Is the internet, and cut grading the enemy of creativity in cutting?

[Rockdiamond]

HI Everyone,
If there was no value in the questions I ask, there'd be no conversation.
If innocent consumers weren't getting extremely one sided answers daily, I would have less motivation to point out that opinions are quite often stated here as facts.
Is a well cut 60/60 better than a smaller table EX cut grade? No.
But the opposite is also true.
Criticizing advice where people are told to stay below 59% on table size is only me going for the "low hanging fruit"...that is to say, obvious misinformation being given.
There is absolutely no "scientific proof" a 60% table is in any way deficient to a 57% table.

The term "leakage" is so often used in a disparaging manner by consumers advising other consumers based on not enough information to make a meaningful observation. Every diamond leaks light- or it would simply be a mirror.

The term "performance" in relation to a diamond has no scientific basis whatsoever.
Neither of these terms works better on a round brilliant than they do for an octagonal vivid yellow. They are simply ways of trying to make something a black and white issue, as opposed to one of subjective values.

Todd mentioned that he has to buy without looking at diamonds therfore he relies on a "buy by the numbers" system. That may work extremely well for a professional who knows what he likes. But not necessarily so well for someone who has not had the benefit of seeing many different makes.

It also proves the point of this thread yet again.
What it sounds like is that people are reduced to stocking diamonds that fit some artificial mold, as opposed to diamonds that look good based on their actual appearance. The market responds by cutting diamonds to numbers that are repeated over and over again... the result is a lack of diversity, and it stifles creativity.
I could not agree more that there's a large component of the new informational technology encourages creativity- such as my ideas in this thread.


I started this thread as it's clear to me that along with the positive, the negative aspects of this are taking place in many areas of our lives- such as literature.


Oh- and unlike a few of the vocal critics posting here, I have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of in my posts.

 

[risingsun]

Date: 1/19/2010 6:46:35 PM
Author: Todd Gray

Date: 1/19/2010 6:16:01 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Todd- I know we agree on a lot of things- and I have tremendous respect for you.

The differences we are discussing are illuminating- I hope that''s what people take away from this.

Personally, I believe it''s irresponsible to use terms like ''performance'', ''leakage'' and ''light return'' to describe what is clearly personal preference.

By the way, in my circles, ''60/60'' and ''Ideal'' are terms that describe two separate and distinct type of stones.

For consumers, the the term ''Ideal'' has been prostituted so much that it has almost no meaning.

So many companies are using the term in ways you and I both agree are inaccurate, and designed to mislead consumers.

I''ve never heard anyone try to sell diamonds to a consumer by calling them ''60/60''

I think it is a difference in markets, brick and mortar establishments sell visually where online we tend to sell based on information and develop sites built around our personal preferences. Terms like performance, leakage and light return are something discussed on ''the ideal cut playground'' and a few high end brick and mortar stores which I''ve visited, but they are terms which I rarely hear outside the realm of ideal cut diamonds because introducing such terms to a non-super ideal scenario would be catastrophic in terms of selling diamonds of good to very good make. And with that statement, I''m not sure whether I am proving your point or mine.

Nobody believes that, right?

Sadly I have heard retail jewelry store staff make reference to the 60/60 ideal cut, I think it is a result of overhearing the term referenced by their diamond buyer or supplier...

Yes David, I usually do enjoy our banter because while we serve different sectors of the market, we both realize that there is validity in both our viewpoints and our differences of opinion. I have often stated both here on the forum and within the context of our own web site that there are beautiful options to be found outside the realm of the super ideal cut diamond, my point of contention is based on vague reference to what those proportions may be and the possibility of such statements misleading the public. I know that you realize that, but sometimes we have to ''talk'' at more length in written form on the forum to prevent such confusion and I think people might misinterpret that for ''friction'' when in fact it''s merely chatter between the minds.

It''s no secret that I focus on super ideal cut diamonds because it saves a lot of time and money in terms of our selection process, unlike yourself I''m not sitting in the midst of the diamond district so I rely on a system of ''buying by the numbers'' to increase the odds of success when considering diamonds for inventory... Likewise many of our clients on the internet are likely to rely on a similar system or advice based on such a system... Your focus is primarily on fancy colored diamonds which are not cut by the numbers because they are cut for intensity of color - which is often going to dictate value more than clarity in that market - and thus terms like performance, leakage and light return are truly not applicable to your market, which is again most focused on intensity of color. Different planets my friend... But I''m afraid that without that disclaimer, perhaps made in almost every thread that you post, your educated observations are apt to be misinterpreted in a forum where most of the people are discussing diamonds which are in the colorless, near colorless and faint yellow ranges.

