misleading?

[:)]

I saw a stone today. It falls outside of AGS ideal and GIA excellent standards. It was graded as GIA ''very good'' for cut. Yet James Allen lists it as ''ideal'' cut on their website.

James Allen''s definition of cut when you click on the link next to their label of ''cut: ideal'' is:

"This refers mainly to the "make" of a diamond. Meaning the exact proportions that were given to the diamond when it was polished by the diamond cutter. There are some that say that the cut of a diamond is the most important factor when considering the 4C''s (cut, color, clarity, carat). The cut determines the brilliance, fire, and scintillation of a diamond. So the better the cut, the more sparkle the diamond will display."

That seems misleading to me. I know we sort of discussed using the ''ideal'' term in the past, but to use it as far as actual cut when it is clearly outside of both labs parameters seems misleading to me (using the Holloway to see this). Anyone disagree? Anyone feel that since each lab (meaning AGS, GIA) has their own parameters it should also be permissible for each company to have their own ideal parameters?

I am interested to hear the experts opinions. (although all others are welcome too!)

BTW the parameters were:

61.6
55
40.4
35

(and no, it does not appear to be one of their actual stones - it appears to be a virtual stone)

 

[JulieN]

It gets a good score on HCA, probably falls under AGA 1A/B "American Ideal Cut." There are lots of different ideas of "ideal."

It was dicussed recently.

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/the-terms-ideal-and-ags-ideal.50802/

 

[devientdrow]

I don''t think this is misleading at all. I actually purchased my stone from James Allen and it was sold to me as an Ideal Cut stone. When I put the GIA number in and checked it on the GIA website it was listed as Very Good. Even though I got my stone almost a year ago I emailed Jim with my questions and the way he explained it made sense to me. The pure definition of "Ideal Cut" has changed, and what the standards are for that. If you look in the Tools section of the page my diamond is Ideal Cut. It falls in the numbers listed as ideal proportions according to the HCA. The ONLY thing that makes my diamond a GIA very good is because it has a small very thin spot on the girdle. Therefore my stone is still cut to ideal proportions but because of the girdle I got all the sparkle and shine of an ideal cut with the price tag of a very good. I''m sure if you asked why it is marked as such he will explain to you. When I did buisness with Jim I got the idea that he took pride in his work and wouldn''t do anything shady. I''m just one person but I would feel 100% comfortable, if all I did was call him, tell him what I wanted in a stone and let him figure it out for me.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Well, I seem to recall a recent long debate on this topic.

And I will agree with you that the word "ideal" has different meanings to different people, and you''d better know what specs you''re looking for rather than going by the labels on a website. I feel like GOG and WF both responded to the comments and cleared up any confusion on their sites, but clearly there are others that could stand to do so.

 

[pricescope]

Date: 11/7/2006 9:35:55 PM
Author: JulieN
It gets a good score on HCA, probably falls under AGA 1A/B 'American Ideal Cut.' There are lots of different ideas of 'ideal.'

Indeed, JulieN.

Question is: who misled whom. Both system don't like slightly shallow stones while they still can look great. E.g. see Maarten DeWitte video: Part 3: Looking at ideal Tolkowsky and slightly shallow cut stones.