small difference in the appearances of top stones between the 2 combos.
Some will see it some wont, at most its just enough for one person to say both are kewl but I like this one just a little better.

 

[michaelgem]

Hi Wink,

Something just does not seem right here. Of course we are only judging crown and pavilion angle combinations.

That being the case, and looking at both ASET images, and knowing what we know about Ideal, both those diamonds have top beauty and performance. They should both be Ideal 0''s.

It does not seem right that the 34.8, 40.8 should be a 1.

I just checked the great set of cut grading charts from the PGS software that the Russian cut study group posted. I found that both 34, 41 and 34.8, 40.8 are both solidly within the Ideal 0 sweet spot of crown and pavilion angle combinations for table sizes around the table sweet spot center of 56%.

I would say to Pyramid that all else being equal, both combinations are equally fine, and he will not likely notice any difference in beauty and performance in most viewing circumstances. They are both Ideal combinations, all else being equal.

My latest article in the Journal of Gemmology speaks directly to most of his questions. Interestingly, the geometric center of the AGS Ideal and the GIA Excellent sweet spots is closest to a 34 crown angle, a 41 pavilion angle and a 56% table. GIA and AGS agree within .1 degrees on the pavilion angle center and .25 degrees on the crown angle center.

That is part of why I titled the article "The Accordance in Round Brilliant Diamond Cutting".

Best wishes,

Michael

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

why would you specify 40.75 rather than just 40.7?

What is the word on 40.7, 34.6?

Also, wink wont be responding anymore as he didn't realize that these questions were listed with individual vendor stone's attached to them.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/8/2007 5:46:50 PM
Author: Wink


As you can clearly see from the ASET 30 view, both of these are nice stones. However the 34.8/40.8 is slightly darker in the middle, it may or may not be readily eye apparent, and it drops to an AGS 1 cut grade according to diamcalc. I started with the basic stone that comes up when you turn it on, an AGS 0 cut grade 6mm stone and changed only those two parameters..

The 34/41 stays an AGS 0 cut grade.

I would be proud to sell either of these two stones as being incredibly beautiful, but will always give the edge to the actual AGS 0 when it is determined by light return rather than polish or symmetry. (In my eyes, some AGS 1 cut grades are better than others. I have seen and sold, AGS 2 cut grades for polish or symmetry that looked better than some AGS 1 cut grades that were graded so for light return.)

I know this is not as thorough an answer as you were looking for, but it is all I have at this time.

Wink

Hey Wink, you may know this already but if you change a parameter in DC without locking the others the software shifts things up on you: It will assume you want to keep crown height % the same (14.8%) so it may have reduced table % when you entered 34/41 and increased it for 34.8/40.8, which would make it a bit apples to oranges. Please accept apologies if you locked everything.

Regardless, knowing table size is pretty important to configuration. In this case, stones like the 34.8/40.8 will be AGS0 in table sizes like 54-56. Stones with pavilions > 41 are fine with larger table sizes. Either way we can't just consider angles. More info is needed, especially since table size influences crown height. With same-size-tables crown height will be higher in the 34.8/40.8 than the 41/34. Some people like shallower crowns, others higher.

Either of those combos, well-cut and coupled with the right table size & minor facets can look dynamite and can earn highest marks in any system.

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

I'll tell you what, I know I am not really involved in this convo but I am def reaidng, and I need to take some real classes, getting 1/3 of the information necessary is just giving me a headache.

and regardless of all of this, I am going to be sad when I have to stop wearing the diamond and "checking it out" at home and give it away

even though i will be very happy to do so

(Also, you guys need to stop taking cheap shots at wink when you know he isn't going to respond again

I know! lets start a new thread about it

)

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 7/8/2007 7:59:03 PM
Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards

(Also, you guys need to stop taking cheap shots at wink when you know he isn''t going to respond again

I know! lets start a new thread about it

)

Not sure anybody''s making a cheap shot, but I just see that now, reading again, above.

 

[belle]

Date: 7/8/2007 7:59:03 PM
Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards

(Also, you guys need to stop taking cheap shots at wink when you know he isn''t going to respond again

I know! lets start a new thread about it

)

who is taking ''cheap shots''?

 

[JohnQuixote]

Michael, good comments. I was writing my reply when you posted.

Date: 7/8/2007 7:59:03 PM
Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards

(Also, you guys need to stop taking cheap shots at wink when you know he isn''t going to respond again

I know! lets start a new thread about it

)

I certainly was not trying to take a shot at Wink. I wasn''t aware he wouldn''t be responding, and even if I had known I hope he would not mind further discussion. From the smileys I think you''re saying this in jest but just wanted to be clear regardless. Danke.

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

yea thats why i loaded it with smileys. Don't take me too seriously. I am one of those somewhat overweight jokester type of guys.

I will tell you what though, the next time I read a thread with a formal apology in it, I am staying out!

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 7/8/2007 8:16:42 PM
Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards
I am one of those somewhat overweight jokester type of guys.

I resemble that remark.

BTW, JohnQ, welcome back. I have a feeling you know everything...but if you haven't noticed, there's been a significant change on this board.

I passed three years.

(joking).

 

[belle]

Date: 7/8/2007 8:16:42 PM
Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards

yea thats why i loaded it with smileys. Don''t take me too seriously. I am one of those somewhat overweight jokester type of guys.

fair enough! as i mentioned previously in this thread, written communication is somewhat difficult. i am guilty on both sides of the page!

i would rather get clarification than make an assumption though, so i asked!

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 7/8/2007 8:14:49 PM
Author: JohnQuixote
Michael, good comments. I was writing my reply when you posted.

Date: 7/8/2007 7:59:03 PM

Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards


(Also, you guys need to stop taking cheap shots at wink when you know he isn''t going to respond again

I know! lets start a new thread about it

)

I certainly was not trying to take a shot at Wink. I wasn''t aware he wouldn''t be responding, and even if I had known I hope he would not mind further discussion. From the smileys I think you''re saying this in jest but just wanted to be clear regardless. Danke.

LOL! I am trying to stay out of this thread just because I think it is the right thing to do. As for Michael and John, both are good friends and we love to agree and disagree about things so minor that sometimes even we do not understand what we are talking about...

John is correct, I did not lock anything down, which is why I stated my methodology. I had other things I was supposed to be doing and just did a quick check and reply. And as I said, both stones would be killer to look at, much better than ANYTHING you will find at most mall stores, all of whom are selling way more than me and making more money too...

Wink

 

[Ellen]

Date: 7/8/2007 6:53:29 PM
Author: belle

Date: 7/8/2007 6:36:47 PM
Author: Pyramid
No Wink certainly did not know. However is it still wrong then as I rewrote the question removing the details? If it is I am sorry Admin too.

no, wink didn''t know but again, it doesn''t matter. ....unless you were asking questions about THAT specific diamond, then he would not be able to comment. i didn''t think you were, so i answered your general questions as you put them for in your post. i never even clicked on the link. i thought the questions were in general and not specific. i hope wink feels free to continue in this thread because, as you say, he has very valuable information to add.

That''s the way I saw it too, thanks for the clarification(s).


Pyramid, hope you found the answers you were seeking. Let us know what you decide!

 

[pyramid]

Thank you everyone who replied, I have learned a lot from this.