Low LGF%? Need advice on this stone

[Paul-Antwerp]

So, just before I go to sleep yesterday, I read what is going on in this thread.

During the night, I toss and turn and dream about LGF''s and Garry (very bad dream), and then, I suddenly realize why Garry is probably right and wrong at the same time.

Then, I wake up and see the whole discussion has evolved in such a way, that I need another day to catch up.

I hate it when that happens. And I hate it even more when I have dreams about Garry.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/17/2007 4:26:02 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
And I hate it even more when I have dreams about Garry.

ROFL
Talk about a nightmare.
lol
Were visions of IS images dancing in your head?
lol

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 7/17/2007 4:29:51 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 7/17/2007 4:26:02 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
And I hate it even more when I have dreams about Garry.

ROFL
Talk about a nightmare.
lol
Were visions of IS images dancing in your head?
lol

I am not going to comment whether there was a lot of red or pink in the image.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 7/17/2007 4:26:02 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
So, just before I go to sleep yesterday, I read what is going on in this thread.

During the night, I toss and turn and dream about LGF''s and Garry (very bad dream), and then, I suddenly realize why Garry is probably right and wrong at the same time.

Then, I wake up and see the whole discussion has evolved in such a way, that I need another day to catch up.

I hate it when that happens. And I hate it even more when I have dreams about Garry.

for all of you wo do not know Paul personally, and can not imagine him saying these words, You are really missing something

Aye Wink and John?

Date: 7/17/2007 4:26:02 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
I suddenly realize why Garry is probably right and wrong at the same time.

And the best part about being wrong is that I learn stuff

, so teach me baby!!

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 7/17/2007 7:56:10 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)


for all of you wo do not know Paul personally, and can not imagine him saying these words, You are really missing something

Aye Wink and John?

AYE!

 

[diagem]

Date: 7/17/2007 10:45:31 AM
Author: Wink

Date: 7/17/2007 7:56:10 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)


for all of you wo do not know Paul personally, and can not imagine him saying these words, You are really missing something

Aye Wink and John?

AYE!

I dont know Paul personally..., but it sounds more like Pssssss (water touching hottt surface) than AYE!!

 

[Cehrabehra]

don''t keep us waiting TOO long, Paul - I want to know the dream and the realization!!

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Aha. I seem to have kept you in suspense. All the more difficult it will be to satisfy your need for news and information.

When reading at first Garry''s details from DC-3 (why does he get to play with toys before anyone else) which indicated that lower LGF-% bring about reductions in light return, I found this an exaggeration of an effect, caused by a minor change in the whole diamond (round brilliant, I should say, because we seem to be limiting ourselves to this again).

Anyway, somewhere between dreaming and being awake the other night, it suddenly became clear to me why Garry was right and wrong at the same time.

First, let us take a look at diamonds, and what they do with light. It has been sufficiently established that pavilion angles are most important, because they are the foundation of light return. To put it simply, if the light is not reflected from the pavilion, no matter how good your crown is, it is of no use anymore.

Now, the pavilion has 24 facets, 8 main pavilions and 16 LGF''s, and the surface of the LGF''s is higher than that of the main pavilions. Knowing that the direction of light is a function of the angles of facets, with more of the pavilion surface being LGF''s, the angles of the LGF''s are probably more important than the angles of the main pavilion facets.

The length of the LGF''s is a result of the relationship between LGF-angle and MPF-angle. The closer they are, the longer the LGF-% (forgetting about painting or digging, right now).

So, if Garry is playing with DC-3, and changing LGF-% without changing anything else, he is basically changing the most important contributor to light return, being the angle of the LGF''s. It is absolutely logical that this has an important effect to light return. So, in this way, he is right.

However, he is wrong in the assessment that this is the same for every combination. The thing is that LGF-% is about as meaningless as total depth is in a princess. Light reacts to angles, not to percentages, and while we think, based upon years of tradition, that percentages are meaningful, it is important to realise in which way angles have translated into these percentages.

