Painted ideal cut diamonds

[dyemonds2002]

Wouldnt it be easier to buy ideal cut H&A diamonds if they were desribed on the reports either GIA or AGS if they mentioned painted or dug out as we all know some that specify ideal cuts could very well be off by symmetry and or optical meaning not precision couldnt a report saying painted or dug out help the consumer know for sure they are getting a great precision diamond. Also why cant upper girdle facets be finished completly not just closer to adjacent main crown and star angles. Can one single diamond in the H&A ideal cut range have both painting and digging on it or is it either or one or the other

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

you know too much

 

[dyemonds2002]

Hehehe just learning thats all and paying attn to detail im just a consumer learning about diamonds for the past 5-6 yrs

 

[oldminer]

The reasl issue is how well that particular diamond performs. The techniques of cutting are nuymerous, but it is the end result which creates beauty. The judgment of beauty remains in your own hands and eyes. I wouldn''t be a bit surprised to find many people who prefer the results of a cutting technique that some "gurus" may find a bit less than perfect in their own eyes. There are no agreed standards for all the many variables of cutting, and therefore many variations of apparently beautifully cut stones. Each individual may choose.

The guildeines that are out in the public domain and the many discussions on Pricescope have caught the attention of the knowledgreabel consumer and the diamond trade. I won''t say we have gone overboard since all knowledge can serve a good purpose, but sometimes one may confuse how the facts have an effect on the end results. Some minor shifting of faceting patterns may improve the looks of a given diamond even when the general rule is toward the negative. The variables of cutting each diamond are nearly infinite. Generalization is a worthy concept, but may fail on an individual basis.

This is not meant to say detail fo cutting are not important facts, but how they work together on any individual diamond remains less than a perfect prediction.

 

[He Scores]

There is Optical symetry. There is Physical symetry. Physical symetry is relatively objective while Optical symetry is relatively subjective (when is a H&A stone no longer a H&A and when is an Eightstar, not an Eightstar?) Usually when someone DECIDES it is or isn''t. Most systems of both Optical symetry and Physical symetry rely on very close, microscopic observation and measurements. The system that relies on neked eye viewing is broadly suspect IMHO.

There are four types of stones:

1. Stones that look good on paper and good to the eye.
2. Stones that look good on paper and bad to the eye.
3. Stones that look bad on paper and bad to the eye.
4. Stones that look bad on paper and good to the eye.

Obvioulsy the most desirebable (value added to gain maximum price) would be #1. Many stones sold today are #2. It seems that Dave''s system supports #4, but I could be wrong.

Broadening any of the above parameters to accomodate one''s position in the trade only serves as "value inflation"....such as the vast range today of the SI catagories.


Just a random thought.

Bill Bray
Diamond Cutter
"when we rely on our senses for perception, there is no absolute"

-Tao Philosophy