Paul on Numbers and Perception, the Case of Square Diamond-Cuts

[pricescope]

Also don''''t forget to check out the latest Paul''''s article: Numbers and perception, the case of square diamond-cuts

 

[strmrdr]

Kewl thanks Paul.

 

[WinkHPD]

Paul,

An excellent presentation to explain why some of us don''t get it when looking at the numbers on certs for a princess cut diamonds. Thank you for bringing the facts into better focus.

By the way, I have noticed many more AGS0 cut princess stones coming available on the market now. What I am also noticing that most of them are pushing the 1:1.05 length width restriction so that they actually look slightly rectangular. I had a stateside dealer show me one the other day and my first reaction after he left was to pick up the phone and call Peter Yantzer at AGS to ask what gives with such a rectangular stone getting an AGS 0 grade. (I had incorrectly remembered the lenght/width ratio as 1:1.02.) When we did the math this stone was 1:1.04 and change.

While still incredibly beautiful I was unsatisfied with the slightly rectangular look, but Peter reminded me that the stones still look square when set.

Sigh. You set the bar very high my friend, so few are willing to jump so high!

Wink

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/5/2005 12:31:09 PM
Author: Wink
Paul,


An excellent presentation to explain why some of us don''t get it when looking at the numbers on certs for a princess cut diamonds. Thank you for bringing the facts into better focus.


By the way, I have noticed many more AGS0 cut princess stones coming available on the market now. What I am also noticing that most of them are pushing the 1:1.05 length width restriction so that they actually look slightly rectangular. I had a stateside dealer show me one the other day and my first reaction after he left was to pick up the phone and call Peter Yantzer at AGS to ask what gives with such a rectangular stone getting an AGS 0 grade. (I had incorrectly remembered the lenght/width ratio as 1:1.02.) When we did the math this stone was 1:1.04 and change.


While still incredibly beautiful I was unsatisfied with the slightly rectangular look, but Peter reminded me that the stones still look square when set.


Sigh. You set the bar very high my friend, so few are willing to jump so high!


Wink

Thats why you and Paul will always have a place in the diamond world and here.
There is a market for perfection to near perfection over max production be it settings or AGS0 diamonds.

 

[WinkHPD]

Thank you for the kind words Storm.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 9/5/2005 12:31:09 PM
Author: Wink
By the way, I have noticed many more AGS0 cut princess stones coming available on the market now. What I am also noticing that most of them are pushing the 1:1.05 length width restriction so that they actually look slightly rectangular. I had a stateside dealer show me one the other day and my first reaction after he left was to pick up the phone and call Peter Yantzer at AGS to ask what gives with such a rectangular stone getting an AGS 0 grade. (I had incorrectly remembered the lenght/width ratio as 1:1.02.) When we did the math this stone was 1:1.04 and change.

Pushing up to 1.05 length-to-width-ratio makes a hell of a difference in weight retention.

Basically, it is a manufacturer''s choice. If you only go for the AGS-0-report, and that is your main selling proposition, then it makes sense to push up to a ratio of 1.05.

However, if you want truly predictable light performance, you need more symmetry, and you have to be closer to a perfect square. The result is that you easily lose 10% more weight, but it shows in the performance of the stone. The bad effect is that you have to sell the stone at least 10% more expensive than the other AGS-0.

I chose for the latter option. Maybe, the other option brings in more money, but I feel more at ease with my choice.

Live long,

 

[belle]

thanks for taking the time to put this information together and share it with us.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/5/2005 2:59:19 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp


I chose for the latter option. Maybe, the other option brings in more money, but I feel more at ease with my choice.

Live long,

It''s also the wise path when building a brand and a reputation, so I''m not surprised Paul.

Thanks for putting that together.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 9/5/2005 2:59:19 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

Date: 9/5/2005 12:31:09 PM
Author: Wink
By the way, I have noticed many more AGS0 cut princess stones coming available on the market now. What I am also noticing that most of them are pushing the 1:1.05 length width restriction so that they actually look slightly rectangular. I had a stateside dealer show me one the other day and my first reaction after he left was to pick up the phone and call Peter Yantzer at AGS to ask what gives with such a rectangular stone getting an AGS 0 grade. (I had incorrectly remembered the lenght/width ratio as 1:1.02.) When we did the math this stone was 1:1.04 and change.

Pushing up to 1.05 length-to-width-ratio makes a hell of a difference in weight retention.

Basically, it is a manufacturer''s choice. If you only go for the AGS-0-report, and that is your main selling proposition, then it makes sense to push up to a ratio of 1.05.