I bet you thought using that fancy colored diamond in your avatar was going to clue us in or something

I thought you made some very good points, Todd. This is very important to people who are buying online and trying to speak a language that makes sense. I learned about performance, leakage, and light return from this forum and more specifically from John Pollard. When I was a newcomer seeking education on an AGS 0 diamond, this information was invaluable to me

 

[risingsun]

Date: 1/20/2010 1:53:36 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 1/20/2010 12:54:51 PM
Author: risingsun
Serg~there are any number of vendors who specialize in handmade socks. We refer people who are looking for handmade socks to these vendors and others find these vendors on their own. These vendors do not dismiss modern technology, argue with consumers, accuse people of attacking them, and start numerous threads that have the ability to confuse newcomers seeking top tier RB socks. These vendors do what they do best and are well respected by PSers. Their work speaks for itself. This is the issue that many of us have with RD. If he would provide education about his area of expertise [colored diamonds...err...socks], I believe he would be perceived in a more positive light. As Karl said, if he wants to sell well cut 60/60 socks, no one is stopping him. I think that we are looking for RD to do more than talk about what he believes and do something about it. If not, how many threads must he start, which say the same thing? Now my feet are cold and I''m going to get my socks!!

Marian,

Each problem has at least two sides.

How could you promote handmade socks in internet for HighTech Fans?
Just try do it and you will better understand other side of problem.

If we want find good solution we need consider problem from different sides. I do not like RD discussion style too as you, but he has valid point.
If we just ignore his point of view we lost opportunity find health solution for diamond industry .
I sure what Superideal diamonds breaks balance in diamond industry, improves comoditization and erodes very important for diamond industry pillars .

Serg,
I see your point. Perhaps we could have a separate forum on PS for niche cut diamonds and invite those involved to post in that forum. One of the things that puts me off now is the constant discord in RD''s threads. Speaking for myself, it takes away from any educational content or learning. We have an opportunity to learn from experts--who have no axe to grind--and bring a new dimension to PS, IMHO. Many of us are already aware of the these vendors because the owners of their work post it in our forums. It could be a start.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I have no "axe to grind" whatsoever.
I'll bet that some of the vendors that have their goods on the db here are secretly happy that I challenge some of the widely held misconceptions.

If you go to a club where everyone shares the same views, there will be no discord.
Maybe the reason I'm allowed to stay- and why other professionals join in conversations is that fact that I have a very stout platform of experience and accomplishment from which to bring an alternative view to the discussion- and that I bring forth a viewpoint that is also widely held by many other professionals.


Serg- I appreciate you listening to my points- and responding.
I know not everyone will like my style of discussion- please remember that the conversation here is sometimes very one sided- requiring me, as a lone voice ( of reason) to sometimes use all my debating skill to get my point across.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

It is clear to me that depending on the strictness of how one measures cut quality that it is far safer to select a diamond with a table size in the mid 50''s than 60% and above.
This is supported by GIA and AGS''s work as shown here http://www.octonus.ru/oct/mss/gia-agspgs.phtml

If you look at the number of best cuts in the center of these charts that provides evidence david from 2 sources. The same can be seen from the first such published work which is HCA.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Garry, I''m sure that there''s a basis in your suggestion....but that''s kind of like using statistics to cross the street.
68% of the time there''s no car coming.....

 

[oldminer]

There is no "finite best cut". There never will be. Nevertheless, cut grading categories exist today and will continue to exist and eventually become less subjective and increasingly scientific. Some dealers who have not been made party to the process may not like where the lines have been drawn separating one grade from the next, but they will just get used to it as they failed to be politically connected to those who make such decisions which have an effect on the entire trade.

No one can truthfully say a D color diamond is the best one for YOU to select. Whatever color YOU like best is best for YOU.
No one can say a Fancy Vivid Yellow is the best fancy color of the yellow family. It may be the most costly, but if you prefer a less intense coloration, a vivid may not be what you like best.
No one should say a flawless diamonds is best for for YOU to select. No matter how perfect or imperfect, the one YOU prefer is the best one for you.
No one should say that a diamond graded for cut quality is the best, the prettiest, the finest one for YOU. You must decide on how much light return YOU prefer, how much fire, sparkle, contrast, whatever you like in the shape and style of cut YOU prefer to know what is BEST FOR YOU.
Cut quality grading at the current time does not pertain to fancy color diamonds because they are cut differently to enhance their all important coloration rather than make them as efficient in light return as the near colorless stones. Cut grading for fancy color diamonds will be years from now, maybe decades or never. As far as I know, it isn''t being considered in today''s research.

We certainly can provide intelligent, expert opinions and grades for cut quality of the near coloress type which can be proved by measurement of certain chosen performance characterisitics which have been shown to align themselves well with human preferences in a poll of sufficient size to have statistical value. It still does not mean 100% of people will agree it is the right one for their own purchase, but for shoppers, in general, it is excellent to have a quality grading system in place which helps to give stability to the market and confidence to prospective buyers while not misrepresenting the quality with bogus terminology or the "trust me, I''m the expert" philosophy which once was so prevalent in the pre-Internet period.

I see cut grading as spurring on the creativity of cutters to continually outdo one another in getting ever better and better cut quality into production. New designs have the potential to open up more shapes and faceting configurations. As always, the vast majority of consumers want to have rather standardized, non-challenging designs, but nothing is holding back innovation based on how diamonds are being distributed or sold. The economy and the changes in market are hurting some traditional methods of staying in the diamond business, but this is temporary and diamonds will continue to be a viable product in a changed market.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/20/2010 2:48:53 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Garry, I''m sure that there''s a basis in your suggestion....but that''s kind of like using statistics to cross the street.
68% of the time there''s no car coming.....

