Gaming "girdle thickness" on cushion shapes

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

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

Send me or upload a .srn or .gem or .dmc 3D scan file of the stone and DiamCalc calculates it.
it will be an intrinsic part of Next Diamond and any lab in the world can do it now for a few hundred dollars.

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/9/2009 9:12:26 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

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

Send me or upload a .srn or .gem or .dmc 3D scan file of the stone and DiamCalc calculates it.
it will be an intrinsic part of Next Diamond and any lab in the world can do it now for a few hundred dollars.

Dont have a file..., but show us a calculation that will make sense of such an extreme example?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/9/2009 9:27:52 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 5/9/2009 9:12:26 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

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


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.

Send me or upload a .srn or .gem or .dmc 3D scan file of the stone and DiamCalc calculates it.
it will be an intrinsic part of Next Diamond and any lab in the world can do it now for a few hundred dollars.

Dont have a file..., but show us a calculation that will make sense of such an extreme example?

Simple, I can send you a picture of the calculators - the OctoNus team.
They have weighs and means.
(pun)

I do not have a cushion model on DiamCalc that can be lengthened that much, but here is an oval - the same thing happens.

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/9/2009 5:01:34 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 5/9/2009 9:27:52 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 5/9/2009 9:12:26 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

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


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.

Send me or upload a .srn or .gem or .dmc 3D scan file of the stone and DiamCalc calculates it.
it will be an intrinsic part of Next Diamond and any lab in the world can do it now for a few hundred dollars.

Dont have a file..., but show us a calculation that will make sense of such an extreme example?

Simple, I can send you a picture of the calculators - the OctoNus team.
They have weighs and means.
(pun)

I do not have a cushion model on DiamCalc that can be lengthened that much, but here is an oval - the same thing happens.

Sorry..., let me repeat my question clearer...

Dont have a file..., but show us a calculation [To the value of the $''s per square millimeter] that will make sense of such an extreme example?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/10/2009 4:11:33 AM
Author: DiaGem
Sorry..., let me repeat my question clearer...

Dont have a file..., but show us a calculation [To the value of the $''s per square millimeter] that will make sense of such an extreme example?

OK DG, you understand that DiamCalc can calculate the spread in square millimeters.

Just for fun, here is an exercise (the sizes and values are just for the exercise).

Your stone has a surface area of 124 sq-mm and a cost of $200,000 = $1613 $/mm
The baguette has surface area of 28.7 sq-mm and cost $5,000 = $174 $/mm
The 15ct round has a surface area of 203.6 sq-mm and cost $450,000 = $2,210 $/mm

But I do not think that is what consumers will do, and I can not see a reason to give them this information.

 

[oldminer]

Garry;

Don''t you think that a consumer who has decided upon "oval" as their shape, would want tocompare the many ovals they find to one another for spread? We always see requests for "Which one is larger?" Sure, they could use the tool to compare each one to round to find the most efficient spready stone compared to round, but it still would not answer which of their choices was physically larger since each oval of their selection field may have differing carat weight...... Does this make sense now?

 

[strmrdr]

It does come in handy sometimes with fancies...
For example this thread:
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/opinions-on-ec-i-am-considering.114850/

A lighter deeper diamond faces up larger than a shallower heavier one.
But it doesn''t tell you squat about which is better cut so it is kinda useless.

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/10/2009 5:38:42 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 5/10/2009 4:11:33 AM
Author: DiaGem
Sorry..., let me repeat my question clearer...

Dont have a file..., but show us a calculation [To the value of the $''s per square millimeter] that will make sense of such an extreme example?

OK DG, you understand that DiamCalc can calculate the spread in square millimeters.

Just for fun, here is an exercise (the sizes and values are just for the exercise).

Your stone has a surface area of 124 sq-mm and a cost of $200,000 = $1613 $/mm
The baguette has surface area of 28.7 sq-mm and cost $5,000 = $174 $/mm
The 15ct round has a surface area of 203.6 sq-mm and cost $450,000 = $2,210 $/mm

But I do not think that is what consumers will do, and I can not see a reason to give them this information.

What size round will result from a 124 mm2 surface area?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/10/2009 6:18:26 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 5/10/2009 5:38:42 AM

Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 5/10/2009 4:11:33 AM

Author: DiaGem

Sorry..., let me repeat my question clearer...

Dont have a file..., but show us a calculation [To the value of the $'s per square millimeter] that will make sense of such an extreme example?

OK DG, you understand that DiamCalc can calculate the spread in square millimeters.


Just for fun, here is an exercise (the sizes and values are just for the exercise).


Your stone has a surface area of 124 sq-mm and a cost of $200,000 = $1613 $/mm

The baguette has surface area of 28.7 sq-mm and cost $5,000 = $174 $/mm

The 15ct round has a surface area of 203.6 sq-mm and cost $450,000 = $2,210 $/mm


But I do not think that is what consumers will do, and I can not see a reason to give them this information.

What size round will result from a 124 mm2 surface area?

~12.56mm 7.22ct for a standard modern tolk

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/10/2009 6:26:44 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 5/10/2009 6:18:26 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 5/10/2009 5:38:42 AM

Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 5/10/2009 4:11:33 AM

Author: DiaGem

Sorry..., let me repeat my question clearer...

Dont have a file..., but show us a calculation [To the value of the $''s per square millimeter] that will make sense of such an extreme example?

OK DG, you understand that DiamCalc can calculate the spread in square millimeters.


Just for fun, here is an exercise (the sizes and values are just for the exercise).


