Gaming "girdle thickness" on cushion shapes

[oldminer]

Most modern cut cushion shaped diamonds which are not cut to mimmic round H&A type stones have a vry thick row of just slightly angled facets just beneath the girdle line of the stone. Instead of a 40/41 degree angle found on most round diamonds, these are just very slightly inclined inward. While not being included in any lab''s girdle thickness comments, they happen to act just like a VERY VERY thick girdle in retaining added weight while not improving any visual aspect of the diamond. This added weight gets consumers to buy the visual size of 8/10 of a carat and pay for ther weight of 10/10 of a carat. Is that a deal or what?....No way.

I won''t say that many of these cushions are not highly attractive, because they are visually appealing, but if there were any standards of cut being enforced such as AGS cut grading or GIA cut grading, this method of hiding the girdle in the pavilion would probably dissappear.

When you look for a cushion cut get a side view of the stone and see if the pavilion is a rounded, bulging shape. If it is, you''ll likely find this row of thickening facets below the girdle. Secondly, multiply the average diameter x depth x .0061 and you will have the weight if it was a round diamond. This does not take the squared corners into account, but it shows you something important about the visual size versus the weight you are being asked to pay for. While adding 5% to 10% for the corners may make the comparison more valid, it may help you shop for effectively cut cushions.

Cushions cut for the H&A effect much more closely imitate round cutting parameters. You''ll pay more and may find you are getting more at the same time. You can always opt for a slightly lighter stone which gives the same outcome both for the dollar and visually.

 

[bowral1]

Thank you for the information, good advice for those of us looking for cushion cut diamonds.

 

[diagem]

Not sure I fully agree with you as this info is way to general!

Date: 5/1/2009 12:08:29 PM
Author:oldminer
Most modern cut cushion shaped diamonds which are not cut to mimmic round H&A type stones have a vry thick row of just slightly angled facets just beneath the girdle line of the stone. Instead of a 40/41 degree angle found on most round diamonds, these are just very slightly inclined inward. While not being included in any lab''s girdle thickness comments, they happen to act just like a VERY VERY thick girdle in retaining added weight while not improving any visual aspect of the diamond. This added weight gets consumers to buy the visual size of 8/10 of a carat and pay for ther weight of 10/10 of a carat. Is that a deal or what?....No way.

Dave..., I am actually surprised at your generalization of the subject. Most meaning how much percentage wise? These so called thick row of facets under the girdle can very much affect the visual appearance of the Diamond when looked upon face up (both positively and negatively)..., you should know that most substantial size extra facets on Diamonds cant hide and are responsible to the changes of appearances (good or bad). As a simple comparison..., take any step cut shape or design..., the P1 definitely has its influence.

I won''t say that many of these cushions are not highly attractive, because they are visually appealing, but if there were any standards of cut being enforced such as AGS cut grading or GIA cut grading, this method of hiding the girdle in the pavilion would probably dissappear.

I suppose that is one of many obstacles the labs have on implementing cut grades on these shapes..., take AGS''s (so-far) failed attempts at EC and SEC...

When you look for a cushion cut get a side view of the stone and see if the pavilion is a rounded, bulging shape. If it is, you''ll likely find this row of thickening facets below the girdle. Secondly, multiply the average diameter x depth x .0061 and you will have the weight if it was a round diamond. This does not take the squared corners into account, but it shows you something important about the visual size versus the weight you are being asked to pay for. While adding 5% to 10% for the corners may make the comparison more valid, it may help you shop for effectively cut cushions.

Dave..., you are basing this formula on what? Do you have any accurate calculations?

Cushions cut for the H&A effect much more closely imitate round cutting parameters. You''ll pay more and may find you are getting more at the same time. You can always opt for a slightly lighter stone which gives the same outcome both for the dollar and visually.

Dave..., when you say ''cut for H&A effect in cushions..., what exactly do you mean? I am a bit confused..., is it the uniformity of the actual hearts and arrows or is it something else?

Cushions can come in loads of varieties..., they can be gorgeous in super shallow/ medium/ and steep depths..., it all depends on the facet design and the way the facet placements and angles compliment each other!

