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

[Serg]

Fortunately, cheating does not happen often, but a phantom of cheating might spoil almost every purchase. Does this 1,01ct have the best appearance it could? Would it look better if it was 0,99ct but with more symmetry and better proportions ?


To build consumer trust we consider offering a service, which before cutting reveals a spectrum of cut options that can be obtained from a rough or from a poorly cut diamond as a result of recut. In this approach a final cut choice is made by an end user because it is what resonates with his or her personality best.


We invite you to try an early version of this service and share your experience. Your anonymous vote in our poll will help diamond cutters to develop new items which will indulge you better, blow the cheating ghost away and build trust between a Master and a Client.


Imagine you have a chance to buy at the same price a 1,71ct RBC GIA Poor cut, H color, VVS2

or any one of the possible improved recuts
https://cutwise.com/~p6pG

of this stone with different cut proportions and carat weights. You can consider a direct comparison chart of all available options by still photos or movies, just click "Play". You can also examine individual advanced photographs and videos along with numerical parameters (including brilliance, fire and apparent size Cutwise metrics) and appearance under different lighting conditions (office or fire generating light). Clicking on every diamond will bring you to a complete stone's profile.
for example 1.29ct diamond

Which diamond would you prefer if all of them are equally priced and have the same color and clarity?
Will, in your opinion, transparency of possible cut options help to enjoy choosing process and diamonds more?
Please share your feelings and thoughts regarding your choice and new experience of choosing .

 

[lovedogs]

This is SO COOL!!!! I love this idea and love the increased transparency for consumers. I chose the 1.29 bc of the far superior aset and performance.

 

[MMtwo]

This is a great tool. I chose the 1.34 option. It's maybe not the most beautiful cut, but it balances the weight. I like the fact it would let me chose the outcome of the stone. It is also easy to appreciate a stonecutter's dilemma.

Thanks.

 

[sledge]

@Serge, thanks for sharing. This intrigues me.

I am curious -- do you and/or your cutters have the ability to hit SPECIFIC proportion criteria?

For instance, using the referenced stones, is there an option that would allow a 54-55 table, 34.5 crown & 40.8 pavilion? Or is the 57 table, 34.5/41 combo of the 1.22ct option the best you can get?

To get specific proportions, would we have to consider a new diamond rough with a new set of options?

Also, just to clarify, when you say "equal money" do you mean spend $8k and essentially pick the size of your diamond, rather it's 1.71 carats or 1.22 carats? Or is this an equal price based on carat weight?

Makes a difference:

• $8,000 total / 1.71 = $4,678 per carat
• $8,000 total / 1.22 = $6,557 per carat

Versus using the same price per carat method:

• $4,500 per carat x 1.71 = $7,695 total
• $4,500 per carat x 1.22 = $5,490 total

 

[Serg]

@sledge

It is easy to fix any combination of proportions.
In test above I consider same price per diamond( different price per carat)

 

[HDer]

Are the differences in price really this dramatic? I didn't know we'd need to sacrifice half a carat and over a millimeter to achieve perfect cut.

Also I'm assuming the top two would not achieve GIA 3EX but all of the others would?

My personal pick would be the 1.5. The face up looks kind of like an OEC, it hits the 1.5 mark, has 0.4mm more than the next one, and has the highest spread (+10.1%) although I guess it would still be smaller looking than the 1.71.

 

[HDer]

Also, can you explain what the difference is between brilliance and brightness?

 

[headlight]

My eye prefers the 1.22... but clearly I am not good at this because the others here who are skilled at this did not choose the 1.22!

 

[AV_]

@Serg Could you make anything beautiful hitting 1.7 or over?

 

[Serg]

@Serg Could you make anything beautiful hitting 1.7 or over?

The original 1,71ct in this poll most likely had been already cut before I was born . One of our B2B clients in Hong-Kong owned it and sent to us wondering what beautiful options could be obtained after recut. As an answer he got the same range of stones as you got in the poll. So, this is a typical situation when recut can improve performance and match the owner's preference. There is no general right or wrong answer, it is a matter of personal taste, market situation, culture, etc. For example, a typical Japanese client would prefer a smaller stone with better optical performance.


The same technology is applicable if you want a beautiful diamond about 1,7ct or bigger up to the Cullinan , see for example this 30,4ct option which was the owner's preference before cutting from the rough.
https://cutwise.com/diamond/2696?sp=2



Of course, an original stone for recut or a rough should have sufficient size to receive a desired final size. Then you get a range of different beautiful cut options, for example, around 1,7ct and choose which one you prefer.


