Language to describe fancy cuts with High Brilliancy, Fire , Scintillation

[Texas Leaguer]

Serg,
Believe me, I share your view about the importance of great communication and messaging around the beauty and visual performance of diamonds. If your theory is correct that manufacturers need more direct communication with consumers, the good news is that it's certainly happening as suppliers throughout the chain evolve to be more 'vertical' with direct to consumer websites, etc.

But what is the vehicle for unified messaging? In other words, how do you see your vision of better understanding of consumer preferences and communication of different levels of performance and tastes being implemented? Would the manufacturers get together and create an effective marketing plan? Is that in their nature and within their core competencies?

Doesn't it all have to start from some generally accepted rating system? Otherwise, like David and Garry suggest, it will just be the same big jumble of different merchants doing their best to 'romance the stone' in their own way.

How do you see the industry singing like a chorus in harmony rather than sounding like an orchestra tuning up before a performance?

 

[VinniePooh]

Perhaps 'Timbre'? It describes the character of a sound and goes well with 'warm' etc. From Wiki: "The physical characteristics of sound that determine the perception of timbre include spectrum and envelope". So why not use it to describe diamonds? BTW., spectrum and envelope are two more great words/measures...

Just two cents from a first-time-diamond-buyer

 

[Rockdiamond]

I think one of the largest issues facing any independent merchant is standardization- or turning diamonds into a commodity. They are most certainly NOT- if you own them.
Of course, the largest companies don't own diamonds- so to them, diamonds are merely a commodity. They could just as easily be selling paddles to go down the Nile River

I think it's essential for companies to maintain identity. Surely Bryan and I might find different aspects most attractive in stones- and might indeed pick different stones to suggest to a client.
The industry needs that.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I think one of the largest issues facing any independent merchant is standardization- or turning diamonds into a commodity. They are most certainly NOT- if you own them.
Of course, the largest companies don't own diamonds- so to them, diamonds are merely a commodity. They could just as easily be selling paddles to go down the Nile River

I think it's essential for companies to maintain identity. Surely Bryan and I might find different aspects most attractive in stones- and might indeed pick different stones to suggest to a client.
The industry needs that.

I don't think there is a danger of turning fancy cut natural diamonds into a commodity. The material is too precious and cutters will always be creative making no two stones exactly alike. On the other hand, there is every reason to believe that MMD will eventually become cookie cutter.

I think Serg is arguing the need to have more powerful messaging/marketing around the optics of fancy cuts, allowing consumers to better understand and appreciate what it is that makes them beautiful and special, and to better refine and differentiate their tastes.

Garry uses wine descriptions/ratings in talking about this. There are different elements that consumers can gain an understanding and appreciation of - the type of grape, the location, climate, soil, the year, etc and they can learn how that translates to a taste that they find pleasing. Gaining that appreciation, they are more likely to collect wines with those characteristics. It gives them a frame of reference that makes them more confident in parting with their disposable dollars.

I agree with Serg that is the kind of lexicon we need to develop to educate consumers about fancy cut diamonds. Is it possible to bring that about, top down, from manufacturers and/or labs? Can we count on that happening organically over time organically from merchant up? If that takes too long, what is the opportunity cost? Can the diamond industry afford to sit back and let it happen at its own pace?

The wine industry seems to be booming from what I can tell. How were they able to do that with so many different small merchants providing such a plethora of choices to the consumer? Seems like a good model to study.

 

[blueMA]

Lively? Full of life?

I've heard several people describe my diamond as "Lively" so I assumed it was a usual industry term. "Vigorous" diamond sound funny.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Serg,
Another idea. We all agree that cutting has improved over the last few years. That improvement revolves around technology and the science that you and other researchers have developed and made available to manufacturers.

It seems those improvements could be deconstructed or 'reverse-engineered' to be able to accurately reward certain proportion sets , facet arrangements, and levels of precision. This would give valid structure to a basis for ratings that would be dependable and repeatable.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I've heard several people describe my diamond as "Lively" so I assumed it was a usual industry term. "Vigorous" diamond sound funny.