I was thinking more from the educated consumer perspective David - who should they trust - Todd''s standard, or yours, based on probablity, and based on the idea that if there is a peak, the broader you spread your acceptable standard, the leass likely you are to ever achieve the best result.
That, plus the fact that on diamCalc and every light performance test and scale that for every RBC proportion set i ever checked - a 56% table diamond will out perform a 60% table.
The spread benefit is 0.02ct or 0.035mm - you have that win. But it will more often than not be eaten up by a smaller percieved size as a result of a reduced light return.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 1/20/2010 3:29:04 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 1/20/2010 2:48:53 PM

Author: Rockdiamond

Garry, I'm sure that there's a basis in your suggestion....but that's kind of like using statistics to cross the street.

68% of the time there's no car coming.....

I was thinking more from the educated consumer perspective David - who should they trust - Todd's standard, or yours, based on probablity, and based on the idea that if there is a peak, the broader you spread your acceptable standard, the leass likely you are to ever achieve the best result.

That, plus the fact that on diamCalc and every light performance test and scale that for every RBC proportion set i ever checked - a 56% table diamond will out perform a 60% table.

The spread benefit is 0.02ct or 0.035mm - you have that win. But it will more often than not be eaten up by a smaller percieved size as a result of a reduced light return.

Garry- I never asked anyone to "trust me"- or proposed a "standard" they should use.
I am suggesting that consumers do not "trust" anyone who's claiming to be able to tell them what they will like better based on numbers alone.
I suggest consumers do NOT trust salespeople who make outrageous claims, or try to steer them automatically to more expensive diamonds ( oh you don't want a J, that's junk, let me show you this G)
My approach has a lot to do with the fact that a trusted set of eyes- attached to a trusted seller is a great way to feel comfortable.

If Todd was looking at a diamond, and told me it was a great cut, I'd trust him.
I seriously doubt he'd tell me "Trust me, it's a great diamond".
He'd likely use knowledge of diamonds, as it relates to the measurements and other factual aspects to "prove" his point.

If I was showing a well cut 60/60 and a smaller table well cut stone, I could also use the diamonds to "prove" why I preferred one over the other.
In doing so the client might not feel the same way- but the explanation could help them to clarify. If I gave the explanation in terms of preferences- as opposed to absolutes- it allows the buyer to make up their own mind with no external pressure.


Part of what struck me about this whole story was how the internet has created more of a need for "a standard" expressed in absolute terms.
Dave Atlas' excellent post made the point about how there is no "best" cut.
That means we're not shooting for a peak- rather a plateau.

That, plus the fact that on diamCalc and every light performance test and scale that for every RBC proportion set i ever checked - a 56% table diamond will out perform a 60% table.

GIA and AGS's to cut grades are just that- a plateau where different types of "ideal" or "best" cuts co-exist.
GIA, using thousands of human observations, found that some 60% tabled diamonds were preferred based on their visual characteristics. that's why some 60% tabled diamonds are on GIA's EX cut grade.
Even in your own writings Garry, it's clear that a 60% table can be nicer than a 56% table given that certain other aspects are there.
This could be termed "performance" although I don't feel the word performance is semantically correct.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 1/20/2010 2:34:42 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
It is clear to me that depending on the strictness of how one measures cut quality that it is far safer to select a diamond with a table size in the mid 50's than 60% and above.
This is supported by GIA and AGS's work as shown here http://www.octonus.ru/oct/mss/gia-agspgs.phtml

If you look at the number of best cuts in the center of these charts that provides evidence david from 2 sources. The same can be seen from the first such published work which is HCA.

Garry,

I don't have the luxury of running diamcalc simulations for round brilliants but I'd like to see the entire matrix of of idealscope images for 60% table 60% depth simulation over the entire GIA Excellent range.
This would be a good reference and I would happily put it together if I could generate these images myself but my version of DiamCalc is limited to the marquise.

I am also quite interested in seeing what the Table 60% Pavillion 41.8 Crown 30.5 - 31 looks like as it achieves AGS 0 ideal but only GIA very good and Table 60% Pavillion 41.6 Crown 30.5 - 31.5 as well same scenario.
I hope yourself or one of the others would be willing to put in the time to have this as a reference.

I don't see the 60/60 as some magical special diamond just another set of proportions which can promising but since its mentioned so often(by u know who) I'd like to see the appearances of these in idealscope lighting as compared to the smaller table varieties.

Assume reasonable assumptions for well cut stones (thin or medium girdle) and proprotional crown height.

 

[elmo]

Date: 1/20/2010 2:24:29 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
I have no 'axe to grind' whatsoever.

No axe to grind?

p.s. Not sure why this thread has gone on so long...as Dave Atlas suggested on page 1, "costly rough" is the enemy of creativity in cutting. Exactly the same reason you see so little "creatively-cut" fine untreated sapphire ruby and emerald. Pick a different gem if you want creative.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 1/19/2010 5:08:26 PM
Author: Karl_K

Date: 1/19/2010 10:28:20 AM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 1/19/2010 12:42:55 AM

Author: Karl_K

David,


What you don''t see is that JIT manufacturing/processing and sales is unavoidable in the diamond industry.