Your stone has a surface area of 124 sq-mm and a cost of $200,000 = $1613 $/mm

The baguette has surface area of 28.7 sq-mm and cost $5,000 = $174 $/mm

The 15ct round has a surface area of 203.6 sq-mm and cost $450,000 = $2,210 $/mm


But I do not think that is what consumers will do, and I can not see a reason to give them this information.

What size round will result from a 124 mm2 surface area?

~12.56mm

Thanks Karl

, I am feeling lazy

.

OK..., so now we can try compare....

A loooong (and flat) OMC 4.XX cts. with a surface area of 124 mm2 vs. a modern Round Brilliant of the same 124mm2 which should weigh approx 7.++ cts.

(I know not everybody likes long flat OMC''s..., but I know a lot do...

, so lets try to come up with a reasonable value comparisons....)

Lets assume they both are F-VS1 in quality..., how can you translate a "value" result based on these #''s to a consumer who is looking for ''spread'' aka surface face area?

Which would you go for??

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/10/2009 5:53:36 AM
Author: oldminer
Garry;

Don''t you think that a consumer who has decided upon ''oval'' as their shape, would want tocompare the many ovals they find to one another for spread? We always see requests for ''Which one is larger?'' Sure, they could use the tool to compare each one to round to find the most efficient spready stone compared to round, but it still would not answer which of their choices was physically larger since each oval of their selection field may have differing carat weight...... Does this make sense now?

Dave the first choice can be "will I buy an oval or a cushion".
Why compare to each stone when you can use a standard bench mark that everyone understands because 1/2 the worlds diamonds are cut into rounds.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/10/2009 6:38:50 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 5/10/2009 6:26:44 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 5/10/2009 6:18:26 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 5/10/2009 5:38:42 AM

Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 5/10/2009 4:11:33 AM

Author: DiaGem

Sorry..., let me repeat my question clearer...

Dont have a file..., but show us a calculation [To the value of the $''s per square millimeter] that will make sense of such an extreme example?

OK DG, you understand that DiamCalc can calculate the spread in square millimeters.


Just for fun, here is an exercise (the sizes and values are just for the exercise).


Your stone has a surface area of 124 sq-mm and a cost of $200,000 = $1613 $/mm

The baguette has surface area of 28.7 sq-mm and cost $5,000 = $174 $/mm

The 15ct round has a surface area of 203.6 sq-mm and cost $450,000 = $2,210 $/mm


But I do not think that is what consumers will do, and I can not see a reason to give them this information.

What size round will result from a 124 mm2 surface area?

~12.56mm

Thanks Karl

, I am feeling lazy

.

OK..., so now we can try compare....

A loooong (and flat) OMC 4.XX cts. with a surface area of 124 mm2 vs. a modern Round Brilliant of the same 124mm2 which should weigh approx 7.++ cts.

(I know not everybody likes long flat OMC''s..., but I know a lot do...

, so lets try to come up with a reasonable value comparisons....)

Lets assume they both are F-VS1 in quality..., how can you translate a ''value'' result based on these #''s to a consumer who is looking for ''spread'' aka surface face area?

Which would you go for??

I am not sure this works DG - as a general rule most fancy shapes have a smaller spread than rounds.

In your case the round would probably cost around 4 times more.
The two diamnds would not however have come from rough with the same or similar values.

If you want to try these type of exercises - why not use a relevant example?
But certainly in the case you have chosen - the long OMC may appear very attractive to many consumers.

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/10/2009 8:05:21 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 5/10/2009 6:38:50 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 5/10/2009 6:26:44 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 5/10/2009 6:18:26 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 5/10/2009 5:38:42 AM

Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 5/10/2009 4:11:33 AM

Author: DiaGem

Sorry..., let me repeat my question clearer...

Dont have a file..., but show us a calculation [To the value of the $''s per square millimeter] that will make sense of such an extreme example?

OK DG, you understand that DiamCalc can calculate the spread in square millimeters.


Just for fun, here is an exercise (the sizes and values are just for the exercise).


Your stone has a surface area of 124 sq-mm and a cost of $200,000 = $1613 $/mm

The baguette has surface area of 28.7 sq-mm and cost $5,000 = $174 $/mm

The 15ct round has a surface area of 203.6 sq-mm and cost $450,000 = $2,210 $/mm


But I do not think that is what consumers will do, and I can not see a reason to give them this information.

What size round will result from a 124 mm2 surface area?

~12.56mm

Thanks Karl

, I am feeling lazy

.

OK..., so now we can try compare....

A loooong (and flat) OMC 4.XX cts. with a surface area of 124 mm2 vs. a modern Round Brilliant of the same 124mm2 which should weigh approx 7.++ cts.

(I know not everybody likes long flat OMC''s..., but I know a lot do...

, so lets try to come up with a reasonable value comparisons....)

Lets assume they both are F-VS1 in quality..., how can you translate a ''value'' result based on these #''s to a consumer who is looking for ''spread'' aka surface face area?

Which would you go for??

I am not sure this works DG - as a general rule most fancy shapes have a smaller spread than rounds.

I am not too certain on this generalization..., (maybe you mean from the square fancy shapes?)

In your case the round would probably cost around 4 times more.

I posed this example on purpose (as I mentioned above..., this is extreme!)

The two diamnds would not however have come from rough with the same or similar values.

We are assuming this..., but only assuming

.

If you want to try these type of exercises - why not use a relevant example?

Because not all Diamonds are relevant to each other..., actually I believe the contrary is more...

But certainly in the case you have chosen - the long OMC may appear very attractive to many consumers.

So can most 1 ct marquise, pears, and ovals..., most I know have a larger surface area when comparing to rounds....
I just showed you a super extreme example (with the long OMC.)