Yes, it is very common in the trade to talk about the "life" in a diamond. And I'm with you - "vigorous" should be reserved for talking about things like workouts and healthy grape vines.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Maybe there could be more universally accepted terms that are more descriptive.
Unfortunately, we've gone in, what I consider, a negative direction using terms like "Ideal" and "Leakage"
One makes it sound like it's at a pinnacle- meaning every else is "less than ideal"
The other is an essential element in many fancy shaped diamond cuts. But who wants a "leaky diamond".
So, the terms are currently being used to promote one specific sort of stone. At the expense of other, different, yet equally appealing sorts of light performance.

Related- did you guys know AGSL has introduced a new color grading system for brown diamonds? They are using different descriptors than GIA- maybe this could be a model for a new way to assess light performance

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Maybe there could be more universally accepted terms that are more descriptive.
Unfortunately, we've gone in, what I consider, a negative direction using terms like "Ideal" and "Leakage"
One makes it sound like it's at a pinnacle- meaning every else is "less than ideal"
The other is an essential element in many fancy shaped diamond cuts. But who wants a "leaky diamond".
So, the terms are currently being used to promote one specific sort of stone. At the expense of other, different, yet equally appealing sorts of light performance.

Related- did you guys know AGSL has introduced a new color grading system for brown diamonds? They are using different descriptors than GIA- maybe this could be a model for a new way to assess light performance

Agree. It will be interesting to follow their rollout. I knew you would be interested!

It could definitely be something to learn from in terms of a general approach to describing and communicating different aspects of visual appeal in fancy cuts.

 

[OoohShiny]

I think the wine comparison is interesting, as that is certainly an industry that seems to be strong and has a range of 'flavours' for consumers to pick from, but then the unit cost is so low ($5 special offer wines etc.) that trial-and-error purchasing is generally accepted as part of the game, and it is through this trial and error that people learn their preferences. If you buy a $20 bottle of wine and it's a bit like paintstripper you may well just glug it back if you're just warming up for a night out with the girls/lads, or put the top back on/in and throw it into a coq-au-vin or spaghetti bolognese one evening next week.

Diamonds are (sadly!) not a low-unit-cost product, so it is much more difficult for consumers to experience different 'flavours' and work out what they might like. How often have any of us looked in the window of big chain jewellers or local mom-and-pop stores and seen only a collection of (poorly cut) MRBs? Even in Hatton Garden, I have seen very few good quality diiamonds in the windows, and even fewer that were step-cuts and fancy shapes. I have been several times now for window-shopping (and with the potential to purchase) and I think I've seen one good EC, for example.

How are consumers to have any idea what choices are out there? How do people even know what options exist (and therefore what they might like, in terms of shape and the 4Cs, nevermind light performance) if they have not seen the full range of options that are available? How are they to understand what is a good performer and what is overpriced 'frozen spit' when it takes time to learn what 'flavour' one likes and an understanding of what excellent light performance looks like? (Especially when it is in Jewellers' interest to keep their clients uneducated and therefore willing to buy any old crap because it looks half-decent in the carefully chosen shop lighting systems that make everything look good.) I consider myself reasonably well-educated after my time on PS, but do I feel able to walk into a jewellers and start confidently critiqueing diamonds I'm offered, and then choose 'the best performer' using my eyes alone? Certainly not!!

I think (face-to-face) consumer-to-cutter conversations will be important in understanding what consumers like - but although I may be grossly underestimating the public here, I think it likely that a lot of feedback will be probably be "I like the sparkly ones " unless time is spent to talk them through and show them a full range of options. If GIA are already undertaking similar work, á la Tolk's work on MRB, that seems good to me - they would seem best placed to have the resource and capacity available to carry out such a massive undertaking and achieve a 'statistically valid' sample set. Individual cutters would seem to have nowhere near that capacity, so perhaps the only way to get in on those conversations is to seek to work with the grading labs? I do take the point that standardisation towards Ideal Cut MRBs can reduce variety, but is that perhaps more a limitation of the number of criteria assessed? If we are seeking to demonstrate the variety available in terms of scintillation / fire / brilliance, would a grading system that measures these things (and then doesn't particularly prioritise one over the other or penalise stones that favour one over the others) assist in illustrating to consumers the options available?

 

[Texas Leaguer]

@OoohShiny I agree that conversations with regular consumers will not yield detailed insights, simply because consumers do not have enough experience to know how to communicate the nuances of what they like. I know a good wine when I taste it, and I know what I don't like, but if you asked me to describe it you would not be getting a 'notes of black currants and licorish" kind of response.

