Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

No phantom of cheating on cut any more? We seek your input.Part2

Cushion recut options poll.Which diamond would you prefer if all of them are equally priced and have

  • 1.12ct

    Votes: 3 5.7%
  • 1.04ct

    Votes: 4 7.5%
  • 1.02ct

    Votes: 12 22.6%
  • 1.01ct

    Votes: 6 11.3%
  • 1.00ct

    Votes: 2 3.8%
  • 0.96ct

    Votes: 26 49.1%
  • 0.92ct

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    53

Serg

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 21, 2002
Messages
2,430
Thanks to everybody who took part in the round recut poll.
Your votes and comments are very insightful. The polarized preferences stress the importance of owner's opinion, so this direction looks promising.


Today we invite you to share your opinions on a fancy cut. Please enjoy the 1.12ct cushion recut options and vote for your favorite. As in the previous poll you can click on every stone and get a detailed performance profile.

https://cutwise.com/~xHfx
Screenshot 2019-09-13 20.23.11.png
 

Sponsored By:

mwilliamanderson

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
199
Thanks to everybody who took part in the round recut poll.
Your votes and comments are very insightful. The polarized preferences stress the importance of owner's opinion, so this direction looks promising.


Today we invite you to share your opinions on a fancy cut. Please enjoy the 1.12ct cushion recut options and vote for your favorite. As in the previous poll you can click on every stone and get a detailed performance profile.

https://cutwise.com/~xHfx
Screenshot 2019-09-13 20.23.11.png
I went with the .96 too. I like the extra contrast in the center.
 

TODiamonds

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Jul 27, 2019
Messages
105
I like the look of the 0.96 as well, but I literally know nothing about cushion cuts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AV_

oldminer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Sep 3, 2000
Messages
6,316
I'd choose the 1.00ct as it looks like a very good looking stone and it has an all important 1.00ct weight break. It looks like a good balance of performance with weight. Obviously, it is a compromise or sorts, but might be a very good choice as an alternative to buying into ultimate light performance.
 

AV_

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 5, 2018
Messages
2,376
None.

I would want the contrast pattern of the 1.12 (aparently larger facets) with tolerable obstruction, but maybe it is already OK for me as it is - I would be playing with (indirect) light source positions to guess.
 

moneymeister

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
1,194
1.02, as it has the highest performance grade overall (tied with the .96), better fire than the .96, keeps that almighty 1ct weight. In my brain, cushions are wonkier than their round brilliant cousins, anyhow.

This tool is fascinating. I love the options and the clearly laid out trade-offs.
 

Serg

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 21, 2002
Messages
2,430
I'd choose the 1.00ct as it looks like a very good looking stone and it has an all important 1.00ct weight break. It looks like a good balance of performance with weight. Obviously, it is a compromise or sorts, but might be a very good choice as an alternative to buying into ultimate light performance.
David,
Thank you for the thoughtful opinion. Could you please also kindly mark your choice in the poll for statistical purposes?
 

OoohShiny

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
5,859
This is excellent!

Cutwise platform does not work on this stupid computer :rolleyes: but even just using the image posted, I am almost overwhelmed with things to consider!

It is very useful to think about the trade-offs - for example, more fire but less brilliance? More symmetry and brightness but less fire? More or less contrast/obstruction in the centre?

Going from the comparisons listed and the ASETscope images, I chose the 0.96. Good facet patterning and symmetry with a nice contrast in the centre (so not 'all on, all off' like an all-red centre might be), much more Fire than the 0.92, and being under the 1ct mark might mean a reduction in $/ct price :)


I am quite surprised that (at the moment of posting this) the results are so heavily skewed in favour of one of the options - perhaps that is the Pricescope Effect, whereby readers are used to balancing off the different variables? Or perhaps readers are voting on beauty alone? Or a combination of both?


Thank you for making us your guinea pigs, Serg! :D

EDIT:
Ooh, may I ask - how is the percentage / carat / 'looks like' reduction in spread calculated? Is there a theoretical 'ideal' spread for a particular cut?

EDIT:
I love that @AV_ is confident enough to know that (s)he would prefer something outside of the options - I like your style, AV_ 8-)

@Serg - AV_ prompts me to think about potential developments to the tool! Would it be possible to link the 'slider bars' (underneath the 'real life' and ASETscope images) back into the program that creates the options?

So, for example, one could slide the 'fire' bar to the right (for more fire) and watch the facet pattern, ASETscope, Spread and other slider bars change to accommodate the change?

e.g. the table could/would get smaller and higher and everything else would change to accommodate it? Or would that mean that you would have to create a fixed relationship between crown and pavilion angles (for example) rather than having the flexibility to adjust both independently?

Ignoring the fixed/variable crown/pavilion angles issue, one would then have 'infinite' cut options to choose from, rather than just the 7 or so presented?

