Low LGF%? Need advice on this stone

[pyramid]

I found this link which is against the Ideal Cut now, no wonder Storm says sometimes he gets sick of it, I am starting to feel the same now.

http://www.jewellerywebshop.co.uk/Antwerp_Premium_Ideal_cut_diamonds.htm

same site

http://www.jewellerywebshop.co.uk/idealcut.htm

 

[pyramid]

Thanks Ellen I appreciate what you are saying.

I think the thing influencing me is the fact Whiteflash sell more on this forum of the other type specs and I keep remembering the post Brian Gavin made about Bewarr of new GIA cut grade in which he said they were broadening their parameters and this meant cutting factories would be able to make more profits from the rough. The link in 2004 from that other site I linked above which is maybe just bunkum, but the link is Professional Jewelers who I have read about here and other places before and in it they are saying the same about cutters making more from the rough. Now in a way I see that as a good thing that they are saying there is no ideal cut and they will be able to sell very good cuts better but then at the same time they are saying the Ideal Cut which was before will still be at the top of their grading system. I just feel maybe wrongly that the 34.8/40.8 which Whiteflash is selling is superior to this 34/41. Now I know that these diamonds GOG sell are cut very tightly and I don't know if that is a plus against Whiteflash because we don't see helium reports from them about how tightly they are cut, but they certainly have excellent H&A images.

The diamond looks fine to me once I got used to the smaller table but from the profile is looks deeper in the pavillion and shallower in the crown compared to stones posters have posted of Whiteflash, Alj's earrings the other day for example. I know the face up maybe what matters but when a stone costs thousands then I think it all matters. The drawings on the other thread Brian Gavin posted and I have seem similar around other internet sites show Tolkowsky, shallow/deep, steep/deep, now they are maybe in deeper stones than ideal but I can't get it out of my head that this 34/41 is the shallow/deep and not the Tolkowsky. I am going to return the diamond because that is what I feel most comfortable with and I just wish I had not agreed to buy it, I know it was my decision but after seeing the video and all I just feel I talked myself into something I wasn't comfortable with probably because of the size of the diamond and there were none available at Whiteflash in that range.

I just feel that most jewellers here are in agreement that 34/41 is not the way to go.

I see what you said about send it back because it does not perform not because of numbers but Ellen in the top notch Ideal Cuts which we are paying more dollars for do we really know which parts do not perform, after all most diamonds perform to a certain extent. I feel that Brian Gavin being a cutter has more expertise than I to say that he would not recommend 34/41 angles. Even if I had an ACA next to it, I may not see the difference but I would know that in a Master Cutter's opinion it performed better than the 34/41. I can understand you saying send it back if it had a fisheye or apparent leakage but when it comes to the nuances those who cut the best stones judge, we as consumers do not really know what they are. So we buy to get the best, when really we maybe should have bought Very Good if we can't see it and saved some money.

 

[michaelgem]

Strm says:

I see your reasoning some I agree with some I dont.
Thats kewl
I was mearly pointing out that I dont agree and likely never will that a midpoint in the grading systems is:
1: meaningful The point is that the 41, 34 center is no more or less meaningful than 40.75, 34.5
2: achievable I can not think in what sense it is not achievable.
3: means anything Its meaning totally derives from its close agreement among the players.
4: a sweet spot I'll say it again. It is not a spot, it is an area. The center point of that area is what I found was an accordance, not the sweet spot range.
It looks like from your responce here you are atleast considering what others are saying and that is good.
I am one of the few people who has read all your articles and all your posts over the last few years.
Some of them are brilliant and some need a little work and some maybe in my opinion a rethink in certain places.
Repeating it over and over and over again dont help.

2 suggestions
submit your articles for peer review. As I mentioned, the Accordance article has been peer reviewed resulting in dozens of rewrites, additions and clarifications. Then it went through an editorial review process before being accepted/rejected for publication. That process entailed further rewrites.
Find someone who disagrees with you and do a point counter point presentation
with documentation. There is no shortage of those on PS who love to disagree, so I am grateful to you and others for providing the point counter point.
btw I have given that same advice to Jon, John, Garry and many others over the years here so im not picking on you.

