Parameters have value. So does human judgment

[oldminer]

We can screen for the best diamonds by measuring features of most common shapes with accurate tools. The more accurate the tools, the better the reliability of the results. The more we measure, the better we hope our results will be, but no device measures everything. Therefore there are aberrations is the way diamonds actually work with light versus the way we'd screen or predict for it to happen. Since screening implies a loose filtration process, some less than perfect stones might get through, but very few for the best understood shapes, such as round and now princess cut.

Prediction of light behavior in diamond is a relatively new science and we don't yet have absolute, carved in stone standards yet agreed upon. It may happen in the coming years and maybe we will always have some differing views of how the best diamonds look. Looks are a matter of taste. However, performance is something that can be measurable and objective.

When the trade combines physical measures with judgments of beauty, the obvious conclusion is that the end result will always have some subjective content. This is what makes the quest a challenge because few people really know how to judge beauty. Sure, they can judge numbers for which is greater, but beauty lies in moderation and in proportion. More is not always better. Think of plastic surgery to enhance certain features. More is not always better, is it? Very much the same applies to diamonds. More is generally good, but there is a tipping point where excess creates less beauty.

I had someone ask me today for a diamond with 99% light return. I doubt such a diamond would look very nice, but I know the person wants a highly brilliant stone. There is communication here but no real language for communication. The word "Ideal" is a good word, but is becoming overused. Ideal should be a narrow range at most and we really know now that it is a rather wide one instead.

Is "Excellent" all we have to replace it? Any suggestions????

 

[Rod]

Dear David,

Thank you for your wonderfully written words. You are a voice of sincere reason and I for one appreciate your sage advice.

Your words have actully helped me better appreciate my own diamond. It''s not "ideal." It wasn''t cut to the "commodotized" numbers everyone seems to seek. It''s table is a tad large and some would say it''s depth is a tad shallow. BUT, it''s a beautiful diamond and scores quite highly on the HCA. And, it''s mine, it''s paid for, and most of my friends have commented it''s one of the prettiest diamonds they''ve seen.

Again, thank you for your wonderful words of wisdom.

 

[valeria101]

''Ideal'' is a fuzzy word for me... quite appropriate.


Anyway, I can''t quite think of anything that is called ''ideal'' for being precisely parked din a narrow range. What would that be ?

Thinking twice... the Tolkowsky ideal is a spot, by construction! Worth reconsidering such an optimization model? Funny enough, two posts ago, someone pulled up a diamond quite but that rule (54 table, 34.5 crown, 40.5 pavilion) and it got called ''shallow''. Perhaps an update is in order.