It could be an 'Advanced user' tool, for use by us PS geeks and people in the industry, and the selection of a few options could be the 'Standard user' tool for use by those new to diamonds or who just want to assess stones for beauty using their eyes?

Or you could have the 'infinite options' as the standard tool, and people could then pay you/your team a little extra to produce a smaller range of options to pick from (like the image shown in the original post) that you (and therefore they) will know could work well?

Just thinking out loud! :))

(I have been wondering if such a tool could be created, because it would be really cool to be able to sit at home, play with angles etc, and then have the design sent for cutting in MMD rough - it could mean some interesting new cuts being 'crowd sourced' at much lower cost than using Mined rough :) )
 
Last edited:

Serg

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 21, 2002
Messages
2,430
This is excellent!

:D

EDIT:
Ooh, may I ask - how is the percentage / carat / 'looks like' reduction in spread calculated? Is there a theoretical 'ideal' spread for a particular cut?

https://cutwise.com/pr/#/21

Diamond with the same weight can have different visible size depending on their shape. This visual size is described by spread characteristic. Positive spread means that diamond looks larger than modern Tolkowsky round with same weight, negative means opposite.
 

OoohShiny

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
5,859
Thanks for the clarification on the spread aspects, Serg! :)


It's your browser. I normally use Edge. Had to switch to Chrome.
I think I will need to do that - I just resent having to do so, as I'm sure all-seeing evil google will be scraping usage data off my activities... :rolleyes: :razz:
 

HDer

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Messages
668
This was a tough one. For me it came down to between the 1.02 and the 0.96.

If I were buying without ever thinking about reselling, then I would probably get the 0.96. It's the absolute brightest of all of the selections, has good fire and symmetry.

But... like oldminer mentioned the 1 carat mark is so so important when it comes to resale value, and the 1.02 is a really good performer. It looks a smidge bigger and has more fire and brilliance than the 1.0. So if I were buying normally (that is with a possibility of reselling later on) I'd pick the 1.02.

@Serg the one thing that would be really useful would be to have a cut grade projection also. I think that would definitely affect people's choices in the real world.
 

oldminer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Sep 3, 2000
Messages
6,316
I believe the poll is showing that even among a group that tends to strongly favor the best light performing cuts, there are meaningful variations of what folks might choose when given more and clearer information. None of us are making "bad" choices, but we can just see with this software there are many real choices that might make us individually happier. This is good news for shoppers and also good news for diamonds cutters, too. Increasing the range of outcomes which have beneficial elements of profit or market share can be highly useful for cutters who are under so much financial pressure. I see lots of good upside potential and can't find any meaningful downside. Choice and knowledge together make a very happy situation together.
 

Serg

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 21, 2002
Messages
2,430
I believe originally "Mass break" promotion had been created by trade then polishing industry followed this demand .
If the polishing industry will communicate directly with consumers then we will see less diamonds with mass 1.01, 2.01 and more diamonds with higher performance . In same time for some shapes, clarity and color a bigger visual size is better solution. Consumers need bigger diamonds , diamonds with better performance. Most of them do not need more heavy diamonds instead bigger or better diamonds.
All recut options from above test https://cutwise.com/~xHfx have almost same visual size. Extra mass does not increase visual size in these recut options .
Extra mass does not increase Fire in this case. Size is very important for Fire, mass is not important for Fire.
We could rate car engines by litters or power. Will consumers pay more for car with bigger motor( more litters) but with less power ? A bigger engine just produce more carbon dioxide .
But in diamonds the trade still promote bigger engines than more effective engines .
Let's explain to consumers the difference between mass and visual size .
 

Serg

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 21, 2002
Messages
2,430
https://cutwise.com/pr/#/21

Diamond with the same weight can have different visible size depending on their shape. This visual size is described by spread characteristic. Positive spread means that diamond looks larger than modern Tolkowsky round with same weight, negative means opposite.
For example :
the cushion 1.02ct has visual size as the reference RBC with mass 0.849 ct
the cushion 0.96ct has visual size as the reference RBC with mass 0.834 ct
the difference in mass 0.06 ct between these cushions give just the 0.01ct difference in visual size .
Both these cushions look much less than the 1ct reference RBC .
 

gm89uk

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 26, 2015
Messages
1,393
Hey Serg, your performance parameter does not continue to improve as carat size reduces beyond the 1.02, so based on the performance parameter, there is little reason to go smaller than 1.02.

Is there a performance factor that isn't measured by your performance parameter to justify going below 1.02? Or is it just a case of achieving better optical symmetry and/or a different scintillation pattern?

Visually I'm attracted to the 0.96ct but logistically I'd go for 1.02 to stay above 1ct.
 

