Low LGF%? Need advice on this stone
- Thread starter echelon6
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
re:If for some reason experts agree in 1 day or 10 years from now that 34/41 is atrocious or not the best and can demonstrate why, or if you have remorse about your purchase for any reason, I will always take that diamond back on a trade for exactly what you paid. No time limits. No stipulations. You are never stuck. We have known each other here on the forums for a long time and the thought of offering inferior product or even secondary product is the farthest thing from my mind, especially considering the folks who come to this forum. It''s hard for me to imagine a long time person on these forums turn down such a rare gem with such rare optical characteristics that is, in no way 2nd to any other proportion combination. I just want you to know I support you 100% on whatever decision you make. I do think its a shame that you are being influenced in this manner though over something that is, what I consider a non-issue.
-----------------
Rhino, please confirm what if I( or anybody) in next 5-7 years will find new fancy cut ( for example OctoNus cut) for Which:
1) Experts ( how many do you need) will agree what "Octonus cut" is much better* then classical round with P41/C34
2) Consumers will happy buy ''OctoNus cut''
3) You will start sell "OctoNus cut"
* ( Better total combination Brilliancy, Fire, Scintillation + One of it''s is much better then in round cut. )
You will back diamond back and return what consumer paid
Do you agree?
( Price for new cuts could be bigger , but I am not sure about current round cut( even if price for rough will increase in next two years significantly )
-----------------
Rhino, please confirm what if I( or anybody) in next 5-7 years will find new fancy cut ( for example OctoNus cut) for Which:
1) Experts ( how many do you need) will agree what "Octonus cut" is much better* then classical round with P41/C34
2) Consumers will happy buy ''OctoNus cut''
3) You will start sell "OctoNus cut"
* ( Better total combination Brilliancy, Fire, Scintillation + One of it''s is much better then in round cut. )
You will back diamond back and return what consumer paid
Do you agree?
( Price for new cuts could be bigger , but I am not sure about current round cut( even if price for rough will increase in next two years significantly )
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2001
- Messages
- 6,341
Hi Serg,
To clarify, before GIA or AGS released their cut grading systems for light performance, I was doing this independantly of them. If I put my seal of approval on a stone, I back it with lifetime policies which I am bound to in writing. One of those policies is lifetime tradein wherein we give the client back what they paid for the diamond they purchased towards the purchase of a new one. We also have buy back policies as well that are included but slightly different details.
More specific to your questions (1-3).
1. I''m open to what you have to offer regarding an "Octonus Cut" although I''m very familiar with your work and have an idea where you''d go with this and I know *super symmetry* which can be proven mathematically would be one of the criteria and YES, should that ever come to fruition my clients would be able to trade up to one.
2. If you''re designing it, I''m sure they would! I''m also sure i''d be happy to feature it too.
3. Not until I see some live examples but YES if you have any prototypes I''d be happy to inspect them.
Currently our clients who purchased from us have the option, at any time to trade up their diamonds to any other diamond shape/type they want to. We''ve had clients trade in H&A''s for Solasfera''s, Star129''s and Eighternity. Sometimes folks tastes change and we try to offer as large a variety of super ideals possible to satiate their appetite. Many never use this option but they like having the peace of mind that they can if they ever wanted to. Please keep me posted if you do develope such a thing Sergey.
Kind regards,
Jonathan
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
Rhino,
I hope for you that what happened to the Japan diamond market never happens here. Many retailers had your same guarantee, actually I think it might have been even worse, a complete buy back policy, but I do not remember for sure. When the economy crashed and diamond prices went down, way down, many many people came to retreave their money, and many many fine jewelers are long since bankrupt because of it.
It is good to stand behind your product, but please be careful to protect yourself against a bad turn in the economy.
Wink
I hope for you that what happened to the Japan diamond market never happens here. Many retailers had your same guarantee, actually I think it might have been even worse, a complete buy back policy, but I do not remember for sure. When the economy crashed and diamond prices went down, way down, many many people came to retreave their money, and many many fine jewelers are long since bankrupt because of it.