What makes more sense is a survey of which do you like better A,B or C type survey. If you poll enough proportion sets and facet arrangements you should be able to determine at least broad preferences. GIA is actively involved in such surveys on fancies in combination with developing the science, but there is no telling when they might be ready to roll out a system. You can image that the number of shapes and proportion sets and the time it takes to do real world surveys is daunting. However, I have learned that they are already sharing insights with manufactures as they develop actionable data.

The idea of high level collaborations between the labs and other research entities such as Sergey's team would be the ideal way forward in my opinion. And there is probably a certain amount of that going on. But there is probably more turf protection being practiced than would be optimal for rapid advancement. I don't know how you get around that.

 

[OoohShiny]

@OoohShiny I agree that conversations with regular consumers will not yield detailed insights, simply because consumers do not have enough experience to know how to communicate the nuances of what they like. I know a good wine when I taste it, and I know what I don't like, but if you asked me to describe it you would not be getting a 'notes of black currants and licorish" kind of response.

Same here lol

What makes more sense is a survey of which do you like better A,B or C type survey. If you poll enough proportion sets and facet arrangements you should be able to determine at least broad preferences.

If I am reading it right, I think Serg and Rockdiamond are concerned that things might end up with another set of 'preferred' measurements/angles/proportions, which might lead to standardisation of fancies in the same way that MRBs are tending towards GIAXXX and, increasingly, AGS000 - how would a grading system reflect a range of 'flavours' without penalising one over the other, I think is the question?

Unless you just operate as Yoram does with some of his cuts and cut 'old skool', without any technology to measure light return etc, going on beauty alone (but surely with knowledge gained from technology?!)

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

You usually suggest to your consumers the smart choice , smart combination color and clarity( if I remember correctly you advice VS-SI1 and G-H). VS-SI D-H and D-F in +2ct and most fancies
but you can not give similar advice neither for Fire-Brilliancy pair, nor for Symmetry-Spread pair.
right? you have not technical ability neither select such diamonds nor communicate with your customers about the difference between Fire, Brilliancy, Symmetry, Spread and specially about smart choice for all these diamond cut phenomenas .
Actually, because my business (2 stores in upmarket inner suburban areas of a 5Mill city) is largely word of mouth, people who like diamonds tend to know others with diamonds and the diamonds are my word of mouth. They speak for me.
My situation is not average, but there are many excellent B&M vendors around the world that still exist. When i learned about PS in 1999 I contacted Leonid, the founder, because I believed my business model would die within 5 years.
These days my main roll is to buy most of the diamonds, train select vendors sales reps to look as I do so they can eyeball for milky etc. But MOSTLY train my 8 salespeople to communicate differences in diamonds. Not all my stones are H&A's - there are differences. The differences do get seen and communicated.
Do we have a language? Not really. Can we discuss differences in diamonds? YES.

Even 4C is too complex for most consumers, if we add grading for many other phenomenas without new language it will block any intelligible communication with consumer and you will sell only 3Ex True, But you helped GIA build the XXX behmouth with Helium Smart Recut Sergey (and Janak)


There is not big progress for colorless diamonds in last 10 years, because diamond market stuck with H&A RBC.



Powerful language between trade and consumers is very important. I wish I could describe what my best salespeople say and do. They are better than me because I am too nerdy dry and analytic. John Pollard - where are you? You do this stuff every day. And it is important that such language come to market before cut grading system than after cut grading system .

 

[Miki Moto]

Great thread. Here are my thoughts as a consumer. I'm not even close to a PS expert, forget about trade expert, so I see things from a consumer point of view.

From my layman's view, the diamond industry needs to first create demand. Forget about the scientific aspects of how great a fancy cut is, you need to first sell the idea of why I want a fancy cut. Most people can't differentiate from brilliance, fire, or scintillation. I am one of them. I just know from marketing I had to buy a super ideal cut diamond as it was the best, so I did. I have a super ideal diamond and also an ideal (not super ideal) diamond. I like the ideal diamond better. It "sparkles" (there's that laymen term) more to me and I don't know why. I am about to upgrade my earrings, so I am debating on ideal or super ideal again. I have asked on PS why I like the ideal ones more. I have even shared the specs of both diamonds on PS and have not gotten a clear answer on why the ideal sparkles more to my eyes... is it the angles of one diamond that create more "brilliance" or the angles of the other that create more "fire"? And what do you lose (brilliance, fire, scintillation) based on those two different stones. No clear answer after hijacking a thread, so I gave up trying to find out why. My point here is that for the majority of consumers, if you cannot get your point across in a 30 second sales pitch and you have to whip out ASETs, HCA tools, photos, fat arrows/skinny arrows, you will lose the average consumer. And the average consumer is your target market, not the few here on PS.