You cant compare them to round brilliant.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/1/2009 12:08:29 PM
Author:oldminer
Most modern cut cushion shaped diamonds which are not cut to mimmic round H&A type stones have a vry thick row of just slightly angled facets just beneath the girdle line of the stone. Instead of a 40/41 degree angle found on most round diamonds, these are just very slightly inclined inward. While not being included in any lab's girdle thickness comments, they happen to act just like a VERY VERY thick girdle in retaining added weight while not improving any visual aspect of the diamond. This added weight gets consumers to buy the visual size of 8/10 of a carat and pay for ther weight of 10/10 of a carat. Is that a deal or what?....No way.


I won't say that many of these cushions are not highly attractive, because they are visually appealing, but if there were any standards of cut being enforced such as AGS cut grading or GIA cut grading, this method of hiding the girdle in the pavilion would probably dissappear.


When you look for a cushion cut get a side view of the stone and see if the pavilion is a rounded, bulging shape. If it is, you'll likely find this row of thickening facets below the girdle. Secondly, multiply the average diameter x depth x .0061 and you will have the weight if it was a round diamond. This does not take the squared corners into account, but it shows you something important about the visual size versus the weight you are being asked to pay for. While adding 5% to 10% for the corners may make the comparison more valid, it may help you shop for effectively cut cushions.


Cushions cut for the H&A effect much more closely imitate round cutting parameters. You'll pay more and may find you are getting more at the same time. You can always opt for a slightly lighter stone which gives the same outcome both for the dollar and visually.

The added facets can add scintillation to stone with otherwise mostly large virtual facets and make for a better looking stone if done right.

The h&a style cushions are some beautiful diamonds but they are also a different look.
Some people will love them and some wont.
It is personal preference but I have to disagree that they automatically make for a better looking diamond.
The best looking cushions to my eye are the omc replicas cut with the best angle combinations to bring up the brightness to modern standards while keeping the large fire of the old cuts.

Frankly I am tired of people getting caught up on spread.
I would gladly give up a little to get a diamond that appeals to me more than a spreadier diamond.

 

[oldminer]

The formula for round diamonds is diameter squared x depth x .0061
I would suppose that a formula for near square stones which have somewhat angular corners such as a cushion would be diameter squared x depth x about .007 to make up for the portion on the diagonals outside the width or length measures.
That's how I got the percentage adjustment.

Of course, these facets have an effect on the appearance and light behavior, but they have much more effect on keeping lots of weight on the scale. I do agree that you can find some which really look outstanding, but you ought to understand the nature of the compromises being made on an individual choice. I also would agree that there are many possible types; thin, medium and deep ones. I also love the old mine cushion reproductions which have modern improvements combined with large flashes of light return. They must be considered a viable choice for those who love that special "look".

What I have seen in recent months are more rounded pavilion types with pavilion facets taking the place of hugely thick girdle faceting. It is a weakness in the reporting system and we all know how the trade loves loopholes. I think some folks like the cushion outline and really don't care about the light return element. Others like the light return of certain cushions and don't care about the outline nearly as much. Cushions remain much less a developed subject than any of the regular fancy shapes with the exception of the heart shape. The cushion is a special case and the heart shape even more special, I suppose.

I think I am again making the argument that I'd like to see grading of light return and light behavior separated from any considerations of craftsmanship, including the outline of the diamond. Once a person opts to a fancy shape, they need to know two things about the cut. #1 is how brilliant and sparkly it is. #2 is the durability, size to weight efficiency of the stone, and polish/symmetry. I consider the choice of OUTLINE, including length to width ratio, bulges, shoulders, curvatures, etc all outside the areas of grading. The labs should not impose arbitrary ratios or arbitrary shape requirements on fancy shape diamonds because that would eliminate many choices that consumers ought to have.

If some lab, someday, grades pear shapes and dictates that the top grade must have a certain range of L:W ratio or certain constraints on pointedness or bulge included in their top grade, they are not serving the consumer or the trade smartly. Consumers ought to be free to buy highly effectively cut diamonds in any configuration a cutter can dream up. So long as the diamond performs at a top level, so long as it is durable, efficiently displays its size and has fine polish and symmetry, then the consumer can make an informed choice. Of course, this applies to the Cushion shapes in this thread, too. I am for freedom of outline and even freedom to make lumpy stones for those who like them. We need to grade them so the facts can be told and the grades can be consistently and fairly applied. The trade cannot accept restrictions on innovation and shaping when it is not even close to a necessary issue.

 

[strmrdr]

Hmmm,
Is this what you are talking about Dave?
If so it might be an issue.