It is good to stand behind your product, but please be careful to protect yourself against a bad turn in the economy.
Wink
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2003
- Messages
- 379
I''ll drink to that, Wink.
BTW, speaking of EightStars, which is one of the optically symmetric super ideals that I studied, had lower halves of about 76%-78%. Just one more example of accordance between GIA, Ideal cutters and my research findings.
One of my beliefs that just percolated to the surface of my thoughts, and might be a future topic for discussion, is that wider mains may be more important in smaller Ideals in order for the flashes of fire to be as noticable as they are in bigger Ideals. I always think it amusing that people, when looking at a large Ideal cut, tend to comment on how much more fiery it seems to be. Identical amounts of fire in an identical cut at 1/4 the size might not even be noticed. Being near sighted I can appreciate the fire in the Ideal cut down to sizes where others just see brightness and sparkle.
I think 75% to 79% LGF lengths work well in Ideals in the range I typically deal in from a half to three cts.
I remember the time when I was photographing and analyzing the over 10 ct D FL EightStar. There were discussions at the time about when extra facets should be added. At what size would a 10 main Ideal look better than the 8. I remember looking at the large EightStar and thinking that I would not change anything at least through 15ct. However, you could get away with somewhat longer halves to get greater scintellation without loosing the fire that you would in a smaller stone.
Best/Ideal regards,
Michael
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2003
- Messages
- 379
Pyramid,
Remember me saying?
So if you want to split hairs, and we all do, I can say with confidence and a large body of evidence, that this 1.90ct with a 41 pavilion in combination with the appropriate crown angle close to 34 is equal to and, in a hair splitting but observable way, superior to Tolkowsky’s theoretical 40.75 and 34.5.
The center of the AGS Ideal and the GIA Excellent sweet spots for pavilion, crown and table are closest to a 41 pavilion angle, 34 crown angle, and a 56% table.
Looking at the posted specifications, this 1.90ct is spot on as a super ideal.
You will not find a super ideal cut diamond with better beauty/ light performance. You can take that to the bank.
Here is a little “real time” research and investigation brought to you through the advanced imaging technology from Octonus. DiamCalc is enabling technology that allows us to study and predict, through photorealistic imaging, a particular diamond cut’s light performance in various lighting and viewing circumstances without having to cut the diamonds for real.
WARNING!!! The demonstration you are about to see should only be attempted by trained professionals, who can properly interpret these images, else you will drive yourself crazy reading too much into each and every reflection.
Do not attempt this at home folks. A severely fried cerebral cortex may result, and you could end up addicted to DiamCalc like me and Strm.
Note that this example of “direct assessment” of diamond light performance, to have any validity, must be done in a representation of typical illumination.
And remember, I
I have thought of and know all the possible objections I may get concerning this demonstration, and I don’t want to spend the time defending it, except to say it validates my statement that in some respects 41, 34.2 can be shown, as in this simulation, to be preferred and thought superior in a small way by some observers.
You can observe that on average Pyramid’s diamond on the right is brighter with less evidence of head obstruction especially in the mains (arrows). Head obstruction causes the mains to be darker appearing. Because of this, I see the 41, 34.2 as a somewhat bigger boulder on the plateau of AGS Ideal 0. Perhaps coincidently, there also appears to be more fire.
This is part of why GIA’s paired comparison results showed an equal preference for slightly steeper and deeper mains than Tolkowsky’s. By comparison, diamonds cut with shallower top and bottom mains are seen as darker on average and not preferred as often, because they reflect from higher angles and encounter more head obstruction.
Note that the dark mains of both diamonds will flash to bright as the diamonds are moved around and tilted resulting in fire and scintillation.
So Pyramid, if you find out some day that the beauty of the Tolkowsky 40.7, 34.5 just is not quite as drop dead gorgeous, remember this bit of “real time” research, this photorealistic demonstration, and that I told you that you would never see a more beautiful, higher performing diamond cut than the one you let get away.