I would love it if someone like yourself would take the time to point out via email where he/she sees need for work and rethinking in any of my articles. I am pleased you took the time to read and consider them.

Thank you for your advice,

Ideal regards,

Michael

 

[Ellen]

Pyramid, I understand what you're saying.

I guess what I'm thinking, and what I thought when I bought my ering stone is, it's cut extremely tight, and the IS is outstanding. That told me what I needed to know. I was well aware there are those who don't choose to buy or cut these. But I'm pretty sure (ok, sure enough to post all the specs and pics) that anyone who saw everything on my diamond would have to agree it would be a beautiful stone.

I asked John Q once in a webinar if a stone could ever have a great IS image, but not be a great stone. He said only in the case of painting, and not all, only if it was severe enough. This does not apply to our stones.

So, while you may have numbers everyone does not agree with, you have an IS that I believe everyone would. So do I. That was enough for me. I understand it's not for you.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/21/2007 3:06:46 PM
Author: Pyramid
Regarding my stone, this is no longer about my stone anymore, because it is definitely going back.

I respect your choice, your gut... but I do think two things. One, that you really may misunderstand how much COLOR is involved in an ideal cut stone. I have earrings that are poorly cut and they are more brilliant than any diamonds I''ve seen of late... they have almost non existent crowns and show white dots in pictures from a million miles. If you really want to rid yourself of fire and focus on brilliance, I highly suggest NOT looking for an ideal cut at all, but rather a crownless average at best cut. Two, in the world of ideal cuts you''re splitting RCH''s and I''m wondering if you even *like* ideal cuts. See my first comment above.

 

[pyramid]

Thanks Ellen, I just think it is a mindclean thing with me and I want the profile view too.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 7/21/2007 9:25:35 PM
Author: Cehrabehra

I respect your choice, your gut... but I do think two things. One, that you really may misunderstand how much COLOR is involved in an ideal cut stone. I have earrings that are poorly cut and they are more brilliant than any diamonds I''ve seen of late... they have almost non existent crowns and show white dots in pictures from a million miles. If you really want to rid yourself of fire and focus on brilliance, I highly suggest NOT looking for an ideal cut at all, but rather a crownless average at best cut. Two, in the world of ideal cuts you''re splitting RCH''s and I''m wondering if you even *like* ideal cuts. See my first comment above.

Sara, I already pointed out to her that a Tolk would most likely not get her more brilliance.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/21/2007 7:22:58 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Pyramid I was speaking from our standpoint only. Those diamonds would appear in our Expert Selection line, the theme of which is ''best value for the money.'' As such they do not carry the ACA premium. Hope that helps.

I just want to say that while I respect brian and his ACA brand, it doesn''t necessarily mean those are the only beautiful diamonds. There are qualities that he doesn''t accept (like strong fluor or lgf too long or short) that might make someone FAVOR a non aca stone over an aca stone. Then getting it for a better price is just BONUS.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 7/21/2007 9:26:31 PM
Author: Pyramid
Thanks Ellen, I just think it is a mindclean thing with me and I want the profile view too.

I hope you eventually find something that makes you happy. I really mean that.

But I''d be lying if I said I didn''t care you were letting this killer stone go.


Ok, I''ll shut up now.

 

[pyramid]

Date: 7/21/2007 9:25:35 PM
Author: Cehrabehra

Date: 7/21/2007 3:06:46 PM
Author: Pyramid
Regarding my stone, this is no longer about my stone anymore, because it is definitely going back.

I respect your choice, your gut... but I do think two things. One, that you really may misunderstand how much COLOR is involved in an ideal cut stone. I have earrings that are poorly cut and they are more brilliant than any diamonds I've seen of late... they have almost non existent crowns and show white dots in pictures from a million miles. If you really want to rid yourself of fire and focus on brilliance, I highly suggest NOT looking for an ideal cut at all, but rather a crownless average at best cut. Two, in the world of ideal cuts you're splitting RCH's and I'm wondering if you even *like* ideal cuts. See my first comment above.