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/1/2009 3:20:36 PM
Author: oldminer
The formula for round diamonds is diameter squared x depth x .0061
I would suppose that a formula for near square stones which have somewhat angular corners such as a cushion would be diameter squared x depth x about .007 to make up for the portion on the diagonals outside the width or length measures.
That''s how I got the percentage adjustment.

Of course, these facets have an effect on the appearance and light behavior, but they have much more effect on keeping lots of weight on the scale. I do agree that you can find some which really look outstanding, but you ought to understand the nature of the compromises being made on an individual choice. I also would agree that there are many possible types; thin, medium and deep ones. I also love the old mine cushion reproductions which have modern improvements combined with large flashes of light return. They must be considered a viable choice for those who love that special ''look''.

sorry...

What I have seen in recent months are more rounded pavilion types with pavilion facets taking the place of hugely thick girdle faceting. It is a weakness in the reporting system and we all know how the trade loves loopholes. I think some folks like the cushion outline and really don''t care about the light return element. Others like the light return of certain cushions and don''t care about the outline nearly as much. Cushions remain much less a developed subject than any of the regular fancy shapes with the exception of the heart shape. The cushion is a special case and the heart shape even more special, I suppose.

I think I am again making the argument that I''d like to see grading of light return and light behavior separated from any considerations of craftsmanship, including the outline of the diamond. Once a person opts to a fancy shape, they need to know two things about the cut. #1 is how brilliant and sparkly it is. #2 is the durability, size to weight efficiency of the stone, and polish/symmetry. I consider the choice of OUTLINE, including length to width ratio, bulges, shoulders, curvatures, etc all outside the areas of grading. The labs should not impose arbitrary ratios or arbitrary shape requirements on fancy shape diamonds because that would eliminate many choices that consumers ought to have.

Sorry..., getting more confused...

If some lab, someday, grades pear shapes and dictates that the top grade must have a certain range of L:W ratio or certain constraints on pointedness or bulge included in their top grade, they are not serving the consumer or the trade smartly. Consumers ought to be free to buy highly effectively cut diamonds in any configuration a cutter can dream up. So long as the diamond performs at a top level, so long as it is durable, efficiently displays its size and has fine polish and symmetry, then the consumer can make an informed choice. Of course, this applies to the Cushion shapes in this thread, too. I am for freedom of outline and even freedom to make lumpy stones for those who like them. We need to grade them so the facts can be told and the grades can be consistently and fairly applied. The trade cannot accept restrictions on innovation and shaping when it is not even close to a necessary issue.

Dave..., I would want to believe you are aware to the fact that there are no rules when it comes to Cushions (how would you define top level performance in a Cushion?) Sure there are trade members who look for loopholes..., but I think most of the wrongly cut cushions you see on the market are because of lack of knowledge of cutters in that jungle field called Cushion Cuts.

 

[dimonbob]

Hello All,

I pretty much agree with Dave on what he says. Most all cushions are cut as “Cushion Modified Brilliants” which is what he is speaking of. That makes it a big problem when one of us is looking for a cushion with a “very nice cut”. The modified cushion
can be nice but when I go looking for a customer I am looking for a “Cushion Brilliant” with 8 mains. I hate to let the cat out of the bag here but the cutters are cutting for weight retention and not beauty so finding a “Cushion Brilliant” with 8 mains is almost impossible.
Not many cutters read Pricescope but if they did they would find a ready source of buyers for cushions if they would just listen to what is being said rather than defend why they are cutting the modified.

dimonbob

 

[strmrdr]

I think I agree with Dave also once he clarified what he is talking about.
There are a lot of bad looking cushions on the market.
Tricks like this is likely one reason why.

In my first post in this thread we were talking about different things I think.

I still disagree that the h&a style is better than other styles when they are well cut.

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/1/2009 4:58:49 PM
Author: dimonbob

Hello All,

I pretty much agree with Dave on what he says. Most all cushions are cut as “Cushion Modified Brilliants” which is what he is speaking of. That makes it a big problem when one of us is looking for a cushion with a “very nice cut”. The modified cushion
can be nice but when I go looking for a customer I am looking for a “Cushion Brilliant” with 8 mains. I hate to let the cat out of the bag here but the cutters are cutting for weight retention and not beauty so finding a “Cushion Brilliant” with 8 mains is almost impossible.

Not many cutters read Pricescope but if they did they would find a ready source of buyers for cushions if they would just listen to what is being said rather than defend why they are cutting the modified.

dimonbob

Hi d,

The add-on ''modified'' word by (I assume you mean) GIA on their brilliant identification is less/more facets on a classic 57/8 faceted brilliant design.
Thats the whole who-ha!
You sound like you have a serious issue with the word when appearing on the ''paper''...