What would be interesting in DC-3 (or DC-4 for that matter), is the possibility of setting a fixed angle on the LGF''s, and then checking out how different MPF-angles will translate in different light performance, while at the same time giving different LGF-lengths.

Looking forward to your reaction,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 7/17/2007 3:41:06 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Aha. I seem to have kept you in suspense. All the more difficult it will be to satisfy your need for news and information.

When reading at first Garry''s details from DC-3 (why does he get to play with toys before anyone else) which indicated that lower LGF-% bring about reductions in light return, I found this an exaggeration of an effect, caused by a minor change in the whole diamond (round brilliant, I should say, because we seem to be limiting ourselves to this again).

Anyway, somewhere between dreaming and being awake the other night, it suddenly became clear to me why Garry was right and wrong at the same time.

First, let us take a look at diamonds, and what they do with light. It has been sufficiently established that pavilion angles are most important, because they are the foundation of light return. To put it simply, if the light is not reflected from the pavilion, no matter how good your crown is, it is of no use anymore.

Now, the pavilion has 24 facets, 8 main pavilions and 16 LGF''s, and the surface of the LGF''s is higher than that of the main pavilions. Knowing that the direction of light is a function of the angles of facets, with more of the pavilion surface being LGF''s, the angles of the LGF''s are probably more important than the angles of the main pavilion facets.

The length of the LGF''s is a result of the relationship between LGF-angle and MPF-angle. The closer they are, the longer the LGF-% (forgetting about painting or digging, right now).

So, if Garry is playing with DC-3, and changing LGF-% without changing anything else, he is basically changing the most important contributor to light return, being the angle of the LGF''s. It is absolutely logical that this has an important effect to light return. So, in this way, he is right.

However, he is wrong in the assessment that this is the same for every combination. The thing is that LGF-% is about as meaningless as total depth is in a princess. Light reacts to angles, not to percentages, and while we think, based upon years of tradition, that percentages are meaningful, it is important to realise in which way angles have translated into these percentages.

What would be interesting in DC-3 (or DC-4 for that matter), is the possibility of setting a fixed angle on the LGF''s, and then checking out how different MPF-angles will translate in different light performance, while at the same time giving different LGF-lengths.

Looking forward to your reaction,

No arguement Paul

All I did was note that Ech''s general observation / assumption that as LGF gets shorter the diamonds fire goes up a bit and its light return goes down a bit. Everyone seemed to think he was crazy, but it was an astute prdiction.

At no stage have I suggested that any particular combination for the example I used (57% 34.5 40.75 50%) was best (although the most popular ranges seem to get good results) and I am in complete agreement that a differebt set of (equally nice) proportions could favour or achieve different results. And Painting and digging with different combinations is also going to throw the cat amonst the pigeons.

Sweet dreams

 

[strmrdr]

too make this easy im just going with the default DC RB
6mmx6mmx3.63
34.5/40.75 46.1 stars 82/80.5lgf%
lgf angle 41.82

Light return stereo is ...
crown .99 .99
table 1.0 .99

now for a 75/76.9% lgf to get the 41.82 angle...
the pavilion would have too be 40.56 degrees.
light return stereo is..
crown 88 98
table 81 95
.................................................
Am I missing something?

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 7/16/2007 7:28:52 PM
Author: Wink


What I fear, is that when there is a way, people who have seen few if any diamonds will suddenly be 'expert' enouugh to now declare that this diamond or that diamond is unworthy when the truth is that most of them could not tell it from the diamond deemed worthy with their eyes if their life depended on it. We are paralyzing by analysis when we should be celebrating the beauty.

Wink

AMEN, Brother! This is SOOOOO good that I had to repeat it in loud, red letters!

SPOT ON, Wink. As usual.

On a side note, I'm really wondering how many people walk with their head hovering over their stones? I mean, gosh, at some point, doesn't a gal let her hand hang down by it's side......headless? Obstructionless?