So, the answer to your question is "Yes", we can offer you a range of beautiful options for any carat weight. And for many fancy girdle shapes in fact, not just rounds. And, frankly speaking, fancy shapes are more exciting for us, rounds are becoming too commonplace and boring.

 

[Starfacet]

My eye prefers the 1.22... but clearly I am not good at this because the others here who are skilled at this did not choose the 1.22!

I picked this one as well

 

[Athena10X]

Although my eyes are drawn to the 1.22, the 1.32 balances everything nicely if going by the numbers. Tough call.

 

[OoohShiny]

This is really excellent!!

It is super-useful to be able to understand the impacts of different cutting options, to visualise the performance and to (try to) understand empirical performance metrics.

For me, I find it difficult to not pick the smallest-but-best-cut option in this example - blame PriceScope for that

I think the *really* interesting application will be for fancy shapes, which don't have established 'best' performance metrics and could have a much wider variety of cut-for-beauty faceting styles

 

[Serg]

This is really excellent!!

It is super-useful to be able to understand the impacts of different cutting options, to visualise the performance and to (try to) understand empirical performance metrics.

For me, I find it difficult to not pick the smallest-but-best-cut option in this example - blame PriceScope for that

I think the *really* interesting application will be for fancy shapes, which don't have established 'best' performance metrics and could have a much wider variety of cut-for-beauty faceting styles

@OoohShiny
Yes, we are planing the service for fancy cuts mainly. I have started yesterday from round sample on PS because it is easiest way to explain an idea here.
I am planing publish other poll for cushion 1.12ct https://cutwise.com/diamond/44354
in 1 week.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

My eye prefers the 1.22... but clearly I am not good at this because the others here who are skilled at this did not choose the 1.22!

You clearly ARE good at it because the 1.22 is the best cut stone!

Flat crowns (as in 12-13%) with bigger tables (59+) and crown angles of 30-32 just don't appeal to me at all. Naturally I am biased as I have had superideal cut stones as well as ideal cut antique style stones for years. I just think a nice higher crown in a well cut stone is very beautiful, and those that don't have them are missing something important (assuming complementary dimensions, of course).

Here is a very interesting article that explains how crowns began to be cut more shallow by @diagem Yoram of Gem Concepts:

https://gemconcepts.net/diamond-cutting-the-sawing-process/

"The higher demand developed by the new South African discoveries, the excellent De Beers marketing campaigns of the times and the fairly new diamond sawing processes.
All these caused the industry to plan and cut shallower diamond structures, mostly on the upper crowns – hence, the necessity for value more than optical design for (pure) beauty made the evolution change course."

 

[OoohShiny]

@OoohShiny
Yes, we are planing the service for fancy cuts mainly. I have started yesterday from round sample on PS because it is easiest way to explain an idea here.
I am planing publish other poll for cushion 1.12ct https://cutwise.com/diamond/44354
in 1 week.

Ooh, that is exciting! I will look forward to the next poll

It will be cool to be able to commission a cut exactly to personal taste. May I ask if the service is intended for Mined stones only?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Slightly off topic, but this video shows Sergeys rough diamond planning software in action.

We are lucky to have a world leading scientist asking us question

 

[OoohShiny]

Slightly off topic, but this video shows Sergeys rough diamond planning software in action.

We are lucky to have a world leading scientist asking us question

Oooh, I didn't realise that was Serg's software! That is cool

 

[AV_]

@diamondseeker2006 GemConcepts does at times acknowledge flat crown beauty although this is not their trademark look WWW. I find the idea of 3D 'play of light' profound & applicable even to these other styles. To me, the looks are as different as two colours, no question which I would choose if I had to pick one, but the combination seems magical.

Thinking out loud

 

[AV_]

frankly speaking, fancy shapes are more exciting for us, rounds are becoming too commonplace and boring

From seeing so many historical versions of the round brilliant, I'd say that even the o can be not boring - it has so many incarnations! Versions of the round brilliant seem to make sense better for various sizes, etc. - you'd know better.

-

Then,

It is nice to see a surprising fancy that does not resemble anything off the shelf & not by adding a zillion more pinhead facets in there (eg. a mountain of a crown over a reflecting pavilion www).

I could never compose a cut to surprise myself - but have already met two or three painfully unforgettable diamonds for reason of cut alone; they are quite unusual & I'd wish there were more of them, sure enough; none is a round.

2p

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Slightly off topic, but this video shows Sergeys rough diamond planning software in action.