For fancies... it's all about marketing... As a consumer, when I think of fancies, I think of 10 carat pears or 15 carat asschers (my favorite cut). These images are not for the average consumer. A new consumer market needs to be created for fancies... to tell the consumer they need to buy a fancy. People buy diamonds, mostly rounds because DeBeers marketing has told them to. Whether you like DeBeers or not, I think they did a fantastic job creating the diamond industry and demand. Here in the U.S., nearly everyone has a diamond engagement ring, then after we got the solitaire, we were told the three-stone-ring is the piece to buy, then it was the right-hand diamond ring, then came the eternity ring. All brilliant ideas as these were real jewelry pieces, not just "you need a diamond", but "you need a three-stone ring". All these jewelry pieces have existed for years, but it took marketing to create the awareness and then desire for consumers.

On the market for fancies...I think there are two markets... Millenials... who want something unique, they do not want what everyone has. Then you have consumers like myself with an existing diamond collection of rounds. So... how do you market fancies to millennials and existing diamond owners... create the image of the "Unique One Of A Kind Fancy". There is no standard today for fancies. Therefore, by definition, every fancy is unique, no two are alike. For millenials, take advantage of this... "Give her a ring a unique as her"... how cheesy, but you get the idea. Millennials love uniqueness.

Then there's the consumer like me who would be glad to have a new diamond piece of jewelry. I've got the ring, the earrings, the tennis bracelet... all rounds. I've upgraded all those pieces... I'm out of ideas on what other diamond pieces to buy and one can't upgrade forever. A new jewelry piece needs to be created... Hmm... maybe something like a 5-station diamond bracelet with different fancies? Something like the Van Cleef Arpel Albhambra bracelet which is basically a 5-station clover bracelet with different semi-precious stones, yet it is iconic. Or the multi-station Tiffany Diamonds By The Yard bracelet. Perhaps a 5-station unique one of a kind fancy diamond bracelet, with each station representing a different cut: heart, pear, emerald, oval, marquise. The idea here is to start small... the consumer wears the bracelet and stares at each unique shape... she falls in love with the emerald, looking into its step-cut is like looking into eternity... then she wants more emeralds. Or someone may fall in love with the heart, the husband then buys a heart-shaped diamond pendant, you get the idea.

This is just my two cents... move away from the math and angles and the science of a diamond. You won't win on math as this will commoditize the stone because everyone will just buy based on a cheat sheet of math and angles. A diamond is an emotional purchase. Create a new jewelry piece, create a new market, then it will create demand for the unique one of a kind fancies.

I would like to see the diamond industry would join together to create demand and wins hearts again. Half of purchasing a diamond is the emotional joy and feeling that you have something special... and now unique and one of a kind cut diamond.

Hope this helps.

 

[Serg]

Serg,
Believe me, I share your view about the importance of great communication and messaging around the beauty and visual performance of diamonds. If your theory is correct that manufacturers need more direct communication with consumers, the good news is that it's certainly happening as suppliers throughout the chain evolve to be more 'vertical' with direct to consumer websites, etc.

But what is the vehicle for unified messaging? In other words, how do you see your vision of better understanding of consumer preferences and communication of different levels of performance and tastes being implemented? Would the manufacturers get together and create an effective marketing plan? Is that in their nature and within their core competencies?

Doesn't it all have to start from some generally accepted rating system? Otherwise, like David and Garry suggest, it will just be the same big jumble of different merchants doing their best to 'romance the stone' in their own way.

How do you see the industry singing like a chorus in harmony rather than sounding like an orchestra tuning up before a performance?

Bryan,

Wine, Beer, Hotel markets have score systems and description languages for long time.
I sure you remember problems to select hotel before booking.com . Just 5 star rating system , language and communication between hotel management and them clients were not enough to do your selection easy. Right?
Now hotel selection in booking.com, airbnb is very easy, is not it?
combination professional score system with real consumers feedbacks help a lot to do best for you hotel selection in any new place.
There are available 5 star hotel rooms for 100$ and 10.000$ per night in same city .
How will you select 5 star hotel system if you have access only to score systems ? By price? in such case you will try select cheapest 5 star hotel, but then many 4star hotel owners will try receive one more star for them hotels. finally many clients will pay 5star price for 4 star hotels. Same happened with round cut.