Almost every other industry has moved that way over a decade ago.


There is no way to survive using the old model.


The internet had helped make it more efficient but it was well on the way before internet shopping took off.


Consumers are 2-3 steps away from the manufacturer in everything we buy these days.



Long supply chains and terms over net30 are dead and even net15 is hard to get out in the rest of the business world.

Karl- the diamond business has some unique aspect that resist comparisons to other business models.

There are some very powerful cutters with huge amounts of capitol.

There''s a book called the ''Red Book'' which lists all the jewelers in the US, and has credit ratings for many.

If a ''1'' or ''2'' rated jeweler called up any of the major cutting houses, and offered to buy 10 one carat stones, they would easily get 30 days to pay. In fact on major purchases terms up to 90 or even 120 days are also still common for actual buyers.

My point is that such purchases make little sense for most retail brick and mortar jewelers today compared to 10 years ago. However such buyers still exist, though they are fewer and further between today.

Like every other industry they are asking why should I let you use my capital for free.
That is why memo is doomed.
net15-net30 is the best that can be expected long term with a discount for cash in advance.

Karl,

trust me, memo is not for free. Cash prices are lower, often MUCH lower than memo pricing. That they are the same is a common misconception, both by the public and sadly, often by those in the retail end of the trade who really should know better.

Wink

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/20/2010 5:43:29 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 1/20/2010 2:34:42 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
It is clear to me that depending on the strictness of how one measures cut quality that it is far safer to select a diamond with a table size in the mid 50''s than 60% and above.
This is supported by GIA and AGS''s work as shown here http://www.octonus.ru/oct/mss/gia-agspgs.phtml

If you look at the number of best cuts in the center of these charts that provides evidence david from 2 sources. The same can be seen from the first such published work which is HCA.

Garry,

I don''t have the luxury of running diamcalc simulations for round brilliants but I''d like to see the entire matrix of of idealscope images for 60% table 60% depth simulation over the entire GIA Excellent range.
This would be a good reference and I would happily put it together if I could generate these images myself but my version of DiamCalc is limited to the marquise.

I am also quite interested in seeing what the Table 60% Pavillion 41.8 Crown 30.5 - 31 looks like as it achieves AGS 0 ideal but only GIA very good and Table 60% Pavillion 41.6 Crown 30.5 - 31.5 as well same scenario.
I hope yourself or one of the others would be willing to put in the time to have this as a reference.

I don''t see the 60/60 as some magical special diamond just another set of proportions which can promising but since its mentioned so often(by u know who) I''d like to see the appearances of these in idealscope lighting as compared to the smaller table varieties.

Assume reasonable assumptions for well cut stones (thin or medium girdle) and proprotional crown height.

Give me lower girdle and upper / star % etc and Karl or I can run them with DiamCalcPro

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 1/20/2010 9:34:57 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 1/20/2010 5:43:29 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 1/20/2010 2:34:42 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
It is clear to me that depending on the strictness of how one measures cut quality that it is far safer to select a diamond with a table size in the mid 50''s than 60% and above.
This is supported by GIA and AGS''s work as shown here http://www.octonus.ru/oct/mss/gia-agspgs.phtml

If you look at the number of best cuts in the center of these charts that provides evidence david from 2 sources. The same can be seen from the first such published work which is HCA.

Garry,

I don''t have the luxury of running diamcalc simulations for round brilliants but I''d like to see the entire matrix of of idealscope images for 60% table 60% depth simulation over the entire GIA Excellent range.
This would be a good reference and I would happily put it together if I could generate these images myself but my version of DiamCalc is limited to the marquise.

I am also quite interested in seeing what the Table 60% Pavillion 41.8 Crown 30.5 - 31 looks like as it achieves AGS 0 ideal but only GIA very good and Table 60% Pavillion 41.6 Crown 30.5 - 31.5 as well same scenario.
I hope yourself or one of the others would be willing to put in the time to have this as a reference.

I don''t see the 60/60 as some magical special diamond just another set of proportions which can promising but since its mentioned so often(by u know who) I''d like to see the appearances of these in idealscope lighting as compared to the smaller table varieties.

Assume reasonable assumptions for well cut stones (thin or medium girdle) and proprotional crown height.

Give me lower girdle and upper / star % etc and Karl or I can run them with DiamCalcPro

3% girdle bezel
55% Star
80% lower girdle
I would assume those sit in the most common range if not please adjust.

 

[Rockdiamond]

This photo gives some idea about what we're discussing regarding the slightly larger table.
The stone on the left is .52ct AGS0 56.3% table
The stone on the right has a GIA report prior to 2006 ( no cut grade) but would likely get "VG" cut grade. It has a 60% table. it's .54ct

What I prefer is the less organized facet pattern- you can't see any hearts or arrows. The stone on the left also looks larger than it's .02ct actual difference. In many cases, a slightly larger table on a well cut round makes it look bigger ( but not all)
Both stones are graded "E" color, yet the stone on the left looks brighter to me.