We are lucky to have a world leading scientist asking us question

Yes, indeed we are!!! Very impressive film! And that diamond..... WOW!!!!!!!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I'm sorry, but I cannot understand how 40% of the people thus far replied that they'd choose the two largest and most poorly cut stones!!! How could we have that many people on PS who do not appreciate cut quality over weight unless they think they'll gamble on a recut???

 

[cflutist]

I'm sorry, but I cannot understand how 40% of the people thus far replied that they'd choose the two largest and most poorly cut stones!!! How could we have that many people on PS who do not appreciate cut quality over weight unless they think they'll gamble on a recut???

It is because most consumers are impressed by size and know that others are impressed by size and not by cut quality, or color and clarity for that matter.

When I wear my 3.01 F-SI1 pear on cruises, I get all kinds of compliments.

When I wore my 2.18 E-VS1 and 2.79 F-VS1 CBIs on my last cruise, I get asked if they are real or not, lol. And this was on a upscale 680 passenger ship, not a 3000 passenger mass market cruiseline.

I personally like quality diamonds and am sure that many PSers would rather buy a 4ct+ rather than 2 high color/clarity CBIs.

 

[lovedogs]

I'm sorry, but I cannot understand how 40% of the people thus far replied that they'd choose the two largest and most poorly cut stones!!! How could we have that many people on PS who do not appreciate cut quality over weight unless they think they'll gamble on a recut???

lol I was wondering the same thing!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

It is because most consumers are impressed by size and know that others are impressed by size and not by cut quality, or color and clarity for that matter.

When I wear my 3.01 F-SI1 pear on cruises, I get all kinds of compliments.

When I wore my 2.18 E-VS1 and 2.79 F-VS1 CBIs on my last cruise, I get asked if they are real or not, lol. And this was on a upscale 680 passenger ship, not a 3000 passenger mass market cruiseline.

I personally like quality diamonds and am sure that many PSers would rather buy a 4ct+ rather than 2 high color/clarity CBIs.

But Cheryl, as I recall, your pear is still a gorgeous stone!! That 1.7 is so poorly cut! But you are right that many here would go down in color and clarity to get a larger size even in ideal and superideal cuts. That's such a personal decision based on budget and the priorities of the specs.

I can't believe people on an upscale cruise would ask if your diamonds are real! Although I guess they may assume some people travel with fakes. Still, I wouldn't be so bold as to ask!

 

[mwilliamanderson]

I'm sorry, but I cannot understand how 40% of the people thus far replied that they'd choose the two largest and most poorly cut stones!!! How could we have that many people on PS who do not appreciate cut quality over weight unless they think they'll gamble on a recut???

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.

 

[HDer]

I'm sorry, but I cannot understand how 40% of the people thus far replied that they'd choose the two largest and most poorly cut stones!!! How could we have that many people on PS who do not appreciate cut quality over weight unless they think they'll gamble on a recut???

This is the recut. There’s nothing further to gamble on. My interpretation: giving up half a carat on a 1.7 carat stone is a lot. That’s almost a third of the weight.

Traditionally we have said that well cut stones look bigger than poorly cut but while that’s true it doesn’t make up for the full millimeter you’d be giving up. The 40% bigger stone will still surprise surprise look bigger.

So then really what’s left is the sparkle factor. While sparkle is important it’s obviously not that important to everyone. You can tell because lots of people don’t clean their diamonds anywhere close to regularly. Even then I think the 1.5 might have “enough” sparkle personally.

 

[HDer]

Raw numbers for the 1.5 vs. 1.22:

Weight/Dimensions/Cut Performance/Fire/Brilliance/Optical Symmetry/Spread/Face-Up Brightness/Brightness
1.5/7.69x7.64/1.05/1.52/0.93/5.7/+0.17/1.06/1.04
1.22/6.88x6.85/1.07/1.29/1.01/9.17/-0.03/1.06/0.99

From the raw numbers, what it looks like is by going with the 1.22 vs. the 1.5 you're getting a stone that's 9% more brilliant, is much more symmetrical, but that looks a lot smaller (looks-like size 1.19ct vs 1.67ct) and has 15% less fire (mainly because larger stones have more fire, if I'm interpreting it correctly).

Not sure I like that trade.

 

[TODiamonds]

I'm fascinated and shocked by how big a tradeoff in size is required to go from a low-end "Excellent" (1.5) to a high-end Ex (1.22). Intuitively it is hard to grasp, you would think a few degrees here and there wouldn't add up to 20% of the mass of the diamond wow.

This would be a hard one for me based on the spread numbers outlined above. That is a very meaningful and noticeable difference in size.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

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.