But if real consumer feedbacks are available then you could easy select best for you hotel according your budget, goal and Taste.
airbnb is very successful even without score system, and airbnb helped too many people to start host business, that reduced price and increased quality in same time . Finally we received more options for traveling . Consumers spend now much more for journeys . Travel business is growing very fast .

wine and beer sites also are very good samples.

please check https://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/1534/4106/
https://www.ratebeer.com/beer/het-anker-gouden-carolus-classic/4637/
https://www.wine-searcher.com/find/...ocg+brunello+montalcino+tuscany+italy/2010#t2

you will find combination of professional score system with consumer rating and very interesting consumer reviews as




consumers need great confidence to spend 5.000$+ for 6mm object. Neither professional score system nor communication inside "vertical holdings" create great consumer confidence.
Diamond industry need Direct and Open communication with consumers, the results of such communication has to be clear and available for new consumers, same as it been done by booking.com, airbnb, ratebeer.com, etc..
a correct language is 1st step to build such communication

 

[Serg]

Serg,
Another idea. We all agree that cutting has improved over the last few years. That improvement revolves around technology and the science that you and other researchers have developed and made available to manufacturers.

It seems those improvements could be deconstructed or 'reverse-engineered' to be able to accurately reward certain proportion sets , facet arrangements, and levels of precision. This would give valid structure to a basis for ratings that would be dependable and repeatable.

Bryan,

'reverse-engineered' is not necessary. we could score directly Fire, Brilliancy, Brightness, Symmetry

 

[Serg]

True, But you helped GIA build the XXX behmouth with Helium Smart Recut Sergey (and Janak)

What do you mean? GIA 3X has strong demand from retail at least last 5-7 years. HPO Smart Recut for RBC is available just last 2 years, and cutters have just started use it .

3X did not come from cutters, it came from retail

 

[arkieb1]

You probably need two words something like top or impeccable, flawless, immaculate or whatever they might be added to more common words we associate with diamonds like fire, scintillation, cutting.
So top cutting, top fire, impeccable cutting, immaculate cutting, and so on.

And don't forget with young people and social platforms words quickly go in and out of fashion and indeed the meaning of them can change, so if I said that diamond has "dope cutting" or "dope fire" right now that would be good but in a few months not so much....

 

[Serg]

These days my main roll is to buy most of the diamonds, train select vendors sales reps to look as I do so they can eyeball for milky etc. But MOSTLY train my 8 salespeople to communicate differences in diamonds. Not all my stones are H&A's - there are differences. The differences do get seen and communicated.
Do we have a language? Not really. Can we discuss differences in diamonds? YES.

Garry,
Of course your salespeople could communicate with consumers about Clarity, Color, Fluorescence , Milkiness , Symmetry , IS images, Leakage ,..etc.

But what did they do with Cushion4?
How did they describe to consumers Cushion4?
Did you give them any training about Fire and Brilliancy in Highly Optical performance fancy cuts?
You( and most other owners) can not do good training to your salesperson to sell nice Fancy cuts because you have not right language and you have not any score system.
If you have just rejection system you could have successful business for RBC mainly. Rejection systems do not work well for fancy cuts.
GIA cut grading system, AGS cut gradings system and HCA are purely rejection systems.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

The small spread killed it for my people Sergey.
I did sessions comparing with rounds of similar value side by side etc.
But 90% of people walk in wanting RBC, and getting 20% to walk out with a fancy shape or colour is hard work!

 

[Serg]

The small spread killed it for my people Sergey.
I did sessions comparing with rounds of similar value side by side etc.
But 90% of people walk in wanting RBC, and getting 20% to walk out with a fancy shape or colour is hard work!

Garry,
May be you need improve language for communication with consumers about fancy cuts then repeat attempt?
if you use same language that you use to sell RBC then you can not be successful in Fancy cuts sales
Btw. What is typical spread for square cushions without classical round cut pattern ?