It's not a "perfect" picture, but it gets the point across.


Thankfully, the sort of preference cutters are giving toward smaller tables in rounds is not prevalent in fancy shapes.
Infinity cuts some amazing princess cuts with smaller tables- but the market is still thick with larger tabled princess cuts.

If we compare this to literature, or writing: The speed of information transfer has caused writers to have to produce work that can instantly grab the reader.
New stories are generally reduced to sound bites to grab readers attention.
The internet has so much influence on things like this.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/20/2010 10:45:03 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 1/20/2010 9:34:57 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 1/20/2010 5:43:29 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 1/20/2010 2:34:42 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
It is clear to me that depending on the strictness of how one measures cut quality that it is far safer to select a diamond with a table size in the mid 50''s than 60% and above.
This is supported by GIA and AGS''s work as shown here http://www.octonus.ru/oct/mss/gia-agspgs.phtml

If you look at the number of best cuts in the center of these charts that provides evidence david from 2 sources. The same can be seen from the first such published work which is HCA.

Garry,

I don''t have the luxury of running diamcalc simulations for round brilliants but I''d like to see the entire matrix of of idealscope images for 60% table 60% depth simulation over the entire GIA Excellent range.
This would be a good reference and I would happily put it together if I could generate these images myself but my version of DiamCalc is limited to the marquise.

I am also quite interested in seeing what the Table 60% Pavillion 41.8 Crown 30.5 - 31 looks like as it achieves AGS 0 ideal but only GIA very good and Table 60% Pavillion 41.6 Crown 30.5 - 31.5 as well same scenario.
I hope yourself or one of the others would be willing to put in the time to have this as a reference.

I don''t see the 60/60 as some magical special diamond just another set of proportions which can promising but since its mentioned so often(by u know who) I''d like to see the appearances of these in idealscope lighting as compared to the smaller table varieties.

Assume reasonable assumptions for well cut stones (thin or medium girdle) and proprotional crown height.

Give me lower girdle and upper / star % etc and Karl or I can run them with DiamCalcPro

3% girdle bezel
55% Star
80% lower girdle
I would assume those sit in the most common range if not please adjust.

Dear CCL,
I have decided that since this thread has run off course back to an old time wasting arguement. I feel it is inappropriate to post here about 60/60 diamonds since this is clearly old technology and nothing to do with the topic which incase anyone forgot is:

Is the internet, and cut grading the enemy of creativity in cutting?

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 1/21/2010 6:05:29 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
This photo gives some idea about what we're discussing regarding the slightly larger table.
The stone on the left is .52ct AGS0 56.3% table
The stone on the right has a GIA report prior to 2006 ( no cut grade) but would likely get 'VG' cut grade. It has a 60% table. it's .54ct

What I prefer is the less organized facet pattern- you can't see any hearts or arrows. The stone on the left also looks larger than it's .02ct actual difference. In many cases, a slightly larger table on a well cut round makes it look bigger ( but not all)
Both stones are graded 'E' color, yet the stone on the left looks brighter to me.

It's not a 'perfect' picture, but it gets the point across.


Thankfully, the sort of preference cutters are giving toward smaller tables in rounds is not prevalent in fancy shapes.
Infinity cuts some amazing princess cuts with smaller tables- but the market is still thick with larger tabled princess cuts.

If we compare this to literature, or writing: The speed of information transfer has caused writers to have to produce work that can instantly grab the reader.
New stories are generally reduced to sound bites to grab readers attention.
The internet has so much influence on things like this.

First of all you have confused left from right you said the left was 0.52 and right was 0.54 and then you say one line below the one on the left with smaller table and weight looks larger.

Then lets go on:

1) The stones are photographed on a slant and the one on the right looks larger as it is is closer to the camera.
2) In real life you would be hard pressed to notice a significant difference between 0.52 and 0.54 except with different tables and depths. Why don't you post the actual dimensions of the stones instead of drawing silly conclusions from a greatly magnified photograph.
3) Stop confusing optical symmetry with light performance or table and depth %, you simply cannot do that. We see the arrows more pronounced in the one on the right as it is closer to the camera and there is less glare off the table. Otherwise drawing a conclusion like that is rediculous. The AGS0 stone could have wonky symmetry or both could and have you haven't proven or disproven that from the photograph.

You still aren't getting that you have to consider ALL parameters when comparing diamonds not just table %.

well ramble on Sir.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 1/21/2010 6:27:24 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 1/20/2010 10:45:03 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 1/20/2010 9:34:57 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 1/20/2010 5:43:29 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 1/20/2010 2:34:42 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
It is clear to me that depending on the strictness of how one measures cut quality that it is far safer to select a diamond with a table size in the mid 50's than 60% and above.
This is supported by GIA and AGS's work as shown here http://www.octonus.ru/oct/mss/gia-agspgs.phtml

If you look at the number of best cuts in the center of these charts that provides evidence david from 2 sources. The same can be seen from the first such published work which is HCA.

Garry,

I don't have the luxury of running diamcalc simulations for round brilliants but I'd like to see the entire matrix of of idealscope images for 60% table 60% depth simulation over the entire GIA Excellent range.
This would be a good reference and I would happily put it together if I could generate these images myself but my version of DiamCalc is limited to the marquise.