Ideal regards,
Michael
PS I am also aware of the objection that the lighting can be adjusted to show anything that a clever individual wants. That's why I insist on using typical illumination with a reasonalbe amount of obstruction, in this case + and _ 12.5 degrees.
WorkingHardforSmallRewards
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2007
- Messages
- 1,236
Hey wink, can you direct me to some links or recap that situation for me?
Also, on another note, I liked your kayak picture a lot, one day you should slide another athletic type picture up there, in my mind at least, this picture makes you look too much like you are trying to sell stuff rather than just be a good guy helping people get what they want
And finally, on the above post, I would pick the right hand diamond in a heart beat if I only had those two pictures to choose from.
Thanks Michaelgem.
This is making me reconsider again this morning because and I don't know if it is the same thing, but that is the brighter look to the stone I saw in this video Rhino shot of a 34.8/40.8 with a 34/41 (not my diamond). The 34/41 on the right. I noticed straight away that it looked brighter to me and I do like the brilliance. What I was seeing was not the really white bits but the light grey virtual facets looked to be to be lighter/brighter in colour.
http://www.goodoldgold.com/videos/408vs41.wmv
This is making me reconsider again this morning because and I don't know if it is the same thing, but that is the brighter look to the stone I saw in this video Rhino shot of a 34.8/40.8 with a 34/41 (not my diamond). The 34/41 on the right. I noticed straight away that it looked brighter to me and I do like the brilliance. What I was seeing was not the really white bits but the light grey virtual facets looked to be to be lighter/brighter in colour.
http://www.goodoldgold.com/videos/408vs41.wmv
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2003
- Messages
- 379
Pyramid,
Jonathan''s video is the best demonstration that I have ever seen as far as providing support for AGS''s, GIA''s and my grading equivalance of the Tolkowsky Ideal and , for want of a better term, the 41, 34 "Centroid" Ideal.
Kudos to you Rhino.
You can readily get the picture that both these diamond''s, Tolkowsky''s Ideal and the "Centroid" Ideal, appear equally beautiful in more diffuse, office lighting that is friendly to brilliance and scintillation, and in spotty "fire friendy" lighting ( like DiamCalcs "Disco lighting").
It is interesting, after all the ridicule and fun that has been made of Diamond Dock, that Jonathan has put it to such a worthwhile, analytic, realistic and not at all deceptive use.
I do believe you should think long and hard before throwing back your diamond, unless you just want to spend more money on one that is larger, because, when it comes to beauty and light performance, both Jonathan and I have analytically and visually demonstrated that your diamond cannot be beat.
Best wishes,
Michael
JohnQuixote
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,212
I find this very valid. In fact, was it you Michael who said smaller sizes can be cut with shorter lower halves? Brian has always talked about small sizes having slightly different rules - he does not do much single cut in melee but he has mentioend what you did with regard to lower halves. In fact, under a half-carat he allows slightly steeper pavilions because the diamonds don't have enough body to show color entrapment.
JohnQuixote
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,212
Absolutely unintended.
The thread has morphed from LGF% - the original subject - to the 41/34 debate (again) and now it's about a personal sale (again).
Pyramid, the moment your private transaction gets brought into the thread the PS rules require other sellers to stop making comments. Questions about a specific diamond a vendor is selling can be handled via email/phone. The best person to answer questions is the person with it in-hand.In your case Rhino is equipped to give you meaningful answers and what your eyes tell you when you have the stone is most important of all. No one is questioning that diamond.
Echelon6 started this thread about a specific ACA - but the pros all kept comments general so that future readers benefit from global discussion, not about one stone. Rhino & Michael are confining their comments to one diamond, I am not.
JohnQuixote
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,212
Again, my comments are general, not about a specific stone.