 

[VinniePooh]

Bryan,

Wine, Beer, Hotel markets have score systems and description languages for long time.
I sure you remember problems to select hotel before booking.com . Just 5 star rating system , language and communication between hotel management and them clients were not enough to do your selection easy. Right?
Now hotel selection in booking.com, airbnb is very easy, is not it?
combination professional score system with real consumers feedbacks help a lot to do best for you hotel selection in any new place.
There are available 5 star hotel rooms for 100$ and 10.000$ per night in same city .
How will you select 5 star hotel system if you have access only to score systems ? By price? in such case you will try select cheapest 5 star hotel, but then many 4star hotel owners will try receive one more star for them hotels. finally many clients will pay 5star price for 4 star hotels. Same happened with round cut.

But if real consumer feedbacks are available then you could easy select best for you hotel according your budget, goal and Taste.
airbnb is very successful even without score system, and airbnb helped too many people to start host business, that reduced price and increased quality in same time . Finally we received more options for traveling . Consumers spend now much more for journeys . Travel business is growing very fast .

wine and beer sites also are very good samples.

please check https://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/1534/4106/
https://www.ratebeer.com/beer/het-anker-gouden-carolus-classic/4637/
https://www.wine-searcher.com/find/...ocg+brunello+montalcino+tuscany+italy/2010#t2

you will find combination of professional score system with consumer rating and very interesting consumer reviews as




consumers need great confidence to spend 5.000$+ for 6mm object. Neither professional score system nor communication inside "vertical holdings" create great consumer confidence.
Diamond industry need Direct and Open communication with consumers, the results of such communication has to be clear and available for new consumers, same as it been done by booking.com, airbnb, ratebeer.com, etc..
a correct language is 1st step to build such communication

Consumers' scores work reliably only with mass products. One needs a big number of reviews to get a statistically valid result. That could happen with synthetic diamonds/gems if they will be cheap and popular enough to make big sales.
As long as this is not the case, I, as an average consumer do need some other reliable way to make sure I am getting a 'live' stone even if I can't hold it in my hands before I buy it (think online purchase). A lab certificate based on sound physics and math and a high resolution video (under various light conditions and actually filmed by the grading lab) is actually such a way.
As to the language, 'ideal' and 'perfect' doing imho indeed a bad job, as David pointed out. I would think of 'optimal'. For any given stone there is an optimal shape that maximizes its utilization and optimal cut that maximizes its performance.
I would also second what Miki Moto said above about stones vs jewelry. As an average consumer I am not interested in a stone for its own sake, I am looking for a great piece of jewelry. But since in my surroundings everything is boring and overpriced, I am thinking of designing it myself. If I had a modelling software, I would even experiment with my own fancy cut...

 

[OoohShiny]

If I had a modelling software, I would even experiment with my own fancy cut...

Do you mean CAD your own jewellery?

Or design your own cut?

The two are very different!

 

[VinniePooh]

Do you mean CAD your own jewellery?

Or design your own cut?

The two are very different!

Well it's all started with a need to a buy an engagement ring... Shopping around did not help, so my first desire was to design my own ring (though I did see online a few interesting ones) and then I was overwhelmed with all the online information and discussion about the diamonds. Contrary to my expectation, the heart-shaped diamonds are not popular and even cheaper than RBCs per Carat. But unlike a 'quality' of an RBC which is discussed everywhere and showcased with ASET and Idealscope imagery and certified by detailed reports, there is nothing helpful to judge about the quality of heart-shaped diamond. The variability that I've seen so far is so big that a chance to get something great is pretty low. And yes, a leakage, mentioned by David in one of his posts above is a concern since (please correct me if I am wrong) leakage = lost light = dead diamond.

So right now I have to either give up and buy an RBC diamond, or design my own heart-shaped cut. The problem is - for a single engagement ring it doesn't make much sense to buy a modelling software and even if I'll design my own cut - I have no idea where and how to actually make it. Not speaking of a fortune which I would probably have to pay for a 'custom cut' and which I don't have. So the second option is rather very theoretical...


PS
I disagree with Tolkowsky's postulate that "The design of a diamond or of any gem-stone must be symmetrical about an axis, for symmetry and regularity in the disposition of the facets are essential for a pleasing result". Rotational symmetry makes it much easier, but it's not a must. Any convex shape can be cut with Tolkowsky's optical principles in mind and if it is possible to cut and polish facets on a concave surfaces, then even completely irregular shapes can have near zero light leakage.