No Cehra I love the fire but I just love the brilliance a bit more, I have seen cuts with large tables and in the UK they are most popular (maybe we have the Antwerp cut over here

) and I know I want more fire than they show, that is another thing I don't know if I would like the 34.8 type crowns Whiteflash have because they may show more fire than brilliance. Like I said they are both ideal cuts but I feel the 34/41 is of a lower caliber because of the remarks made by experienced cutters and jewellers. I would not like just white with no fire, this stone has tons of fire, now that I have seen it in different lights, it is just the mindclean thing that most on the forum see it as lesser and the fact I see the pavillion as deeper and the crown as shallower when I want to see more on the crown and less on the pavillion. This thread is starting to feel like an Agony Aunt now and I have made up my mind to send the diamond back and Rhino is onboard for me to do so, I have to find out about insurance but other than that it is really a closed thing now.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/21/2007 9:00:13 PM
Author: Pyramid

I think the thing influencing me is the fact Whiteflash sell more on this forum

If you trust whiteflash then you should purchase from whiteflash. But I saw the video comparison you showed and I couldn''t even tell the difference between the two diamonds.... it''s like identical twins. One might have a freckle on the left shoulder, one on the right leg, but still.... having two diamonds magnified up to 3 inches and then comparing them to see if one has an extra flicker is really way way way beyond what is needed. I really think that this is 100% a mind-clean issue for you and you need to forget about who you like and just work with who you trust and stop asking for the opinions of everyone else because no matter what they won''t agree. Not all of them anyway. You have to trust yourself. its a pity you cannot get yourself in front of more than one stone at a time.

Remember - there is no such thing as perfect.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/21/2007 9:26:31 PM
Author: Pyramid
Thanks Ellen, I just think it is a mindclean thing with me and I want the profile view too.

ha - I honestly hadn''t read ahead on the mindclean issue lol

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/21/2007 9:29:27 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 7/21/2007 9:25:35 PM
Author: Cehrabehra

I respect your choice, your gut... but I do think two things. One, that you really may misunderstand how much COLOR is involved in an ideal cut stone. I have earrings that are poorly cut and they are more brilliant than any diamonds I''ve seen of late... they have almost non existent crowns and show white dots in pictures from a million miles. If you really want to rid yourself of fire and focus on brilliance, I highly suggest NOT looking for an ideal cut at all, but rather a crownless average at best cut. Two, in the world of ideal cuts you''re splitting RCH''s and I''m wondering if you even *like* ideal cuts. See my first comment above.

Sara, I already pointed out to her that a Tolk would most likely not get her more brilliance.

I might have missed it.... you know, Leo diamonds are VERY brilliant... they don''t have very much fire and their scintillation is tiny. Maybe that would be a direction to consider.

 

[pyramid]

The thing is Cehra I trust both GoodoldGold and Whiteflash. Maybe it is just that I need to spend time away from the forum and really look at the diamond but I trust myself but don''t know enough to know if the diamond is a lot shallower in real life than a 34.8/40.8, in a way I think I am exaggerating it in my mind to like carracature proportions and those graphics we see on the web with the Tolkowsky, Shallow/Deep, Steep/Deep only serve to reinforce this in my mind. I should have got Rhino to post a picture showing the stones lying on their sides so I could see the difference.

 

[michaelgem]

style="WIDTH: 32.36%; HEIGHT: 27px">http://www.jewellerywebshop.co.uk/idealcut.htm

Cute.

A European Internet vender defining an American Ideal.

Wonder where they got: P40.5 to P41.5 center = 41

Or Cr33.7 to Cr35.8 center = 34.75

That is closest to the Morse Ideal of 41, 35 or the "centroid" Ideal , rather than the Tolkowsky Ideal

Who cares?

 

[pyramid]

Cehra

I think you are seeing it that I like more Brilliance than Fire by far, but it is not like that I just don't like some of the Pricescopers photos I see where the stone looks smokey sort of with brown, and orange fire. I don't like 60/60 where there is hardly any fire because of the large table. I have a ring which has 7 10 point stones, I don't have colour or clarity grades but cannot think they are D colour because of the price I paid and the tables are not very big however, they have beautiful white brilliance and the fire in them are very pastel. I know this is colour grade and nothing to do with fire, but a person I worked with had a J colour diamond and the fire in her stone was much stronger colours, like deep red and deep blue instead of the pastel pinks, mauves and light blues in my stones. That is what I mean I think that I like the lighter colours of fire, ofcourse I know the colour grade has something to do with that. Maybe that is what I am seeing on the Pricescopers photos that I am calling smokey maybe it is not smokey or orange at all just darker shades in the fire. The Leo diamonds I have seen in a local mall chain store, but I didn't like them, ofcourse they were something like $10,000 for a 70 point diamond there. However they have more facets than the 57 and I don't want that.