We’re not arguing Rhino.We have these examples too, but the cut quality of PS sellers is not “reality.”Have you ever walked the diamond district with your ideal-scope?
Sure. Brian has known this all his life.You mentioned you’ve only been looking at these combos for a short time. We’ve carried them for years - we just don’t include them in our signature line.Of some 500 rounds in the vault I’d guess about a dozen are 41/34+ examples we price as 'best value for the money.'Brian hand-selected them and they’re beautiful.The shallow combos we have are beautiful too.
>
We have examples here.Look, we’ve never said these can’t be great stones.In fact, you were the one warning consumers not to buy these diamonds in the past.last post in this thread. Remember when you were using the same technology to say the opposite about these combos? You've now broadened your range and that's fine.In the past your warnings about 41/34+ combinations turned consumers off to even the well-cut selections.It’s great that you’ve learned they’re not all bad - We agree! I trust you’ll also agree that it’s critical to work with elite suppliers capable of producing the best possible products.
As Paul said...
That’s the point.No one is condemning your stones – but we should not use them as a template for world cut quality.It’s not the same.
We’re not arguing Rhino.We have these examples too, but the cut quality of PS sellers is not “reality.”Have you ever walked the diamond district with your ideal-scope?
Sure. Brian has known this all his life.You mentioned you’ve only been looking at these combos for a short time. We’ve carried them for years - we just don’t include them in our signature line.Of some 500 rounds in the vault I’d guess about a dozen are 41/34+ examples we price as 'best value for the money.'Brian hand-selected them and they’re beautiful.The shallow combos we have are beautiful too.
>
We have examples here.Look, we’ve never said these can’t be great stones.In fact, you were the one warning consumers not to buy these diamonds in the past.last post in this thread. Remember when you were using the same technology to say the opposite about these combos? You've now broadened your range and that's fine.In the past your warnings about 41/34+ combinations turned consumers off to even the well-cut selections.It’s great that you’ve learned they’re not all bad - We agree! I trust you’ll also agree that it’s critical to work with elite suppliers capable of producing the best possible products.
As Paul said...
That’s the point.No one is condemning your stones – but we should not use them as a template for world cut quality.It’s not the same.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2003
- Messages
- 379
Right John,
I said:
One of my beliefs that just percolated to the surface of my thoughts, and might be a future topic for discussion, is that wider mains may be more important in smaller Ideals in order for the flashes of fire to be as noticable as they are in bigger Ideals. I always think it amusing that people, when looking at a large Ideal cut, tend to comment on how much more fiery it seems to be. Identical amounts of fire in an identical cut at 1/4 the size might not even be noticed. Being near sighted I can appreciate the fire in the Ideal cut down to sizes where others just see brightness and sparkle.
I think 74% to 79% LGF lengths , (Slight adjustment in deference to Wink''s your and my preferences and Echelon''s example diamond), work well in Ideals in the range I typically deal in from a half to three cts. I do favor large flash sparkle and fire as essential components of the essence of Ideal going back to Morse and Tolkowsky.
In the Accordance article I noted:
Tolkowsky indicated in his book in 1919 that the
high-class brilliant had lower halves two degrees
steeper than the pavilion mains.
This resulted in a length of the lower halves of about 60%.
Ideal regards,
Michael
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2003
- Messages
- 379
Pyramid,
I am at a bit of a loss to understand the many flip-flops your reading and analysis has caused you to make.
Regardless of what you do, the 1.90ct diamond has provided a valuable example that was a sprinboard along with Echelon's diamond for informative discussions.
Lots of astute readers, observers and avid lovers of the Ideal benefited. Lots of issues were simplified and clarified for those who took the time to carefully evaluate the evidence demonstrated. You seem to be one of those sharp minded individuels, rather than the few that were just confused and turned off with what they perceived to be confilcting opinions.
Among the contributing consumers, Strm is never confused or turned off by this interchange of ideas and understanding.
If folks take the time to reread this thread, no one else should be either.