 

[Blingalingaling]

I think that there is a big difference between what I'll call "the Science of Diamonds" versus "The Style of Diamonds" - what @VinniePooh and @OoohShiny are referring to as "Pieces of Jewelry" and the marketing, thereof. On the one hand, there is the long-standing tradition of getting engaged with a diamond ring, but then there is the ever-changing, very fickle FASHION FACTOR, which cannot be ignored.
I've been around long enough to remember when fancies like pear shapes and marquises were all the rage and no one wanted to get engaged with a "plain" round stone.
The pendulum swings and suddenly everyone wants cushion cuts and rounds. And let's not forget the impact of celebrities popularizing a style - where a celebrity wears a certain stone or style of ring and suddenly it becomes a hot commodity - a pop-culture phenomenon if you will.

So, it's not completely in the control of those who sell diamonds, in terms of what people want to buy.

I suppose having a language that explains what makes a particular fancy-cut stone better quality than another would be beneficial, because the ability to communicate universally is always a positive for standardizing the industry and it's good to be able to explain what makes a stone perform in a certain way. Would you agree that much of what makes a stone sell is emotional; not necessarily something scientific anyway?

I think that the shapes of stones and how popular they are at a given time is largely because of fashion and the current pop-culture in the world in which we are living.

 

[OoohShiny]

Well it's all started with a need to a buy an engagement ring... Shopping around did not help, so my first desire was to design my own ring (though I did see online a few interesting ones) and then I was overwhelmed with all the online information and discussion about the diamonds. Contrary to my expectation, the heart-shaped diamonds are not popular and even cheaper than RBCs per Carat. But unlike a 'quality' of an RBC which is discussed everywhere and showcased with ASET and Idealscope imagery and certified by detailed reports, there is nothing helpful to judge about the quality of heart-shaped diamond. The variability that I've seen so far is so big that a chance to get something great is pretty low. And yes, a leakage, mentioned by David in one of his posts above is a concern since (please correct me if I am wrong) leakage = lost light = dead diamond.

So right now I have to either give up and buy an RBC diamond, or design my own heart-shaped cut. The problem is - for a single engagement ring it doesn't make much sense to buy a modelling software and even if I'll design my own cut - I have no idea where and how to actually make it. Not speaking of a fortune which I would probably have to pay for a 'custom cut' and which I don't have. So the second option is rather very theoretical...


PS
I disagree with Tolkowsky's postulate that "The design of a diamond or of any gem-stone must be symmetrical about an axis, for symmetry and regularity in the disposition of the facets are essential for a pleasing result". Rotational symmetry makes it much easier, but it's not a must. Any convex shape can be cut with Tolkowsky's optical principles in mind and if it is possible to cut and polish facets on a concave surfaces, then even completely irregular shapes can have near zero light leakage.

Interesting post, thank you for replying

The variability and lack of assessment tools that you mention is, I would propose, part of the reason that many people go with MRBs, perhaps even on this forum - the assessment tools available (detailed grading reports, ASET, IS, HCA, etc.) enable one to understand differences and choose according to budget/taste. Likewise, knowing that a MRB is 'Super Ideal' instils confidence in their performance, and reduces stress and doubt in overseas purchasers unable to view such stones in real life before buying.

If I am reading it correctly, Serg is getting at the fact that Fancies (and maybe even MRBs) need a more 'nuanced' assessment (rather than an extension of an empirical grading system), which will enable individuals to understand differences but not be unduly influenced one way or the other. How do we achieve this 'neutral' assessment tool, if the human instinct is built-in to say 'So what is the best, then??'? This assessment tool could even include 'leakage' within it, as (if I understand it correctly) it is not necessarily bad if it forms part of the 'flavour' of the diamond but doesn't impact its performance to a great degree (which might be a change in position for any vendors/purchasers used to current MRB assessment practices).

 

[VinniePooh]

Interesting post, thank you for replying

The variability and lack of assessment tools that you mention is, I would propose, part of the reason that many people go with MRBs, perhaps even on this forum - the assessment tools available (detailed grading reports, ASET, IS, HCA, etc.) enable one to understand differences and choose according to budget/taste. Likewise, knowing that a MRB is 'Super Ideal' instils confidence in their performance, and reduces stress and doubt in overseas purchasers unable to view such stones in real life before buying.

