Interesting conversation with Harry Winston staffer

[candide]

Had a very interesting conversation with a well placed person at Harry Winston today (who I won''t name). Curious what you think about this. I know most of this HAS been discussed before in this forum.

He said, "We have had private meetings with representatives from GIA regarding GIA''s desire to begin grading cut over the next 2 years. They have concluded very interesting work, and are just looking now for how to best communicate this to the public. They have found that traditional notions of ideal do not correspond to what is most brilliant and returns the most light. Particularly, they are finding that tables of up to 60, or even 61, can be quite beautiful stones. And depths of 59 may in some cases be optimal. So we don''t call our stones "Ideal," but instead call them "Well cut." Something like 56/59 would be right on for us. We think this is most consistent with where GIA will be going, based on our meetings. People will be very shocked over the next few years when the new system is unveiled. It is more about light return now, with broader ranges than Tolkowsky''s."

Wow. Maybe you have all heard this before but this was news to me, especially at the level of a Harry Winston. To be honest, sounds alot like what Gary has been saying all along, no?

 

[Mara]

I think this is definitely how things are looking--especially in light of a few of Garry's comments recently (Cut Nut)..when he said that when GIA releases their cut grade standards, prices would skyrocket for these types of stones....and this was in relation to my post to someone about how the shallower crown angled stones can be very beautiful if their other numbers are right for that stone.




As the owner of a larger tabled stone (61.4% table and 57% depth) with a very shallow crown angle (29.9), I will wait very anxiously to see what happens!!

Here is the link of the thread where I made my comment and Garry replied. Maybe he can expound...since most of us consumers are in the dark as to what GIA is really thinking about cut grades!




https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/crow-and-pavillion-part-deux.9203/

 

[fire&ice]

Interesting.

But, of course beging the butt that I am, in some respects isn't about personal preferences?

Mara likes her stone b/c it's not only pretty, but appears larger than it's weight.

I have seen some *very* rich looking OEC's w/ tiny tables & deep depth that I would sacrifice "size appearance" for.

I think Dave Atlas posted a thread a year ago about can one classify & subsequently clarify/quantify what beauty is.

With people, when one is viewed a picture of a person, symmetry was the one characteristic that was consistently picked as pretty. But, in real life, we all know that doesn't translate.

Yes, I agree that there are dogs out there. But, within a certain variance on cut, I believe, at the end of the day, one may have a preference.

So, back goes the question. Can one really grade cut? Can one really *define* beauty. JMHO, I say not.

All that said, trends play a part in all this too.

 

[aljdewey]

I'm not sure that grading cut is intended to "define" beauty....or at least I don't perceive it that way.




To me, cut grading is an effort to quantify light return. That factor is a major contributor in evaluating a stone's beauty, but is isn't the definition of beauty. JMHO....I don't think that attempting to grade cut is equivalent to attempting to define beauty.




I think cut can be graded according to accepted tolerances...whatever those are. But beauty is as subjective as each individual.




Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder....some prefer more white light return, some prefer more colored light, some prefer OMCs. A stone isn't beautiful just because the numbers say it is. It either appeals to the eye or it doesn't. Having said that, I do believe there is value to some in having those number parameters....they cannot hurt, but they can help.

 

[fire&ice]

Semantics - but relevant

How can one say a diamond is "ideal"? Who is it "ideal" to?

Can you measure light return, etc. Yes. But, you can't measure what someone may find ideal to their eye. That's why I think "cut grading" is much more subjective than say color grading.

Color is graded DEF, etc. One can determine what color someone may desire. Granted, DEF is more expensive - but DEF is not necessarily pushed as "ideal".

OEC's would be considered by the very best standard as "good" cut. But, what if one prefers the "good cut" over the "ideal cut".

Perhaps it's the "ideal" that bothers me. I don't think one can define "ideal".

I wish I could find the other thread I refered to. It was a good read.

Going back to Mara's stone. It's not considered "ideal" now. Should it be? Perhaps - it may be the correct corelation of things. But, does that now mean that what was considered "ideal" before now isn't?

I applaud the research. Just find flaw in defining "ideal".

 

[Mara]

It definitely is about personal preference, IMO there is no way that one entity can define cut grades for the entire world. Just as AGS tried with their cut grade scale...GIA will try as well.




Some people prefer the larger, more brilliant stones with more spread and shallower depths...some prefer the more 'ideal' cut stones or the superideals that companies like WhiteFlash sell. It really is all about what appeals to one's eye. I personally would like to get a small ACA or similar soon so that I can see the differences between my stone and that one. I like old cuts too like the OMC and the OEC's...a large range of variety.




For myself personally..I am just curious to see what happens if GIA does release something that says that stones such as mine, stones that score a cut grade 7 on the AGS scale of 1-10, suddenly are deemed more cut-worthy in the eyes of GIA--and resultingly...to consumers. It should be interesting!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

----------------
On 9/23/2003 4:42:54 PM fire&ice wrote:

Interesting.

But, of course beging the butt that I am, in some respects isn't about personal preferences?

Mara likes her stone b/c it's not only pretty, but appears larger than it's weight.

I have seen some *very* rich looking OEC's w/ tiny tables & deep depth that I would sacrifice 'size appearance' for.

I think Dave Atlas posted a thread a year ago about can one classify & subsequently clarify/quantify what beauty is.

With people, when one is viewed a picture of a person, symmetry was the one characteristic that was consistently picked as pretty. But, in real life, we all know that doesn't translate.

Yes, I agree that there are dogs out there. But, within a certain variance on cut, I believe, at the end of the day, one may have a preference.

So, back goes the question. Can one really grade cut? Can one really *define* beauty. JMHO, I say not.

All that said, trends play a part in all this too.----------------

I agree with everything you have all said here

Worth noting that I do not tell people what to like - if you like old cuts you will probably love FIC's. Mara your BIC is the easiest stone for me to sell because side by side they appear sooo big.

what i try to do with HCA is tell people what not to buy.
My mission is to improve cut quality.