I would warmly suggest you (and the Company you represent) to start educating your clients on the fact that the ''8 main Cushion Brilliant'' they are so in search of is just one of numerous facet design combination that can result different beautifully cut Cushion Cut appearances (period).

Looking down on the word modified is the wrong path to identifying a beautiful Cushion Cut..., it might help some who are in search for a specific appearance..., but not for all (dare I even think the majority

)

I would also suggest to getting used to the word as GIA will either have to accept proprietors names to specific new cuts or else identify all new cuts as modified, as they have been doing till today.

 

[oldminer]

Diagem;

Although there are no international standards for cushion cut performance, I can place 20 cushion cuts on a machine today and reliably, repeatedly, consistently and accurately tell you the order, from most to least, the strength of return light from the standardized lighting model used to illuminate them. We can also place them in the same order by other terms important to their visual appearance as diamonds, not just light return. In the end we can gather enough data on their light performance to make totaly consistent performance grades for cushion, or for that matter, any other shape, where we have a decent sample of 100 various cut quality stones. We don''t even have to have many samples of the best ones since we know how much light we put in and and also know what to expect about diamond, as a material, on how much light we can potentially get back. The possibility of standards is staring right at the industry, but there is little movement.

The truth is that it is totally possible today to grade how well any shape works with light by direct methods. It is not subjective. Digital results can be provided and any lab or international body of labs could, if they were not so busy competing for uniqueness, place their own categories on the digital results. The AGS 0 stones have fairly broad ranges of performance. GIA Excellents have even wider ranges. We know this already. It could be fixed, but skeptics choose to keep to the line that there are no standards and it can''t be done while labs fight eachother for their scrap of bread rather than see how simple the existing solution is.

It is very easy to define light performance. It has been explained many times and is well defined both for diamonds specifically and in general science. Rather than asking questions on this, it might be a good thing for you to go back over the past couple years and see what has been published on the subject. You can visit GOG''s site, Imagem''s site, DGLAservices.com, inquire at EGL-USA about their 360 report. There is a lot of info both on and off Pricescope that will put you into the 21s Century. ALL diamonds can be graded for their ability to return light and how they return it to create the proper look of beauty. Getting people and labs to agree to do it, that''s another thing entirely.

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/1/2009 7:06:44 PM
Author: oldminer
Diagem;

Although there are no international standards for cushion cut performance, I can place 20 cushion cuts on a machine today and reliably, repeatedly, consistently and accurately tell you the order, from most to least, the strength of return light from the standardized lighting model used to illuminate them. We can also place them in the same order by other terms important to their visual appearance as diamonds, not just light return. In the end we can gather enough data on their light performance to make totaly consistent performance grades for cushion, or for that matter, any other shape, where we have a decent sample of 100 various cut quality stones. We don''t even have to have many samples of the best ones since we know how much light we put in and and also know what to expect about diamond, as a material, on how much light we can potentially get back. The possibility of standards is staring right at the industry, but there is little movement.

I hear a lot about ‘light performance’ measuring…, and yes I agree it can narrow your search if this is your goal…, I know its not all the goals out there when picking beautiful Cushions…, that is the subject on this thread right…, not all fancy cuts.

The truth is that it is totally possible today to grade how well any shape works with light by direct methods. It is not subjective.

You sure its not subjective? I imagine it depends on who and in conjuction with what you are talking about...

Digital results can be provided and any lab or international body of labs could, if they were not so busy competing for uniqueness, place their own categories on the digital results. The AGS 0 stones have fairly broad ranges of performance. GIA Excellents have even wider ranges. We know this already. It could be fixed, but skeptics choose to keep to the line that there are no standards and it can''t be done while labs fight eachother for their scrap of bread rather than see how simple the existing solution is.

It is very easy to define light performance. It has been explained many times and is well defined both for diamonds specifically and in general science. Rather than asking questions on this, it might be a good thing for you to go back over the past couple years and see what has been published on the subject. You can visit GOG''s site, Imagem''s site, DGLAservices.com, inquire at EGL-USA about their 360 report. There is a lot of info both on and off Pricescope that will put you into the 21s Century.

Thank you for the hot tip David…, I will take it seriously

.