I am also quite interested in seeing what the Table 60% Pavillion 41.8 Crown 30.5 - 31 looks like as it achieves AGS 0 ideal but only GIA very good and Table 60% Pavillion 41.6 Crown 30.5 - 31.5 as well same scenario.
I hope yourself or one of the others would be willing to put in the time to have this as a reference.

I don't see the 60/60 as some magical special diamond just another set of proportions which can promising but since its mentioned so often(by u know who) I'd like to see the appearances of these in idealscope lighting as compared to the smaller table varieties.

Assume reasonable assumptions for well cut stones (thin or medium girdle) and proprotional crown height.

Give me lower girdle and upper / star % etc and Karl or I can run them with DiamCalcPro

3% girdle bezel
55% Star
80% lower girdle
I would assume those sit in the most common range if not please adjust.

Dear CCL,
I have decided that since this thread has run off course back to an old time wasting arguement. I feel it is inappropriate to post here about 60/60 diamonds since this is clearly old technology and nothing to do with the topic which incase anyone forgot is:

Is the internet, and cut grading the enemy of creativity in cutting?

Please feel free to post the images on your site, serg's site or any other PS thread you desire.
I did feel it was worth something to point out what good 60/60 diamonds could look like and the light performance within the GIA EX and AGS0 ranges but I'd he happy to use it as a reference in future.

Much Appreciated,
CCl

 

[risingsun]

^^^I believe that these are the same diamonds that were posted several 60/60 threads ago and discussed in detail. You may find it interesting

 

[Rockdiamond]

I'm happy to discuss the particulars of 60%- but that's really not what the thread is about.
You may love 60/60, you may hate 60/60- but in either case you will have a harder time finding one.

I am saying that the internet- specifically the way information flows on it- is why you won't find many anymore.
As both GIA and AGSL have 60% tables in their top cut grade, I don't believe there's much debate that a 60/60 can be just as well cut as an "ideal cut" 57% table diamond

An error regarding the two stones was pointed out.
The stone on the left is the 60% tabled diamond. The stone on the right the AGS graded stone.
I find it very difficult to get a good close up on two diamonds at the same time.
One might be at an angle to the lens, as in the photo on my finger. This is a composite- I took a photo of each diamond in a black foam box under a bright white light. I don't have the diamonds so I can't take better photos.
The AGS stone ( on the right) had a 56.3% table, 60.5% depth. The stone on the left is .54ct 61% depth/60% table.
I don't have all the CA/PA info readily at hand, although I could probably find it as Marian pointed out- I did have these two stones sent for independent ASET IS images in a prior discussion.
I believe that this photo gets the point across.
I can see the different table sizes, and facet alignment ( or lack thereof) easily.

Many people will see these differences and prefer one or the other.
How many will prefer each?

The internet makes it possible to show advantages to the stone on the right.
Technically, the diamond on the right has a superior cut compared to the stone on the left.
Still, some people would prefer the stone on the left.
It would not be accurate to say it's badly cut.
Some will prefer it.
Yet the cutting style trend veers toward the stone on the right.

The comparison to literature and the written word is valid.
How many newspapers will exist in ten years time - due to the internet.

I love the internet, and I would never want to go back to the ways of the past.
I had hoped that discussing how diamonds, and other things that may somehow be related have been affected by the internet would be interesting.

 

[purrfectpear]

Are you saying if someone "prefers" a certain diamond that it''s automatically good? That sounds a lot like the business model for Zales. Thousands of their consumers couldn''t possibly wrong.

 

[Rockdiamond]

No, I''m not using a "lowest common denominator" benchmark.
I''m saying show the stone to shoppers who are very interested in good cut, and let them decide based on the appearance of the stones set and mounted in rings in all different types of lighting.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 1/21/2010 11:24:33 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
No, I''m not using a ''lowest common denominator'' benchmark.
I''m saying show the stone to shoppers who are very interested in good cut, and let them decide based on the appearance of the stones set and mounted in rings in all different types of lighting.

RD you hijacked your own thread to go off topic this is the last time I will indulge you.

One part of learning to educate someone is properly listening to their replies and showing that you understand by paraphrasing properly their responses.
You have an extremely underveloped ability to recognize and acknowledge in full detail what many people tell you on here. You either have a really short memory or are just not grasping the simple concepts.

I beleive you brought up this 60/60 business earlier this year and it was brought up in 2006 and many times in between.

I find it hard to beleive you haven''t understood yet that no tradesperson is saying all 60t/60d are bad or inferior to table 56% diamonds.

Garry posted the AGS Gold/ PGS/ and GIA grading tables in this thread, spend two minutes reading the AGS and GIA charts there are whole ranges of proportions for 60/60 that are perfectly fine and would get AGS0 and GIA Excellent grades. In fact if any new thread came up on a 60/60 diamond the first thing that would be done would be to put the crown and pavillion into HCA which would give us a good indication of if the diamond was likely to have leakage and whether it could receieve an AGS0 grade or not.