Best wishes,
Michael
PS If anyone is looking for consensus that one set of proportions stands out as the best of the best, be aware that this flies in the face of the AGS and GIA grading systems and the opinion of most researchers like the American and Russian scientists and myself. Remember the prior Everest peak vs lofty plateau discussions.
And it is clear to all of us that there is no credible evidence that if there were a holy grail angle combination, that it would be 40.75, 34.5 any more than 41, 34.
Tolkowsky's math argument has long ago been shown to be flawed. Even though his math came up with perfectly reasonable angles, they were derived from an unsound premise and the math had inconsistencies and errors.
Historically, none of that mattered, as he had a good set of angles that the GIA and AGS, and cutters of Ideal standardized on without questioning the math. The Grading Systems of both GIA and AGS are now telling you by the sweet spot or range of Excellent and Ideal 0 that they were wrong to push a single set of angles as an Everest rather than a member of the plateau at the lofty heights of Ideal.
Tolkowsky will remain an iconic figure as his book "Diamond Design" became the springboard that restored cutting for beauty rather than weight to a cutting world that in the US had flooded the market with spready, thin crown, large table diamonds and ignored the Ideal cut of Boston's Henry Morse.
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
That's because I know enough to separate out the marketing and grandstanding and go on my own findings even if I'm the only one that agrees with them.
I say so isn't enough to change my mind no matter who says it.
Lets see the proof.
The proof that a 34/41 combo can be as good as or better than other combo comes from all the tools I have used and my eyeballs back it up.
So no matter how one company tries to demonism it ain't going to work.
Just like you aren't going to convince me that there is a one sweet spot in the gia and ags grading systems.
I have seen too many kiken diamonds of varies combos to agree too it.
There are multiple sweet spots depending on who you ask and done right they all have trade offs and selecting what you want personality wise is where the real beauty is.
More and more consumers are becoming aware of this and I will be at the forefront of it as long as I can. Always learning and always looking for proofs.
Now iv been burned a few times by listening too the experts here the first was that 8* was the holy grail of diamond cutting, painting has little effect, and the third was that 40.99 degree pavilions are a hard cut off point for a good diamond.
My mk2 eyeballs and my research tell me that all of those are false.
GIA tries and tell me that the steep deeps are ok, my eyes and research tell me different they are wrong.
GIA gives warnings on crowns over 35 degrees when a crowns over 35 degrees can be a perfect match for some pavilion angles and cutting styles. They are wrong.
Sometimes I get totally sick of it.
Thanks Michaelgem
I think the thing is I understand where everyone is coming from but I do not understand some of the mathematics and scientific parts of it like the way Strmdr does. I think most here are going for the other parameters, and then there is John from WF above saying about best value for money, it makes me feel this 34/41 although the light performance is the same in science etc. the cutters are stating in three dimensional real life it may not be.
I see from your pictures on the other thread that the proportions for the crown look similar however when I look at the diamond from the profile I feel as though the pavillion looks deeper, I do not know if this is in my mind from the shallow/deep combo remarks made on Pricescope about 34/41, (I have seen Strmrdr saying that before to people about ideals i.e. shallow/shallow,okay/medium. steep/deep etc.) I know that GIA has recommended now those deeper pavillions and steeper crown angles but I also remember talks about factories trying to get more from the rough, which Serg has proved is not correct with this diamond, but then in the drawing on that other thread, the small diamond from the same piece of rough (the shallow/deep) is larger in diameter than a Tolkowsky rough smaller diamond on the graphic would be, so they are gaining weight there that the Tolkowsky does not. I know that Serg knows what he is talking about too, but then that is not real and he said himself things were more complicated in real life.
I think what may influence me the most though is that Whiteflash seems to be the biggest vendor on this site and many are purchasing through them and their ACA is cut to the other specs and the 34/41 is better value or not the best if you want to pay the money for it.