In my very humble opinion, the most accurate definition for 'Head Obstruction' is when a buyer lets his OWN mind-clean data-soup---HIS HEAD---obstruct his ability to see past the paper and gaze upon the STONE.

Ech, it's very easy hanging out here on PS to let that happen. When I first got here, I really felt like many of these differences were GARGUANTUAN and important. They certainly seemed like it, because otherwise, WHY would so many people spend so MUCH time AGONIZING over such little things? Clearly, they had to be HUGE and noticeable distinctions, right?

Then last year, I hopped a plane and went to Texas to see Brian at WF. That had to be the single biggest reality check I've had in life since I got out of college and was faced with my OWN bills!

Over a couple of hours, I saw TONS of stones. I saw stones with 40.6 pavilions. I saw stones with painting. I saw stones without painting. I saw branded H&A stones, and I saw non-branded ideally-cut stones. I saw GIA graded stones, and I saw AGS graded stones.

Know what? They were ALL gorgeous. Know what else? When they were all spread out in front of us, I couldn't pick out which ones were painted and which weren't. I couldn't distinguish between the stone with the 34.7 crown and the 34.9 crown. Heck, I could barely tell the G from the I! They all looked similar.......DANCING with light. In a bunch of instances, the only way to match the diamonds back up with their data jackets was to WEIGH them! Mara was with me on that trip, and she said the same thing.

If you can, I'd REALLY recommend you take yourself to someplace that has a bit of inventory of well cut stones, and see them for yourself. I think you'll find it totally illuminating.

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

Date: 7/17/2007 4:00:20 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)


No arguement Paul

All I did was note that Ech's general observation / assumption that as LGF gets shorter the diamonds fire goes up a bit and its light return goes down a bit. Everyone seemed to think he was crazy, but it was an astute prdiction.



Sweet dreams

So then you agree with his theory that the changes are not proportional?

The fact that the changes were not proportional was what I really took as most important out of his set of equations. As if they are not proportional then it is truly a matter of performance and preference, but if they are proportional changes then it is purely a matter of preference right?

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 7/16/2007 8:41:18 PM
Author: echelon6
.

I think I''ll accept the tradeoff of total light for extra fire because a) it''s not noticeable as Wink repeatedly points out, and b) I prefer fire to white light anyway. I mean, if I wanted brilliance, I''d get her a mirror.

OH MY GOODNESS - ROTFLMAO! Choked on my pepsi on this one! Kudos!

I can see it now........

"hey babe, will ya marry me. I bought you a big MIRROR as a token of my commitment!"

 

[belle]

Date: 7/17/2007 6:10:44 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 7/16/2007 7:28:52 PM
Author: Wink


What I fear, is that when there is a way, people who have seen few if any diamonds will suddenly be ''expert'' enouugh to now declare that this diamond or that diamond is unworthy when the truth is that most of them could not tell it from the diamond deemed worthy with their eyes if their life depended on it. We are paralyzing by analysis when we should be celebrating the beauty.

Wink

AMEN, Brother! This is SOOOOO good that I had to repeat it in loud, red letters!

SPOT ON, Wink. As usual.

On a side note, I''m really wondering how many people walk with their head hovering over their stones? I mean, gosh, at some point, doesn''t a gal let her hand hang down by it''s side......headless? Obstructionless?

amen to that amen!

i can think of very, very few people that are actually qualified to give conclusive advice on diamonds they have not seen in person. of course, those people also recognize the potential harm in making such decisive judgements, so you rarely see them doing it.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/17/2007 3:41:06 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Aha. I seem to have kept you in suspense. All the more difficult it will be to satisfy your need for news and information.

When reading at first Garry''s details from DC-3 (why does he get to play with toys before anyone else) which indicated that lower LGF-% bring about reductions in light return, I found this an exaggeration of an effect, caused by a minor change in the whole diamond (round brilliant, I should say, because we seem to be limiting ourselves to this again).

Anyway, somewhere between dreaming and being awake the other night, it suddenly became clear to me why Garry was right and wrong at the same time.