You talk as if the level of knowledge here hasn''t progressed past the retail jewelers of 2006, but really you are the only person who hasn''t progressed past this point. Learn the charts study them they just might help you in purchasing diamonds and save you from having to look at every diamond in the old fashioned way you did before.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 1/21/2010 8:42:11 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
I'm happy to discuss the particulars of 60%- but that's really not what the thread is about.
You may love 60/60, you may hate 60/60- but in either case you will have a harder time finding one.

I am saying that the internet- specifically the way information flows on it- is why you won't find many anymore.
As both GIA and AGSL have 60% tables in their top cut grade, I don't believe there's much debate that a 60/60 can be just as well cut as an 'ideal cut' 57% table diamond

An error regarding the two stones was pointed out.
The stone on the left is the 60% tabled diamond. The stone on the right the AGS graded stone.
I find it very difficult to get a good close up on two diamonds at the same time.
One might be at an angle to the lens, as in the photo on my finger. This is a composite- I took a photo of each diamond in a black foam box under a bright white light. I don't have the diamonds so I can't take better photos.
The AGS stone ( on the right) had a 56.3% table, 60.5% depth. The stone on the left is .54ct 61% depth/60% table.
I don't have all the CA/PA info readily at hand, although I could probably find it as Marian pointed out- I did have these two stones sent for independent ASET IS images in a prior discussion.
I believe that this photo gets the point across.
I can see the different table sizes, and facet alignment ( or lack thereof) easily.

Many people will see these differences and prefer one or the other.
How many will prefer each?

The internet makes it possible to show advantages to the stone on the right.
Technically, the diamond on the right has a superior cut compared to the stone on the left.
Still, some people would prefer the stone on the left.
It would not be accurate to say it's badly cut.
Some will prefer it.
Yet the cutting style trend veers toward the stone on the right.

The comparison to literature and the written word is valid.
How many newspapers will exist in ten years time - due to the internet.

I love the internet, and I would never want to go back to the ways of the past.
I had hoped that discussing how diamonds, and other things that may somehow be related have been affected by the internet would be interesting.

RD,

There are three things that jump out at me about the new comparison picture you posted.

1. The stone on the left has much longer Lower Girdle Facets(LGF) and long thin splintery arrows. I barely notice the differences in the table they are secondary to how long and thin those arrows are. I also don't see the random disorder or lack of symmetry you claim to like in this stone.
2. The stone on the right has much shorter LGF giving us those thick arrows. In addition it either has bad symmetry or the stone was tilted when you took the photograph. I suspect it was tilted when you took the photograph. Look at the difference in legth of the arrows between the top half and bottom half of the diamond and how unsymmetrical the table looks thats gotta be tilt.
3. There is so much back lighting of these diamonds I can't see contrast beyond the table and have no idea what is going on with outer crown and pavillion facets.

Either way you have not been able to isolate the proper variables of just changing table and depth and leaving other variable alone and thus once again are not proving any point and not giving anyone a proper illustration to choose a 60/60 versus an smaller table AGS0. Even if you did choose a better comparison of two diamonds you must provide 3 or 4 photographs in different lighting conditions to allow for an informed opinion.

 

[Kaleigh]

You can shoot me for this, but I think you guys need a separate forum. One where vendors and prosumers can talk to their hearts content.
BUT to me, RT is all about consumers asking questions and seeking help and love that we have industry experts that give their time to answer their questions as well as many prosumers.

But threads like this, take away from people who need their questions answered...

Don't shoot me, just a thought...

Maybe have a vendor talk?? You guys can hash things out??

I give of my time here as anyone does, always with the best of intentions. If I get slammed for my thoughts, well there ya have it.

 

[risingsun]

Date: 1/22/2010 12:32:12 AM
Author: Kaleigh
You can shoot me for this, but I think you guys need a separate forum. One where vendors and prosumers can talk to their hearts content.
BUT to me, RT is all about consumers asking questions and seeking help and love that we have industry experts that give their time to answer their questions as well as many prosumers.

But threads like this, take away from people who need their questions answered...

Don't shoot me, just a thought...

Maybe have a vendor talk?? You guys can hash things out??

I give of my time here as anyone does, always with the best of intentions. If I get slammed for my thoughts, well there ya have it.

ITA with you Kaleigh. I dip my toe into these threads because I want to present a consumer's POV. I have also stated that the material presented can be confusing to people who are seeking advice about finding a diamond. RT wasn't "broken" before and these types of threads, in my view, serve to encourage debate and, too often, discord. I agree that a separate forum would be useful for the vendors and those who wish to enter the fray with full knowledge of the nature of the discussion. Before I get taken to task about the positives of debate, I don't think it belongs in a forum where we help others choose diamonds. We need quantifiable guidelines, language, and standards. I believe that these things do exist. We listen to what the consumer is seeking and try to point them in the right direction. If a consumer wants an antique cushion, for example, I wouldn't refer them to a specialist in AGS 0 RB. That's not what we do. We sincerely try to help and it would be great to be respected for what we do.

 

[Rockdiamond]

RT is not "broken". Threads like this one prove PS''s willingness to be a more open place as the advice frequently given is extremely one sided.

