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

[Wewechew]

I voted before reading the thread so I thought it was just a size question and chose the largest diamond. Then I went back and changed my vote...probably some didn’t read it through.

I'm another one that voted first, then had to go back and change my vote after reading the thread. Oopsie.

 

[HDer]

Yeah, but the bigger the stone, the more you can see the poor cut! No thanks, been there, done that when I was young, and there was no internet to learn about diamond quality! Diamond quality used to be in terms of color and clarity! But I am sure the stones nearer the 1.22 look better than average and I can see why someone would buy them as opposed to the 1.71 and 1.5 whichare kind of a mess in terms of optical symmetry. People come on here all the time (many times the men) showing large stones at low price points that are pretty bad overall, but they are attracted to the larger carat weight. We try to educate as much as possible.

While I'm very grateful for Pricescope and Pricescopers, one of the problems I've had with Pricescope's default "education" is that it traditionally only goes in one direction: get the best possible cut. The really cool thing about this platform is it quantifies the difference between cuts of different quality, something I've asked for for a long time.

 

[TODiamonds]

While I'm very grateful for Pricescope and Pricescopers, one of the problems I've had with Pricescope's default "education" is that it traditionally only goes in one direction: get the best possible cut. The really cool thing about this platform is it quantifies the difference between cuts of different quality, something I've asked for for a long time.

Agreed 100%. Not compromising on cut is one thing, but when you only strive for getting the "best possible cut" I think that's a slippery slope in terms of value to the average everyday consumer.

 

[MMtwo]

Looking at the cut performance, none of them are complete dogs (okay, maybe 1 and 2 are iffy, but even 2 has plenty of fire and looks like a transitional). They don't look like a perfectly crafted diamond of perfection, but as they became smaller, they did not unilaterally improve the cut that much. Sure, on a round table under a spotlight you may perceive a difference viewed side by side, but once they hit excellent, it's going to be pretty, not perfect. I think at some point giving up the size is diminishing returns. Look at the changes in brightness and fire between cuts. Smaller is not necessarily that much better...IMHO. Saying that, and spending time here, I love high-performance diamonds. I also love fiery wonky ones. Unless they look like dead space or frozen spit, I have love in mah heart for them all. This tends to be a personal problem


I am happy to take in any unwanted diamonds, I promise to love them.

 

[OcnGypZ]

I struggled between the 1.22 and 1.29. I ultimately chose the 1.29 because of how it looked. It looked brighter than the 1.22. Though that could be due to photography.