Serg

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 21, 2002
Messages
2,430
Hey Serg, your performance parameter does not continue to improve as carat size reduces beyond the 1.02, so based on the performance parameter, there is little reason to go smaller than 1.02.

Is there a performance factor that isn't measured by your performance parameter to justify going below 1.02? Or is it just a case of achieving better optical symmetry and/or a different scintillation pattern?

Visually I'm attracted to the 0.96ct but logistically I'd go for 1.02 to stay above 1ct.
Hi @gm89uk ,

1.02ct and 0.96ct have very similar optical performance .
1.02ct has bigger Fire flashes
0.96ct has more uniform brightness distribution under table and Better optical symmetry

In 1.02ct during tilting you could see some dark areas between main facets and table edges.
Screenshot 2019-09-17 15.18.58.png Screenshot 2019-09-17 15.19.10.png
one by one comparison
https://cutwise.com/compare/diamond-colorless?id[]=44355&id[]=44371


Also I more like the pattern design in 0.96ct cushion because I do not like big variation in Virtual Facets size.
I prefer design with uniform Virtual facet sizes .
For my Taste 1.02ct has too big main facets reflections under table and these facets have not Fire.
So Fire distribution in 1.02ct also less uniform than in 0.96ct
0.96ct looks more uniform , more balanced .
 

diamondseeker2006

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
54,993
I didn't read the responses before making my choice, and I also chose the .96 and was glad to see it is the front runner! I always favor great light return and optical symmetry.
 

HDer

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Messages
668
Unfortunately, I think the 0.75/0.9/1/1.5/2 carat magic numbers will only disappear when people stop saying "Ohh pretty! How many carats is it?" That will probably take a long long time, and even when it does people will probably move to something just as flawed like "Ohh pretty! How many millimeters is it?"
 

diamondseeker2006

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
54,993
I was definitely thinking what I'd choose for myself when I said the .96! I chose it for it's appearance and light return, but the bonus is it is just under the magic carat mark which would increase the price!
 

bunnycat

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 12, 2012
Messages
2,664
I like the more uniform face up look of the .96 but the 1.02 is similar and hits the 1 ct mark, so I said 1.02
 

Serg

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 21, 2002
Messages
2,430
I changed my 1.02 to 1.00 because of the dark zone around the edge of the table.
Magic carat weights are important to most people and maybe if I was in "I want this diamond for me mode" I might have chosen differently, but i am too conditioned in to what others want
Garry,

1.00ct has even bigger darker areas under table in comparison with 1.02ct
Also 1.00ct has dark zones near girdle that has to reduce your visual spread score.
it has less brilliancy score because it is more dark diamond in many zones .
https://cutwise.com/compare/diamond-colorless?id[]=44355&id[]=44361&id[]=44371
Screenshot 2019-09-18 08.40.41.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: AV_

OoohShiny

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
5,859
For my Taste 1.02ct has too big main facets reflections under table and these facets have not Fire.
So Fire distribution in 1.02ct also less uniform than in 0.96ct
I am confused! :???:

I thought larger facets create larger dispersion fans?


Are we saying that the larger facets do create fire (dispersion fans) but they are large and low in number, therefore are not seen very often?

And, therefore, it is better to have more facets of similar sizes (instead of a few facets being very large and the rest being quite small) to create more dispersion fans that are more likely to be seen?


Will the amount of fire created by a given number of facets be the same regardless of facet size? But how its distribution throughout the hemisphere above the diamond will differ depending on facet size and layout?


EDIT: Or... Do large pavilion mains reduce fire because the light return is straight back to the viewer through the Table, therefore it is not dispersed (which it would be if it travelled through the crown facets)?
 

Serg

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 21, 2002
Messages
2,430
I am confused! :???:

I thought larger facets create larger dispersion fans?


Are we saying that the larger facets do create fire (dispersion fans) but they are large and low in number, therefore are not seen very often?




EDIT: Or... Do large pavilion mains reduce fire because the light return is straight back to the viewer through the Table, therefore it is not dispersed (which it would be if it travelled through the crown facets)?
Diamonds with same cut design could have more or less fire depends from proportions ( facet slopes).
Fire strongly depends from angular dispersion , angular dispersion depends from cut proportions

see how big is dispersion variation for RBC depends from pavilion slop.

Pavilion main facets under table ( VF facets ) has almost zero dispersion for Pavilion angle 38 degrees.
40 degrees create Head Obscuration, the facets are dark.
For Pavilion range 38-40( and even up to 40.5) and Cr34.5 a main facets do not give fire under table.

The facets with 42 degree have much bigger dispersion than same facets with 41 degree.

Dispersion Main Facet RBC P38.png Dispersion Main Facet RBC P40.png Dispersion Main Facet RBC P41.png Dispersion Main Facet RBC P42.png
 
Last edited:
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!

JEWELRY BLOG

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top