First, let us take a look at diamonds, and what they do with light. It has been sufficiently established that pavilion angles are most important, because they are the foundation of light return. To put it simply, if the light is not reflected from the pavilion, no matter how good your crown is, it is of no use anymore.

Now, the pavilion has 24 facets, 8 main pavilions and 16 LGF''s, and the surface of the LGF''s is higher than that of the main pavilions. Knowing that the direction of light is a function of the angles of facets, with more of the pavilion surface being LGF''s, the angles of the LGF''s are probably more important than the angles of the main pavilion facets.

The length of the LGF''s is a result of the relationship between LGF-angle and MPF-angle. The closer they are, the longer the LGF-% (forgetting about painting or digging, right now).

So, if Garry is playing with DC-3, and changing LGF-% without changing anything else, he is basically changing the most important contributor to light return, being the angle of the LGF''s. It is absolutely logical that this has an important effect to light return. So, in this way, he is right.

However, he is wrong in the assessment that this is the same for every combination. The thing is that LGF-% is about as meaningless as total depth is in a princess. Light reacts to angles, not to percentages, and while we think, based upon years of tradition, that percentages are meaningful, it is important to realise in which way angles have translated into these percentages.

What would be interesting in DC-3 (or DC-4 for that matter), is the possibility of setting a fixed angle on the LGF''s, and then checking out how different MPF-angles will translate in different light performance, while at the same time giving different LGF-lengths.

Looking forward to your reaction,

awesome paul - I think this research will be important for "chunky facet lovers" of the round and oblong types. I know most of the industry is reluctant to have short LGF but there is quite a clammor for chunkier types around here. And given the right promotion it could spread.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/17/2007 8:19:51 PM
Author: Cehrabehra
awesome paul - I think this research will be important for ''chunky facet lovers'' of the round and oblong types. I know most of the industry is reluctant to have short LGF but there is quite a clammor for chunkier types around here. And given the right promotion it could spread.

someone wants chunky do it right like ya did...
get an oec,EC or SE
Too many trade offs making an RB to a large extent chunky.

 

[echelon6]

Date: 7/17/2007 6:27:23 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 7/16/2007 8:41:18 PM
Author: echelon6
.

I think I''ll accept the tradeoff of total light for extra fire because a) it''s not noticeable as Wink repeatedly points out, and b) I prefer fire to white light anyway. I mean, if I wanted brilliance, I''d get her a mirror.

OH MY GOODNESS - ROTFLMAO! Choked on my pepsi on this one! Kudos!

I can see it now........

''hey babe, will ya marry me. I bought you a big MIRROR as a token of my commitment!''

But then if I wanted fire, I''d get her a CD... a diamond combines both, costing thousands of times more.



A question for Paul and Garry (and everyone else):

I understand perfectly now (I think) why Paul said LGF% is meaningless by itself. This revelation actually got me curious: what then is the IDEAL LGF ANGLE? Its surprising since Paul states that LGF actually accounts for more surface area (undeniably true), yet consumers and vendors, even the smart ones here on PS, only assess MPF angles, without a mention of LGF angles. If MPF angles are ideally at 40.75, whats the ideal for LGF angles?

Thanks

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

Date: 7/17/2007 11:19:49 PM
Author: echelon6

Date: 7/17/2007 6:27:23 PM

Author: aljdewey

Date: 7/16/2007 8:41:18 PM

Author: echelon6

.


I think I'll accept the tradeoff of total light for extra fire because a) it's not noticeable as Wink repeatedly points out, and b) I prefer fire to white light anyway. I mean, if I wanted brilliance, I'd get her a mirror.

OH MY GOODNESS - ROTFLMAO! Choked on my pepsi on this one! Kudos!


I can see it now........


'hey babe, will ya marry me. I bought you a big MIRROR as a token of my commitment!'

But then if I wanted fire, I'd get her a CD... a diamond combines both, costing thousands of times more.