I know 100% that Brian Gavin knows what he is talking about and I put a lot of faith on that too, I know Jonathan is a Gemmologist but he is not a Diamond Cutter. I don't think there is colour entrapment in this stone and I am happy with that if there was but mostly it is the fact that the pavillion is deeper and while an ideal I feel as though it is an off-make ideal (not that there may be such a thing). I know that Jonathan has some time of membership of GIA and he is selling these stones so ofcourse he is going to be recommending as is Brian Gavin with his, however I am not sure what your part is and whether you are recommending GIA too because of an affiliation with them the same as Jonathan.
If I buy another diamond it will have nothing to do with this I would still buy from GoodoldGold if they have the diamond I want as I would from Whiteflash. Infact I nearly bought a NewLine ACA from Whiteflash before but decided against it in the same way I am deciding against this stone. I have absolutely nothing against either vendor and have been treated very very well by both. I just feel confused about this diamond, I am in the middle of two sides of people who all know a lot more than me about it and that is why I flip flop, I hear good from you and then I hear something which counteracts it from the other side, not specifically talking about this diamond but nevertheless talking about 41 pavillion angles compared to Tolkowsky. I had to make a decision one way or the other, I probably won't be buying another diamond after this one so it is not like I can just buy and tradeup. I honestly would rather have been able to keep this one because now I have all the hassle with trying to find a company to insure the diamond when it is being sent back because Fedex apparently do not do this and GoodoldGold has no provision for it. I feel when I was uneasy about the diamond before it was sent I should not have been talked into it.
I think the thing is I understand where everyone is coming from but I do not understand some of the mathematics and scientific parts of it like the way Strmdr does. I think most here are going for the other parameters, and then there is John from WF above saying about best value for money, it makes me feel this 34/41 although the light performance is the same in science etc. the cutters are stating in three dimensional real life it may not be.
I see from your pictures on the other thread that the proportions for the crown look similar however when I look at the diamond from the profile I feel as though the pavillion looks deeper, I do not know if this is in my mind from the shallow/deep combo remarks made on Pricescope about 34/41, (I have seen Strmrdr saying that before to people about ideals i.e. shallow/shallow,okay/medium. steep/deep etc.) I know that GIA has recommended now those deeper pavillions and steeper crown angles but I also remember talks about factories trying to get more from the rough, which Serg has proved is not correct with this diamond, but then in the drawing on that other thread, the small diamond from the same piece of rough (the shallow/deep) is larger in diameter than a Tolkowsky rough smaller diamond on the graphic would be, so they are gaining weight there that the Tolkowsky does not. I know that Serg knows what he is talking about too, but then that is not real and he said himself things were more complicated in real life.
I think what may influence me the most though is that Whiteflash seems to be the biggest vendor on this site and many are purchasing through them and their ACA is cut to the other specs and the 34/41 is better value or not the best if you want to pay the money for it.
I know 100% that Brian Gavin knows what he is talking about and I put a lot of faith on that too, I know Jonathan is a Gemmologist but he is not a Diamond Cutter. I don't think there is colour entrapment in this stone and I am happy with that if there was but mostly it is the fact that the pavillion is deeper and while an ideal I feel as though it is an off-make ideal (not that there may be such a thing). I know that Jonathan has some time of membership of GIA and he is selling these stones so ofcourse he is going to be recommending as is Brian Gavin with his, however I am not sure what your part is and whether you are recommending GIA too because of an affiliation with them the same as Jonathan.
If I buy another diamond it will have nothing to do with this I would still buy from GoodoldGold if they have the diamond I want as I would from Whiteflash. Infact I nearly bought a NewLine ACA from Whiteflash before but decided against it in the same way I am deciding against this stone. I have absolutely nothing against either vendor and have been treated very very well by both. I just feel confused about this diamond, I am in the middle of two sides of people who all know a lot more than me about it and that is why I flip flop, I hear good from you and then I hear something which counteracts it from the other side, not specifically talking about this diamond but nevertheless talking about 41 pavillion angles compared to Tolkowsky. I had to make a decision one way or the other, I probably won't be buying another diamond after this one so it is not like I can just buy and tradeup. I honestly would rather have been able to keep this one because now I have all the hassle with trying to find a company to insure the diamond when it is being sent back because Fedex apparently do not do this and GoodoldGold has no provision for it. I feel when I was uneasy about the diamond before it was sent I should not have been talked into it.