ALL diamonds can be graded for their ability to return light and how they return it to create the proper look of beauty. Getting people and labs to agree to do it, that''s another thing entirely.

David..., you keep surprising me..., can you elaborate on what you mean ‘the proper look of beauty’ and how measuring light return translates it properly?

again

.

 

[Modified Brilliant]

Date: 5/1/2009 3:20:36 PM
Author: oldminer
The formula for round diamonds is diameter squared x depth x .0061
I would suppose that a formula for near square stones which have somewhat angular corners such as a cushion would be diameter squared x depth x about .007 to make up for the portion on the diagonals outside the width or length measures.
That''s how I got the percentage adjustment.

Of course, these facets have an effect on the appearance and light behavior, but they have much more effect on keeping lots of weight on the scale. I do agree that you can find some which really look outstanding, but you ought to understand the nature of the compromises being made on an individual choice. I also would agree that there are many possible types; thin, medium and deep ones. I also love the old mine cushion reproductions which have modern improvements combined with large flashes of light return. They must be considered a viable choice for those who love that special ''look''.

What I have seen in recent months are more rounded pavilion types with pavilion facets taking the place of hugely thick girdle faceting. It is a weakness in the reporting system and we all know how the trade loves loopholes. I think some folks like the cushion outline and really don''t care about the light return element. Others like the light return of certain cushions and don''t care about the outline nearly as much. Cushions remain much less a developed subject than any of the regular fancy shapes with the exception of the heart shape. The cushion is a special case and the heart shape even more special, I suppose.

I think I am again making the argument that I''d like to see grading of light return and light behavior separated from any considerations of craftsmanship, including the outline of the diamond. Once a person opts to a fancy shape, they need to know two things about the cut. #1 is how brilliant and sparkly it is. #2 is the durability, size to weight efficiency of the stone, and polish/symmetry. I consider the choice of OUTLINE, including length to width ratio, bulges, shoulders, curvatures, etc all outside the areas of grading. The labs should not impose arbitrary ratios or arbitrary shape requirements on fancy shape diamonds because that would eliminate many choices that consumers ought to have.

If some lab, someday, grades pear shapes and dictates that the top grade must have a certain range of L:W ratio or certain constraints on pointedness or bulge included in their top grade, they are not serving the consumer or the trade smartly. Consumers ought to be free to buy highly effectively cut diamonds in any configuration a cutter can dream up. So long as the diamond performs at a top level, so long as it is durable, efficiently displays its size and has fine polish and symmetry, then the consumer can make an informed choice. Of course, this applies to the Cushion shapes in this thread, too. I am for freedom of outline and even freedom to make lumpy stones for those who like them. We need to grade them so the facts can be told and the grades can be consistently and fairly applied. The trade cannot accept restrictions on innovation and shaping when it is not even close to a necessary issue.

In non scientific, plain language, I agree with Dave.
"Consumers ought to be free to buy highly effective cut diamonds in any configuration a cutter can dream up."

www.metrojewelryappraisers.com

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/7/2009 10:04:22 AM
Author: Modified Brilliant
In non scientific, plain language, I agree with Dave.

''Consumers ought to be free to buy highly effective cut diamonds in any configuration a cutter can dream up.''


www.metrojewelryappraisers.com

The problem is defining highly effective.
I have designs that in some lighting are about 90% as bright as an RB but in other lighting blow it away.
I have other designs that are brighter in most lighting.(this is very hard to achieve as the RB is highly efficient)
Which is highly effective?

Even hitting 90% takes work on the designers part and a lot of common shapes will never hit as they are cut today even by the best cutters.

 

[Stephan]

H&A square cushions do have this thick girdles, yet they seem to perform very well, almost as good as the round ones, and the pattern looks pretty cool and classy.
In matter of diamonds cut for yield, I think there are a lot of other shapes much worse than the H&A cushions.

But my personal preference goes to the nice chunky cushions Jonathan is selling.
In such diamonds, you still have good light return, but much more important to my eyes, you have fire.
I'm really interested in those diamonds, even if I don't know how they perform in matter of spread.

 

[oldminer]

These are the kinds of choices I support by suggesting that "proportions" be reported separately from "performance" tather than combined into a single cut grade which inhibits choice for cutters and for consumers.... We agree.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

You are on the money Dave, but if I can have a moment of rare disagreement with you (sort of)

The rough is there - why consumer electricity and fossil fuels to remove it it if does not negatively influence the beauty?