A question for Paul and Garry (and everyone else):


I understand perfectly now (I think) why Paul said LGF% is meaningless by itself. This revelation actually got me curious: what then is the IDEAL LGF ANGLE? Its surprising since Paul states that LGF actually accounts for more surface area (undeniably true), yet consumers and vendors, even the smart ones here on PS, only assess MPF angles, without a mention of LGF angles. If MPF angles are ideally at 40.75, whats the ideal for LGF angles?


Thanks

And nobody argue with him about that ideal number

it's surely just a for example and not meant to be a fact. I was curious about this as well and why they would choose the MPF to display if that is the case.

Also, since looking at my diamond the first time I have thought about CD's in that context a number of times and it almost made me feel silly, but then again, I see everything like that now....constantly reminded of diamonds....

 

[belle]

Date: 7/17/2007 11:19:49 PM
Author: echelon6

whats the ideal for LGF angles?

tsk tsk tsk

back to square one!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/17/2007 11:19:49 PM
Author: echelon6

A question for Paul and Garry (and everyone else):

I understand perfectly now (I think) why Paul said LGF% is meaningless by itself. This revelation actually got me curious: what then is the IDEAL LGF ANGLE? Its surprising since Paul states that LGF actually accounts for more surface area (undeniably true), yet consumers and vendors, even the smart ones here on PS, only assess MPF angles, without a mention of LGF angles. If MPF angles are ideally at 40.75, whats the ideal for LGF angles?

Thanks

good question.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/18/2007 12:20:21 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 7/17/2007 11:19:49 PM
Author: echelon6

A question for Paul and Garry (and everyone else):

I understand perfectly now (I think) why Paul said LGF% is meaningless by itself. This revelation actually got me curious: what then is the IDEAL LGF ANGLE? Its surprising since Paul states that LGF actually accounts for more surface area (undeniably true), yet consumers and vendors, even the smart ones here on PS, only assess MPF angles, without a mention of LGF angles. If MPF angles are ideally at 40.75, whats the ideal for LGF angles?

Thanks

good question.

using the same example as above....
6mmx6mmx3.63
34.5/40.75 46.1 stars 82/80.5lgf%
lgf angle 41.82

Light return stereo is ...
crown .99 .99
table 1.0 .99

Changing the lgf angle too 42 degrees is equal to a lgf% of 77.2/75.4
changes the light return stereo too...
crown .92 .98
table .95 .98
.............................
What I find interesting is that the face up light return(first number) difference is much more than the 30 degree tilt light return change.

 

[strmrdr]

changing the lgf angle too 41.64 degree the same change going the other way needs a lgf% of 87.4/86.4

41.64 lgf angle
The stereo light return is:
crown .99 1.00
table 1.03 .99

vs 41.82 lgf angle
Light return stereo is ...
crown .99 .99
table 1.0 .99

vs 42 lgf angle
changes the light return stereo too...
crown .92 .98
table .95 .98

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/17/2007 9:48:30 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 7/17/2007 8:19:51 PM
Author: Cehrabehra
awesome paul - I think this research will be important for ''chunky facet lovers'' of the round and oblong types. I know most of the industry is reluctant to have short LGF but there is quite a clammor for chunkier types around here. And given the right promotion it could spread.

someone wants chunky do it right like ya did...
get an oec,EC or SE
Too many trade offs making an RB to a large extent chunky.

I think there is potential for a stone with ideal symmetry, short LGF, and angles that are all tight on one another for superior light performance. Where exactly it exists I do not know.... but I believe it is there - just as I believe the even more difficult elongated omc type has sweet spots as yet unknown.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/18/2007 1:00:52 AM
Author: Cehrabehra

I think there is potential for a stone with ideal symmetry, short LGF, and angles that are all tight on one another for superior light performance. Where exactly it exists I do not know.... but I believe it is there - just as I believe the even more difficult elongated omc type has sweet spots as yet unknown.