 

[pyramid]

Michaelgem

That Antwerp Cut they are showing though is all just advertising I think, because after all under GIA grading it would come in lower than the Ideal Cut according to the link they show to a statement made by GIA when they were studying the new cut grade.

 

[pyramid]

Date: 7/21/2007 9:45:02 PM
Author: michaelgem

style="WIDTH: 32.36%; HEIGHT: 27px">http://www.jewellerywebshop.co.uk/idealcut.htm

Cute.

A European Internet vender defining an American Ideal.

Wonder where they got: P40.5 to P41.5 center = 41

Or Cr33.7 to Cr35.8 center = 34.75

That is closest to the Morse Ideal of 41, 35 or the ''centroid'' Ideal , rather than the Tolkowsky Ideal

Who cares?

But does the center matter because as Garry says 1 degree on the crown is -.2 degrees on the pavillion (roughly) so if it was not going to be 35/41 would it not be roughly something like 34.8/40.8. They wouldn''t cut 34.75/41 would they?

 

[whatmeworry]

Date: 7/21/2007 9:41:40 PM
Author: Pyramid
The thing is Cehra I trust both GoodoldGold and Whiteflash. Maybe it is just that I need to spend time away from the forum and really look at the diamond but I trust myself but don''t know enough to know if the diamond is a lot shallower in real life than a 34.8/40.8, in a way I think I am exaggerating it in my mind to like carracature proportions and those graphics we see on the web with the Tolkowsky, Shallow/Deep, Steep/Deep only serve to reinforce this in my mind. I should have got Rhino to post a picture showing the stones lying on their sides so I could see the difference.

My DiamCalc rendering of 34.2/41 vs 34.8/40.8

 

[pyramid]

Wow, thanks whatmeworry.

In the other post I couldn't tell the other two 34/41 and 34.5/40.75 apart because I was the one out of three who got it wrong, but I can certainly see the difference between these two. However it is the crown I see the difference in and not the pavillion looking a lot steeper. That has sort of cleared my mind I think of the profile view. Thank you very much whatmeworry.

I don't know why but I had it in my mind the crown was way lower looking than it should be and the pavillion way deeper.

 

[pyramid]

Ellen

I think I am starting to see that I have to trust myself, now that I have seen in whatmeworry''s picture in a near real size compared with internet sized magnification that the stones look close I am not worried with the profile view at all. I think the internet seems to just magnify pictures and numbers out of proportion when you are not looking at it in the real world.

The thing with the colour I trusted myself with and so the mindclean never came into force there, even if there is colour entrapment I can''t see it, but I thought I saw this profile view difference in a gigantic way. There maybe differences and nuances that only a Cutter would see but that is more a pocket thing if I am paying more money for something I wouldn''t see in a very good stone, not a mindclean one. I am really starting to think I would be wiser to keep this stone than go through the hassle or returning it and then having none because the nearest one at the moment is a 1.76 which is good but after having a 1.90 I don''t know.

It is funny how the internet sort of takes over your mind, I can''t imagine years ago going into a jewellers and even comparing diamonds from a profile view or worrying about colour entrapment unless it was that obvious.

 

[michaelgem]

Date: 7/21/2007 9:59:27 PM
Author: Pyramid
But does the center matter because as Garry says 1 degree on the crown is -.2 degrees on the pavillion (roughly) so if it was not going to be 35/41 would it not be roughly something like 34.8/40.8. They wouldn''t cut 34.75/41 would they?

I think you are over analyzing, as you did with the irrelavent minute differences in crown height.

The axis of Ideal is only an approximate slope of -4.5 to 1. One could argue you should start from the center, from Morse or from Tolkowsky.

In reality it is a somewhat broad ridge so it is not critical which you pick. Morse''s angle of 41 is one anchor point that I would choose.