There are plenty of people who can afford a 1ct cushion who will enjoy the naming rights (as per a post/arguement by Jim Schultz a couple years back).

The only isue as I read / see it is that peole should pay for what they get (with a small prestige magic weight premium perhaps?).
In Next Diamond and all the Cut Groups approaches we see the simple solution as listing the carat weight and alongside it - the spread relative to a 6.47mm 1ct round.
We instituted it here on Pricescope many years ago on advanced inhouse etc searches.

So if a stone is 1.00ct with -20% beside it, or if Labs would do as I hope we can in ND - we will simply describe the diamond as 1.00ct (0.80ct -20% spread). Then the buyer can make their own informed choice.

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/8/2009 6:27:51 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

You are on the money Dave, but if I can have a moment of rare disagreement with you (sort of)

The rough is there - why consumer electricity and fossil fuels to remove it it if does not negatively influence the beauty?

There are plenty of people who can afford a 1ct cushion who will enjoy the naming rights (as per a post/arguement by Jim Schultz a couple years back).

The only isue as I read / see it is that peole should pay for what they get (with a small prestige magic weight premium perhaps?).
In Next Diamond and all the Cut Groups approaches we see the simple solution as listing the carat weight and alongside it - the spread relative to a 6.47mm 1ct round.
We instituted it here on Pricescope many years ago on advanced inhouse etc searches.

So if a stone is 1.00ct with -20% beside it, or if Labs would do as I hope we can in ND - we will simply describe the diamond as 1.00ct (0.80ct -20% spread). Then the buyer can make their own informed choice.

I think you will need to describe it a bit more...

Or are you talking about rounds only

? Cause if you are talking about comparing relative spreads of Cushion Cuts..., I am eager to read...

....

 

[oldminer]

I like the idea of proving the visual square mm area of every faced-up stone with the measurements. In other words, the square mm area within the outline defined by the girdle and unrelated to the height of the crown, just the flat plane of the girdle outline. I see no real reason to compare it to round diamonds. When folks shop for a fancy shape they are sticking to comparing them to one another, not to round diamonds. Let them simply see the square mm area of each diamond and they will know the answer to the eternal question: "Which one looks larger?"

If by chance they have interest in how their chosen stone compares to a round diamond, the round diamond square mm areas can be similarly compared. It seems a negative to compare everything to "round", as if round was a special shape. The round is our currently best defined and understood shape, but I don''t think it is special in terms of comparing other shapes to it. If one wishes to, it is easy enough to do it, but comparing apples to apples is more practical.

 

[strmrdr]

personally I think spread is overrated.

Let me explain.
losing spread just because the cutter is trying to save weight isn''t good but losing spread in a trade off in a design for a certain look or performance level is certainly acceptable.
Then you have to balance it against cost per ct or cost per surface area.

I think fancies are best judged against like shapes rather than judged against a round.
Princess for example for square shapes.

 

[oldminer]

losing spread just because the cutter is trying to save weight isn''t good but losing spread in a trade off in a design for a certain look or performance level is certainly acceptable.
Then you have to balance it against cost per ct or cost per surface area.
We seem to agree here. If you design or pick any shape, find the various combinations of cuts for that outline which give the best or extremely high light performance numbers COMBINED with the largest spread of the outline, you then have the most marketable design of the outline. The largest look and the most light performance. However, if a smaller spread gives wonderful light return, that smaller shape is certainly entitled to be judged on its own merits and no be condemned by a low overall cut grade. In fact, the smaller stone might have the very best light return characteristics of the entire outline shape.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/8/2009 9:57:54 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 5/8/2009 6:27:51 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

You are on the money Dave, but if I can have a moment of rare disagreement with you (sort of)

The rough is there - why consumer electricity and fossil fuels to remove it it if does not negatively influence the beauty?

There are plenty of people who can afford a 1ct cushion who will enjoy the naming rights (as per a post/arguement by Jim Schultz a couple years back).

The only isue as I read / see it is that peole should pay for what they get (with a small prestige magic weight premium perhaps?).
In Next Diamond and all the Cut Groups approaches we see the simple solution as listing the carat weight and alongside it - the spread relative to a 6.47mm 1ct round.
We instituted it here on Pricescope many years ago on advanced inhouse etc searches.

So if a stone is 1.00ct with -20% beside it, or if Labs would do as I hope we can in ND - we will simply describe the diamond as 1.00ct (0.80ct -20% spread). Then the buyer can make their own informed choice.