Well if its out there the new research tools may be able too find it or prove it dont exist.
But I can tell ya that a 75% lgf RB isnt going to be chunky in the way a oec is.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/18/2007 1:07:53 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 7/18/2007 1:00:52 AM
Author: Cehrabehra

I think there is potential for a stone with ideal symmetry, short LGF, and angles that are all tight on one another for superior light performance. Where exactly it exists I do not know.... but I believe it is there - just as I believe the even more difficult elongated omc type has sweet spots as yet unknown.

Well if its out there the new research tools may be able too find it or prove it dont exist.
But I can tell ya that a 75% lgf RB isnt going to be chunky in the way a oec is.

Nor will 80% be splintery the way a 10-cut is (or Solasfera, Leo, etc...).

77.5% is dead-center of the GIA EX range.
Knowing how human taste varies, I agree with that particular call. I'm trying to be Switzerland in the Strm/Wink wars here.

For the mature palate 75% vs 80% is a fine Cab vs a fine Shiraz. One's better with porterhouse, the other with ribeye (lighting condition comparison) but both have equal appeal and in a premium diamond will make you weep with joy. Also, like fine wine, many people wouldn't even notice the dif unless you pointed it out... Just that they're both firecrackers.

The data is groovy Strm. Thanks for doing that. One thing I'd add is that you're getting 1 fixed-face-up number... (Dave Atlas will be cool with just that info methinks, right Dave?)

...but what this means is that light-dark ratios at 0 degrees tilt are all that's being measured.

The AGSL metric is more telling in this case because they include light return values at 0 degress and tilted to 4 compass directions. Jim C from the lab has told me that inside robust t/c/p combos the values in cherry lower half % ranges equal out as soon as you move the diamond because the light-dark ratios reverse themselves. He's also said much of this is beyond our human cognitive ability to perceive (that for Wink, Alj and Belle) but we're already nano-spec-ing so I thought what the hey.

Thoughts?

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/18/2007 1:07:53 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 7/18/2007 1:00:52 AM
Author: Cehrabehra

I think there is potential for a stone with ideal symmetry, short LGF, and angles that are all tight on one another for superior light performance. Where exactly it exists I do not know.... but I believe it is there - just as I believe the even more difficult elongated omc type has sweet spots as yet unknown.

Well if its out there the new research tools may be able too find it or prove it dont exist.
But I can tell ya that a 75% lgf RB isnt going to be chunky in the way a oec is.

Does anyone have definitive lines drawn between all of these round cuts? are there specific, and I mean exact, angles for every one of these cuts (oec, european cut, tolkowsky, transitional, american, etc - and forgive me if I have any names wrong) because to ME they are all flavors of the same cut. All have 57 (or 5 facets in the same configuration with the only differences being %s and angles I do understand the basics of what differentiates an OEC and a RB but what concrete lines are there to distinguish between them and the others? Aren''t we again talking about overlapping generalities?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/18/2007 2:19:13 AM
Author: Cehrabehra

Does anyone have definitive lines drawn between all of these round cuts? are there specific, and I mean exact, angles for every one of these cuts (oec, european cut, tolkowsky, transitional, american, etc - and forgive me if I have any names wrong)

Yes, sometime later today I will hunt down the charts.

because to ME they are all flavors of the same cut. All have 57 (or 5 facets in the same configuration with the only differences being %s and angles I do understand the basics of what differentiates an OEC and a RB but what concrete lines are there to distinguish between them and the others?

How they were cut, when they were cut, why they were cut that way and the combos they were cut too. A short lgf% ideal cut does not an oec make.
A long lgf% oec might make a fic however.

Aren''t we again talking about overlapping generalities?

There is some overlap between them but some are far away from each other.
oec and American ideal cut are far apart, Morse and american ideal cut are closer and overlap.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/18/2007 2:03:33 AM
Author: JohnQuixote


The AGSL metric is more telling in this case because they include light return values at 0 degress and tilted to 4 compass directions. Jim C from the lab has told me that inside robust t/c/p combos the values in cherry lower half % ranges equal out as soon as you move the diamond because the light-dark ratios reverse themselves. He's also said much of this is beyond our human cognitive ability to perceive (that for Wink, Alj and Belle) but we're already nano-spec-ing so I thought what the hey.