If I am reading it correctly, Serg is getting at the fact that Fancies (and maybe even MRBs) need a more 'nuanced' assessment (rather than an extension of an empirical grading system), which will enable individuals to understand differences but not be unduly influenced one way or the other. How do we achieve this 'neutral' assessment tool, if the human instinct is built-in to say 'So what is the best, then??'? This assessment tool could even include 'leakage' within it, as (if I understand it correctly) it is not necessarily bad if it forms part of the 'flavour' of the diamond but doesn't impact its performance to a great degree (which might be a change in position for any vendors/purchasers used to current MRB assessment practices).

Given the fact that a diamond is just a piece of stone, the desire to possess it stems from a combination of two factors - its 'life' (brilliance + fire + scintillation) and its rarity. I guess its durability too, but as a contributing factor to the first too. The first one makes it suitable and desirable for jewelry, while the second one gives a feeling of something really special. One without the other does not work. A piece of rock from the moon, however rare it may be, will never find its way into an engagement ring for example. A piece of glass, however shiny it may be, is also not the first choice for high-end jewelry.

Now I do understand that there is a difference between the brilliance / fire / scintillation and different cuts can optimize for more of the brilliance or more fire or more scintillation. But leakage is a lost light. And lost light would be neither reflected, nor refracted. A diamond with lot's of leakage is just a lifeless piece of rare clear rock. No style, shape or language will convince me to buy it.

Anyway, after reading Tolkowsky's book, I think the main problem of the fancies is not the lack of language, but Tolkowsky himself:
His postulate that "The design of a diamond or of any gem-stone must be symmetrical about an axis, for symmetry and regularity in the disposition of the facets are essential for a pleasing result".
And his closing sentence: "That some new shape will be evolved which will cause even greater fire and life than the brilliant is, of course, always possible, but it appears very doubtful, and it seems that the brilliant will be supreme for, at any rate, a long time yet."
So until someone can (mathematically) prove that any shape other than round can be as live as a round one - fancies imho will never enjoy the same popularity.

 

[Rockdiamond]

And yes, a leakage, mentioned by David in one of his posts above is a concern since (please correct me if I am wrong) leakage = lost light = dead diamond.

YO VINNIE!!!
WHASSUP??
Since you asked....I do wish to correct you.
Leakage ( a really poor word to describe the phenomenon) is necessarily lost light, nor does it always equal a dead diamond.
Some of the most beautiful Fancy Shaped stones use ( what is incorrectly called) leakage as part of amazing Light Performance.
Charts that purport to decipher which colors are "better" in an ASET totally miss the point. Green can be amazing in a Fancy Shape.

 

[VinniePooh]

YO VINNIE!!!
WHASSUP??
Since you asked....I do wish to correct you.
Leakage ( a really poor word to describe the phenomenon) is necessarily lost light, nor does it always equal a dead diamond.
Some of the most beautiful Fancy Shaped stones use ( what is incorrectly called) leakage as part of amazing Light Performance.
Charts that purport to decipher which colors are "better" in an ASET totally miss the point. Green can be amazing in a Fancy Shape.

Hi David, thanks for your comment. If I understand right, the green in the ASET chart is a light coming from a rather small angle of incidence (measured from the girdle plane) and it is definitely not a leakage. In the various scope charts the leakage appears either as dark or white spots (depending on the scope and the light direction).
I use the term "leakage" in the same sense Tolkowsky uses it in his book and there it is necessarily a lost light and a bad thing... So I am confused now as to how do you interpret this term. And to get rid of my misconceptions I would love to see a diamond of any shape using leakage as a part of amazing light performance. If possible together with a similar stone without a leakage and worse light performance...

 

[OoohShiny]

The way I am currently thinking about it is that leakage, if carefully designed, can operate in the same way as obstruction/contrast - in that it can create darker spots from some angles, which because of the way scintillation and your eyes work, can make flashes of light return from other facets look brighter (if my understanding of Serg's work is correct) while also creating visual interest (which is surely a key factor in diamond attractiveness!)

I may be wrong, and am happy to be corrected!

I think that 'leakage' might be one of the terms that needs to be reconsidered if we are looking to create a new language of assessment that accurately reflects beauty and different 'flavours' of diamonds, rather than just a numbered or word-based grading assessment (á la GIA and AGS current grading systems).