I think you will need to describe it a bit more...

Or are you talking about rounds only

? Cause if you are talking about comparing relative spreads of Cushion Cuts..., I am eager to read...

....

DiaGem if you do inhouse searches here on Pricescope for rounds, princess radiant and asscher you will find spread information on the right side of the page - Lt and I choose not to do curvy shapes because there can be too much variability.
But Diamcalc does it for any shape and so it wil be a breeze for Next Diamond.

We strongly believe consumers should compare every cut to ROUND.
Why, because the prices of diamonds generally line up pretty well to $''s per square millimeter.
Unit pricing is a standar in the world today - in supermarkets, pharmacys and drug stores etc. Buyers have it as a right!

It is easy to compare cushion to cushion with the round spread. And gives more information. It also overcomes the playing King Solomon role that AGSL find themselves in - if the make the zero too low the cutters never send them stones. Each lab would establish their own rule = even more confusion and opacity for consumers.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/7/2009 12:24:07 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 5/7/2009 10:04:22 AM
Author: Modified Brilliant
In non scientific, plain language, I agree with Dave.

''Consumers ought to be free to buy highly effective cut diamonds in any configuration a cutter can dream up.''


www.metrojewelryappraisers.com

The problem is defining highly effective.
I have designs that in some lighting are about 90% as bright as an RB but in other lighting blow it away.
I have other designs that are brighter in most lighting.(this is very hard to achieve as the RB is highly efficient)
Which is highly effective?

Even hitting 90% takes work on the designers part and a lot of common shapes will never hit as they are cut today even by the best cutters.

There is a lot in what Storm says, and it holds marketing opportunities for those smart enough to think of them.
For the benefit of those with DiamCalc - when you are calculating light return and want the result from a different lighting type - simply un-click the "use standard observing conditions" tab on the lower left of the Cut Quality section and you can see how the diamond performs relative to the standard Tolkwsky variant that we use for every comparison. It even does this in Ideal-scope and ASET (not that this has any interest that I can imagine?)

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/8/2009 2:17:42 PM
Author: oldminer


losing spread just because the cutter is trying to save weight isn't good but losing spread in a trade off in a design for a certain look or performance level is certainly acceptable.
Then you have to balance it against cost per ct or cost per surface area.


We seem to agree here. If you design or pick any shape, find the various combinations of cuts for that outline which give the best or extremely high light performance numbers COMBINED with the largest spread of the outline, you then have the most marketable design of the outline. The largest look and the most light performance. However, if a smaller spread gives wonderful light return, that smaller shape is certainly entitled to be judged on its own merits and no be condemned by a low overall cut grade. In fact, the smaller stone might have the very best light return characteristics of the entire outline shape.
I agree Dave - we should seperate out spread from girdle and any other swindling factors etc from light return - it is like comparing flavors.

I think you are both wrong - why not let someone who has worked hard buy a cushion with an .80ct spread where the same spread round costs less?
Just give people the information and the market will find its level.

e.g.
say on Pricescope a cheap 1ct G vS2 round is $4,200, and a fancy that weighs 1ct but spreads 0.80ct currently costs about $3,100. Where as the 0.80ct round costs $2,100.
In that example the market is payng $1,000 for the privelage of a naming right to tel the neighbours you got a "one carrot rock".

If the spread information and a good price list was readily available then I suspect that $1k might drop back to about half that premium after 5-10 years if the information was readily available.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/8/2009 7:26:06 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
I think you are both wrong - why not let someone who has worked hard buy a cushion with an .80ct spread where the same spread round costs less?

Just give people the information and the market will find its level.


e.g.

say on Pricescope a cheap 1ct G vS2 round is $4,200, and a fancy that weighs 1ct but spreads 0.80ct currently costs about $3,100. Where as the 0.80ct round costs $2,100.

In that example the market is payng $1,000 for the privelage of a naming right to tel the neighbours you got a 'one carrot rock'.


If the spread information and a good price list was readily available then I suspect that $1k might drop back to about half that premium after 5-10 years if the information was readily available.

Garry you are putting diamond design in a box the same way that you accuse the people you call dino's of doing.
Not everyone loves or wants an RB
If someone does not want a round and wants high performance and loves the shape that $1k is well spent.
If someone spends the $1k just because the cutter wanted to make a magic number with no advantage to the purchaser then the money is being thrown away.
That is common in all shapes even in RB's.