Thoughts?

actually I have to disagree.
With a 75lgf% and a 80% lgf% stones of similar make in hand I could pick out the differences face up or tilted and at arm length they may be more apparent tilted than face up.
Because with min. head shadow the arrows didnt show as much face up as tilted.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

the wine analogies always interest me John

Actually there is no way to answer which is "ideal" if you believe as a few of us do that ideal is a silly concept.

Ideal for who?
The ideal shiraz for me is too fruity and sweet for my best friend who prefers wines grown on cooler limestony soils that make me go uurgh!

Ideal is a bad term for diamonds too, but AGS have married themselves to it by using it for Princess cuts. An ideal princess cut is a poor mans ideal round.

So the ideal LG facet length or depth is an oxymoron for me because i know now for sure that there is a play off between fire and light return. Ideal for my wife is probably not ideal for my daughter.

That was why I inventd the term Firey Ideal Cut (FIC) and Brilliant Ideal Cut (BIC) but I am open to ideas for the better names for those

 

[Maisie]

Date: 7/17/2007 6:10:44 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 7/16/2007 7:28:52 PM
Author: Wink


What I fear, is that when there is a way, people who have seen few if any diamonds will suddenly be ''expert'' enouugh to now declare that this diamond or that diamond is unworthy when the truth is that most of them could not tell it from the diamond deemed worthy with their eyes if their life depended on it. We are paralyzing by analysis when we should be celebrating the beauty.

Wink

AMEN, Brother! This is SOOOOO good that I had to repeat it in loud, red letters!

SPOT ON, Wink. As usual.

On a side note, I''m really wondering how many people walk with their head hovering over their stones? I mean, gosh, at some point, doesn''t a gal let her hand hang down by it''s side......headless? Obstructionless?

In my very humble opinion, the most accurate definition for ''Head Obstruction'' is when a buyer lets his OWN mind-clean data-soup---HIS HEAD---obstruct his ability to see past the paper and gaze upon the STONE.

Ech, it''s very easy hanging out here on PS to let that happen. When I first got here, I really felt like many of these differences were GARGUANTUAN and important. They certainly seemed like it, because otherwise, WHY would so many people spend so MUCH time AGONIZING over such little things? Clearly, they had to be HUGE and noticeable distinctions, right?

Then last year, I hopped a plane and went to Texas to see Brian at WF. That had to be the single biggest reality check I''ve had in life since I got out of college and was faced with my OWN bills!

Over a couple of hours, I saw TONS of stones. I saw stones with 40.6 pavilions. I saw stones with painting. I saw stones without painting. I saw branded H&A stones, and I saw non-branded ideally-cut stones. I saw GIA graded stones, and I saw AGS graded stones.

Know what? They were ALL gorgeous. Know what else? When they were all spread out in front of us, I couldn''t pick out which ones were painted and which weren''t. I couldn''t distinguish between the stone with the 34.7 crown and the 34.9 crown. Heck, I could barely tell the G from the I! They all looked similar.......DANCING with light. In a bunch of instances, the only way to match the diamonds back up with their data jackets was to WEIGH them! Mara was with me on that trip, and she said the same thing.

If you can, I''d REALLY recommend you take yourself to someplace that has a bit of inventory of well cut stones, and see them for yourself. I think you''ll find it totally illuminating.

Well said!!!!

Its too easy on PS to over analyse every small detail. Its far easier - and less brain painful - to just see the diamond and decide that way!

We might know a lot about diamonds but we aren''t experts - we have to trust the people we are buying from. If the diamond comes and you hate it then send it back.

I got into a complete spin last week when I realised my new diamond has a HCA score of .6 - I actually almost cancelled it. Its going to be on its way soon and I am sure I will love it. If I don''t - well at least I have seen it with my own eyes and made a decision based on what I saw instead of what I read.