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
EightStars are kicken diamonds, you just don''t like em, doesn''t make em bad.
Small amounts of painting can actually be beneficial, re the above mentioned EightStar and the ACA New Line. Again, your not liking that flavor does not make it bad. (Paul does NOT paint his diamonds, even a little, this is my personal opinion, not that of Infinity.)
I don''t think anyone here has stated that 40.99 is a hard cut off, just that it is approaching the edge, and if everything else is done correctly they can be gorgeous stones. As Paul Slegers will tell you, often it is good to be near an edge, it gives a great boost to apparent contrast, which can be a good thing.
I fail to see how being in disagreement with some of the experts is equivalent to having been burned.Indeed, you have done the work to earn the right to disagree and argue with the best of us. Far from being burned, I would say it is part of the enjoyment.
BUT! That is just my opinion, you are welcome to have your own...
Wink
Storm are 34/41 combos less money than other Tolkowsky combos?
When doing a Cut Quality search under H&A Ideal 1.75-1.79 G VS1 there is one Whiteflash and Two GoodoldGold stones listed and they do not seem to be cheaper, the GOG stones are larger and therefore more but when comparing as a layperson, to me they do not seem to be. Ofcourse there is the brand which WF has and I am not sure if GOG charges in the same way if they are ISee2 or anything like that.
When doing a Cut Quality search under H&A Ideal 1.75-1.79 G VS1 there is one Whiteflash and Two GoodoldGold stones listed and they do not seem to be cheaper, the GOG stones are larger and therefore more but when comparing as a layperson, to me they do not seem to be. Ofcourse there is the brand which WF has and I am not sure if GOG charges in the same way if they are ISee2 or anything like that.
JohnQuixote
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,212
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2003
- Messages
- 379
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
Hey Wink hope your AC is fixed :}Date: 7/21/2007 6:53:17 PM
Author: Wink
EightStars are kicken diamonds, you just don't like em, doesn't make em bad.
Small amounts of painting can actually be beneficial, re the above mentioned EightStar and the ACA New Line. Again, your not liking that flavor does not make it bad. (Paul does NOT paint his diamonds, even a little, this is my personal opinion, not that of Infinity.)
I don't think anyone here has stated that 40.99 is a hard cut off, just that it is approaching the edge, and if everything else is done correctly they can be gorgeous stones. As Paul Slegers will tell you, often it is good to be near an edge, it gives a great boost to apparent contrast, which can be a good thing.
I fail to see how being in disagreement with some of the experts is equivalent to having been burned.Indeed, you have done the work to earn the right to disagree and argue with the best of us. Far from being burned, I would say it is part of the enjoyment.
BUT! That is just my opinion, you are welcome to have your own...
Wink
Read what I said again....
Your reading more into it than I said.
Since the 8* hype has mellowed out Iv mellowed my response to match, they are nice stones some people love but they are certainly not the holy grail of diamond cutting.
Painting can have large both small and large effects, bad and good, some personality effects and some performance effects.
Now 41 and over is bad camp had a lot of members one of which is the person selling the diamond pyramid is agonising over.
Continued research and my eyes has proven that wrong.
Then we have the continued demonisation that a 41 pavilion is going to magically change your h into a z.
Date: 7/21/2007 7:54:10 PM
Author: strmrdr
Hey Wink hope your AC is fixed :}Date: 7/21/2007 6:53:17 PM
Author: Wink
EightStars are kicken diamonds, you just don't like em, doesn't make em bad.