The internet is well suited for the type of advice commonly given- however it also shoehorns everyone into that same advice- to the detriment of some.
There is no better place to have this sort of discussion.
Rather than go on every thread where people are advised to stay under 59% on a table, it makes good sense to have a more general conversation.

Seeing the reaction of consumers who are upset because advice they received is challenged is interesting in and of itself. Yes, it would be more pleasant if it was not condescending and insulting, but I can take being insulted by the ones who seem to enjoy insulting others.
The vehemence of the reaction shows how effective the internet for presenting a case for using high tech means to judge the cut of diamonds.
Please don''t take it as an insult that there are different points of view on the way to judge the cut of a diamond.

Clearly people have gotten value from this- and other discussions like it.

 

[Ella]

I would like to gently remind everyone that the topic of this thread is:

Is the internet, and cut grading the enemy of creativity in cutting?

Please keep it on topic. If anyone has an issue with a particular post please use the REPORT CONCERN button.

Thank you!

 

[oldminer]

I think it is useful for consumers to have access to both techno-modern all the way to stone age traditionalist''s points of view on Pricescope. The vast majority of consumers who learn here still go to B&M stores where they may find a caveman behind the counter all the way to a techno diamond geek guy behind the counter. They will be able to identify their salesperson and will have far better knowledge of how to interact with that salesperson regardless of their technology level. Surely, this conversation is over the head of some who might visit the thread, and it may be of little interest to others who have wandered in for a look, but all they need do is clck the back arrow and go to a different topic. No one is forced to read this unless they find it enlightening, entertaining, strangely uncomfortable, or some other thing which grabs their jaded interests.

Now, I am NOT saying RockDiamond is a caveman or from the stone age....PLEASE. I am sure he is way better equipped than many retailers who have never participated here. Even if he does not love what he has found here, even as he disagrees with some of it, he has learned a lot more about the opposing points of view and the technological methods now entering the diamond business than many of his contemporaries. An open discussion of the differences in old and new ways of conducting business and grading diamonds is a healthy thing when tempers are kept in check and we don''t resort to unprofessional comments.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 1/22/2010 10:45:32 AM
Author: risingsun

Date: 1/22/2010 12:32:12 AM
Author: Kaleigh
You can shoot me for this, but I think you guys need a separate forum. One where vendors and prosumers can talk to their hearts content.
BUT to me, RT is all about consumers asking questions and seeking help and love that we have industry experts that give their time to answer their questions as well as many prosumers.

But threads like this, take away from people who need their questions answered...

Don''t shoot me, just a thought...

Maybe have a vendor talk?? You guys can hash things out??

I give of my time here as anyone does, always with the best of intentions. If I get slammed for my thoughts, well there ya have it.

ITA with you Kaleigh. I dip my toe into these threads because I want to present a consumer''s POV. I have also stated that the material presented can be confusing to people who are seeking advice about finding a diamond. RT wasn''t ''broken'' before and these types of threads, in my view, serve to encourage debate and, too often, discord. I agree that a separate forum would be useful for the vendors and those who wish to enter the fray with full knowledge of the nature of the discussion. Before I get taken to task about the positives of debate, I don''t think it belongs in a forum where we help others choose diamonds. We need quantifiable guidelines, language, and standards. I believe that these things do exist. We listen to what the consumer is seeking and try to point them in the right direction. If a consumer wants an antique cushion, for example, I wouldn''t refer them to a specialist in AGS 0 RB. That''s not what we do. We sincerely try to help and it would be great to be respected for what we do.

Yes I agree with you 100%. There is nothing broken with the methodology used in RockyTalky for evaluating RB. If we encoutered a 60/60 modern RB diamond the evaluation would be the same. Enter all data into HCA, request Idealscope images, check symmetry and leakage on Idealscope and then make comments based on this. For any modern round brilliant diamond this is a solid methodology and no changes are necessary. The advice part of this thread for the consumer is highly unlikely to change and certainly won''t become the "trust me" scenario or a lowering of the standard for symmetry or leakage RD is advocating constantly.

Along the same lines this methodology doesn''t stifly creativity, in addition greater consumer education and internet sales, and the more widespread use of reflector technologies and technical numberical evaluation of diamonds also does not hurt creativity. RD attempts to call a lower tolerance for cut and acceptance of inferior light return and symmetry to be encouraging creativity. There is nothing creative about diamonds cut for weight retention and not for light performance but this thread is his way of trying to blur the lines between "creative" cut and diamonds that are less than optimally cut for wieght retention reasons.

If we were knocking down an OEC or an Antique OMC or a branded cut because they didn''t have the light performance of an HA round that might be a reason to make this argument but as it stands the PS communicty is too well educated to make such a simple minded claim.

I would be thrilled when the day comes and threads like these are moved to another forum, I do actually learn when the other tradespeople make proper technical presentations that debunk RDs theories but for an average consumer I agree these are contrary to education and are just confusing.

I encourage you to make a post in the suggestion forum for an Technical debate or Tradesperson Debate, where if threads like these start in RT they can quickly be moved over if they are deemed to be of little educational value to novice consumers.