If you want to talk real waste that is people paying way to much for a not so special common shape stone because of the brand, tiffany, hof and others.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/8/2009 8:50:10 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 5/8/2009 7:26:06 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
I think you are both wrong - why not let someone who has worked hard buy a cushion with an .80ct spread where the same spread round costs less?

Just give people the information and the market will find its level.


e.g.

say on Pricescope a cheap 1ct G vS2 round is $4,200, and a fancy that weighs 1ct but spreads 0.80ct currently costs about $3,100. Where as the 0.80ct round costs $2,100.

In that example the market is payng $1,000 for the privelage of a naming right to tel the neighbours you got a ''one carrot rock''.


If the spread information and a good price list was readily available then I suspect that $1k might drop back to about half that premium after 5-10 years if the information was readily available.

Garry you are putting diamond design in a box the same way that you accuse the people you call dino''s of doing.
Not everyone loves or wants an RB
If someone does not want a round and wants high performance and loves the shape that $1k is well spent.
If someone spends the $1k just because the cutter wanted to make a magic number with no advantage to the purchaser then the money is being thrown away.
That is common in all shapes even in RB''s.

If you want to talk real waste that is people paying way to much for a not so special common shape stone because of the brand, tiffany, hof and others.

Sorry Storm, what did I say to indicate people should buy a round brilliant?
I am simply suggesting that a girdle thickness or any weight saving device can have a value because a higher carat weight is one of the factors that canmake one diamond more favorable compared to another.
That means non rounds should have this in their favor.

I think you totally misread what I wrote (which means I did a bad job)

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/8/2009 10:02:08 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Sorry Storm, what did I say to indicate people should buy a round brilliant?

I am simply suggesting that a girdle thickness or any weight saving device can have a value because a higher carat weight is one of the factors that canmake one diamond more favorable compared to another.

That means non rounds should have this in their favor.


I think you totally misread what I wrote (which means I did a bad job)

Ok that makes sense said that way.
That isn''t close to what I thought you were getting at.
lets split the blame 50/50

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/8/2009 10:09:14 PM
Author: strmrdr


lets split the blame 50/50

Ok, we each get spanked

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/8/2009 7:07:08 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 5/8/2009 9:57:54 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 5/8/2009 6:27:51 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

You are on the money Dave, but if I can have a moment of rare disagreement with you (sort of)

The rough is there - why consumer electricity and fossil fuels to remove it it if does not negatively influence the beauty?

There are plenty of people who can afford a 1ct cushion who will enjoy the naming rights (as per a post/arguement by Jim Schultz a couple years back).

The only isue as I read / see it is that peole should pay for what they get (with a small prestige magic weight premium perhaps?).
In Next Diamond and all the Cut Groups approaches we see the simple solution as listing the carat weight and alongside it - the spread relative to a 6.47mm 1ct round.
We instituted it here on Pricescope many years ago on advanced inhouse etc searches.

So if a stone is 1.00ct with -20% beside it, or if Labs would do as I hope we can in ND - we will simply describe the diamond as 1.00ct (0.80ct -20% spread). Then the buyer can make their own informed choice.

I think you will need to describe it a bit more...

Or are you talking about rounds only

? Cause if you are talking about comparing relative spreads of Cushion Cuts..., I am eager to read...

....

DiaGem if you do inhouse searches here on Pricescope for rounds, princess radiant and asscher you will find spread information on the right side of the page - Lt and I choose not to do curvy shapes because there can be too much variability.
But Diamcalc does it for any shape and so it wil be a breeze for Next Diamond.

We strongly believe consumers should compare every cut to ROUND.
Why, because the prices of diamonds generally line up pretty well to $''s per square millimeter.
Unit pricing is a standar in the world today - in supermarkets, pharmacys and drug stores etc. Buyers have it as a right!

It is easy to compare cushion to cushion with the round spread. And gives more information. It also overcomes the playing King Solomon role that AGSL find themselves in - if the make the zero too low the cutters never send them stones. Each lab would establish their own rule = even more confusion and opacity for consumers.

Ok..., how would a consumer or even a pro like you calculate the value of this Cushion based on your "$''s per sq. mm." compared to round brilliant?
Its a:
Weight: 4.0X carat
Dimensions:16.90x8.00x4.50mm.

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/9/2009 2:40:22 AM
Author: DiaGem

Weight: 4.0X carat
Dimensions:16.90x8.00x4.50mm.
Thin to V. Thick girdle (as per GIA).