Small amounts of painting can actually be beneficial, re the above mentioned EightStar and the ACA New Line. Again, your not liking that flavor does not make it bad. (Paul does NOT paint his diamonds, even a little, this is my personal opinion, not that of Infinity.)
I don't think anyone here has stated that 40.99 is a hard cut off, just that it is approaching the edge, and if everything else is done correctly they can be gorgeous stones. As Paul Slegers will tell you, often it is good to be near an edge, it gives a great boost to apparent contrast, which can be a good thing.
I fail to see how being in disagreement with some of the experts is equivalent to having been burned.Indeed, you have done the work to earn the right to disagree and argue with the best of us. Far from being burned, I would say it is part of the enjoyment.
BUT! That is just my opinion, you are welcome to have your own...
Wink
Read what I said again....
Your reading more into it than I said.
Since the 8* hype has mellowed out Iv mellowed my response to match, they are nice stones some people love but they are certainly not the holy grail of diamond cutting.
Painting can have large both small and large effects, bad and good, some personality effects and some performance effects.
Now 41 and over is bad camp had a lot of members one of which is the person selling the diamond pyramid is agonising over.
Continued research and my eyes has proven that wrong.
Then we have the continued demonisation that a 41 pavilion is going to magically change your h into a z.
The thing is that is what Brian Gavin learned from his Grandfather and Father, I don't think you would call something you learned from yours demonisation Storm. (Not saying this in a cheeky way just that is how I see it when I think of it from my relations).
I can definitely say my H colour is certainly not a K, I think it is very white for an H but then I am not qualified to grade it, but I do know it is not a K and below and I don't think it is I-J. I asked Charles at GoodoldGold before I bought it if it was a high or low H and he said it was dead on H, so I assume he tested it on that machine thingy Rhino has. I know it is just words and how you are saying it Storm but I did not take it from Brian Gavin's post that he meant that I just saw it that it would show more colour and I thought he meant maybe one to three grades lower or so.
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
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
2: achievable
3: means anything
4: a sweet spot
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 sugestions
submit your articles for peer review.
Find someone who disagrees with you and do a point counter point presentation
with documentation.
btw I have given that same advice to Jon, John, Garry and many others over the years here so im not picking on you.
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?
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?
Ellen
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2006
- Messages
- 24,433
I have found (through looking over the last year and a half) they run about the same in well cut stones.
Pyramid, after reading your last post to Michaelgem, I hear you saying that this person says that, and that person says this, and the ONLY time I''ve heard mention of the diamond in question was about its profile. Now, I guess that could be important to some, but that''s not how most people view them.
What I haven''t heard is an indepth observation of your stone. What it looks like and does in various lighting situations. Comparing it to the knowlege I''m sure you have also acquired here on how a well cut diamond should behave. Have you done that? It''s fine to read all the various opinions, but then you should put that aside, and see if the diamond speaks for itself. I can''t stress that enough.
I tried to tell you earlier that you had a killer stone, and not because I have an agenda, but because I have a stone cut to extremely similar specs. I have had it for a year and a half. I know what it does. And it does everything it is supposed to, being an extremely tight, well cut stone. I am very picky, I TOTALLY scrutenized it when I got it, because if it didn''t do everything but get up and dance, I was sending it back. But I didn''t have to. It''s brightness is like someone turned a flashlight on. It sparkles like mad under approriate light conditions. It''s got lots of fire, WAY more than my OMC. And after all this time, it''s still full of surprises in new lighting situations, some of which make me literally laugh out loud.
I just feel bad for you, as I know this is a one time big expenditure, and you want to get it right. In my humble opinion, by looking at its specs and IS (remember that), you have.
If you''re not happy with your diamond, by all means, send it back. But please, send it back because it doesn''t perform, not because it has numbers that not everyone buys.
- Status
Past, Present, Future: The Meaning of Three-Stone Engagement Rings
Past, Present, Future: The Meaning of Three-Stone Engagement Rings - 04/14
300x240.png)