You will get an Ideal 0 from 41, 34 to 41, 35 and everywhere in between.

So yes, they would cut 41, 34.75. Using 41, 34 as the anchor point you would get similar performance at 40.8, 35 if you use -5 to 1 and 40.8, 34.9 if you use -4.5 to 1 as the slope of the Ideal axis.

I''m worn out. Good night.

Michael

 

[pyramid]

This is what my mind was thinking the difference in crown height were and so saw the pavillion as far deeper than the crown on the 34/41. Badly done in paint but you can see the idea.

 

[pyramid]

Thanks Michaelgem.

I see what you mean when you say you could start at any point, I think I am thinking in terms of what the vendors here are offering again and thinking the 34.75 should have a shallower pavillion than 41.

 

[strmrdr]

8mm 40.8 and a 41 pavilion which is which?

 

[strmrdr]

full stones,,,,,
same ?.. I used wire frames because they exaggerate the difference.

 

[pyramid]

I think the 40.8 is stone on the right, but from the pavillions I could not tell difference. The crown looks taller on the right, is that 34.8 crown?

See in these sizes it doesn't bother me at all. Maybe I am the only stupid person about this, but if there is someone else who gets this mindclean thing about profile view, this part of the thread will really help them I think. I suppose I should have known that a 61.4% pavillion was not going to look like a 66% pavillion and a 34% crown was not going to look like a 30% crown but I couldn't see it like that even though I knew it was within the ideal range.

This is probably the same problem I have with clarity when I want the higher clarity because I am seeing inclusions as huge in a loupe and my mind cannot seem to shrink them down into real life size.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/21/2007 8:20:37 PM
Author: Pyramid
Strmrdr

You have said many times about your sweetspot is the 34/41 combo, why do you like it, is it because it is just as good as 34.8/40.8 although pavillion is deeper, or are you seeing something in the personality you like better, can you put that into words or is it just something you see when you look at the stones?

edit: assuming a tight stone with fine optical symmetry.

It is hard to describe in words.
Its the combination of very high brightness combined with fine fire.
They dance just fine when moved.
somewhat directional white light return but not too directional
(fire tends to spread out more than white light when returned from the stone)
An even shallower crown and a larger table might be a little brighter but you lose the fire.
All combos are a compromise.
To me 41/34 is a great compromise.
Too go with a higher crown(keeping the lgf% the same) you may get a little more fire at the expense of white light return but that's about it.

34.8/40.8 has its own compromises.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 7/21/2007 8:28:48 PM
Author: Pyramid
I found this link which is against the Ideal Cut now, no wonder Storm says sometimes he gets sick of it, I am starting to feel the same now.



http://www.jewellerywebshop.co.uk/Antwerp_Premium_Ideal_cut_diamonds.htm


same site


http://www.jewellerywebshop.co.uk/idealcut.htm

Did not go to the second link, but the first link was talking about heavy diamonds with 4- 5% girdles if I remember the numbers correctly. It was correctly identifying them as stones cut for weight, not for beauty, and they were not anywhere near ideal with that type of girdle thickness.

Wink

 

[Ellen]

Date: 7/21/2007 10:42:55 PM
Author: Pyramid
Ellen

I think I am starting to see that I have to trust myself, now that I have seen in whatmeworry''s picture in a near real size compared with internet sized magnification that the stones look close I am not worried with the profile view at all. I think the internet seems to just magnify pictures and numbers out of proportion when you are not looking at it in the real world.

The thing with the colour I trusted myself with and so the mindclean never came into force there, even if there is colour entrapment I can''t see it, but I thought I saw this profile view difference in a gigantic way. There maybe differences and nuances that only a Cutter would see but that is more a pocket thing if I am paying more money for something I wouldn''t see in a very good stone, not a mindclean one. I am really starting to think I would be wiser to keep this stone than go through the hassle or returning it and then having none because the nearest one at the moment is a 1.76 which is good but after having a 1.90 I don''t know.

It is funny how the internet sort of takes over your mind, I can''t imagine years ago going into a jewellers and even comparing diamonds from a profile view or worrying about colour entrapment unless it was that obvious.

It can, and will, if you let it.