However, if you want truly predictable light performance, you need more symmetry, and you have to be closer to a perfect square. The result is that you easily lose 10% more weight, but it shows in the performance of the stone. The bad effect is that you have to sell the stone at least 10% more expensive than the other AGS-0.

I chose for the latter option. Maybe, the other option brings in more money, but I feel more at ease with my choice.

Live long,

good for you Paul.

 

[oldminer]

Paul and Wink;

I seems a terrible problem to need to sell your well crafted stones for a premium because you can''t calculate their performance if they are not just about perfectly square. I am in a position to grade and compare any rectangular princess cuts with any square ones. All we''d require is a a few AGS 0 square princess cuts for calibration purposes and then we can readily compare their light behavior to any other princess cuts of any length to width ratio. I see no good reason to sacrifice weight in order to get a perticular grade, so long as actual light performance is on the same level.

Glad to assist anyone in discovering more about the subject and to assist those who sell diamonds to satisy their client''s needs.

 

[WinkHPD]

Hmm,

I think Paul has chosen to cut his stones square because THAT is the way that they should be cut. I know that the AGS system allows for up to a 1 to 1.05 ratio, but for pure visual beauty a 1:1 stone is VERY hard to beat.

I can say this uniquivocably however, all of the AGS 0 cut stones I have seen, no matter who cut them, are MUCH prettier than the princess cuts that the market is used to, and the AGS is to be commended for bringing their cutting system to the market as it has forced an explosion in the availability of beautiful princess cut stones.

Wink

 

[oldminer]

Wink, it seems incredible that one can''t or won''t cut a somewhat rectangular princess cut diamond of equal performance to a square cut one. If cutters like Paul had a reliable way to show their rectangular diamond was of similar performance to square ones with an AGS 0, could they not sell rectangular shapes in addition to square ones? A premium in price comes from the difficulty of getting the best light performance, not a diamond being exactly square, right? The premium sometimes derives from excess weight loss in cutting, but also derives from the extra beauty seen in certain carefully configured diamonds where their beauty is maximized.

 

[RockDoc]

The rectangular ones will NOT have the light performance of the square ones.

My light leakage test proves that out, not only for princess but for all stones, the extent of it linked directly to the L/W ratio.

But it would be interesting to see if IMAGEM does recognize this.

Rockdoc

 

[WinkHPD]

You are talking about truly rectangular I think and AGS is talking about square princess cuts, to which they will allow a deviation to as much as 1 to 1.05. For example a stone could be as far off as 6.5mm x 6.83mm and still qualify as a princess cut square while looking quite odd, regardless of how much light performance it has. AGS will someday have a grade for a normal rectangular princess, but not yet.

When you start talking about what Paul can not or will not do, you need to be talking with him, as I am NOT the right man to explain his reasoning, I just happen to appreciate what he did. I do not want to put words in his mouth, nor come accross as only an advocate for his stones.

As I said in my last post and I quote: "I can say this uniquivocably however, all of the AGS 0 cut stones I have seen, no matter who cut them, are MUCH prettier than the princess cuts that the market is used to, and the AGS is to be commended for bringing their cutting system to the market as it has forced an explosion in the availability of beautiful princess cut stones"

Wink

 

[freaknyea]

I am hopeing for one of Paul''s Princess Cuts as I have heard such great things about him and his company, even the dealers off his web site are great. I am looking for a Princess Cut Diamond that is SQUARE not rectangle. I am curious... if we were to take a round diamond and make it oval is it still a round diamond? To me ... no. You can cut an Oval Diamond but it is not round. Although I am no expert and chances are never will be but to me a Princess cut is a Princess cut is a Princess cut. I don''t believe we should make excuses as to what a Princess cut "can" be because it is what it is. If you want a Rectangle Diamond... than cut a Rectangle Diamond... just don''t call it a Princess. Chris

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

I am surprised to see this thread becoming more about square or non-square. It is of course an interesting topic, but it does not touch the contents of the article.

On the other hand, I am also surprised to not see a lively discussion about the article itself. No comments or questions about that?

Live long,

 

[oldminer]

Paul; In an attempt to more address the topic of your article, I will say that this is something ImaGem and myself agree upon. We will be grading the DFS (Durability-Finish-Size) grade, the cut grade with the AVERAGE of the diameters, not the width with fancy shapes AND round diamonds. It does make more sense to look at the whole picture and not just the average on rounds and the smallest width of a fancy. There never was logic in that approach, but it was a traditional way of doing the identification of the diamond when Light Behavior was not the issue. Things have changed.

Would you think the "avaerage" of a princess cut is the maximum diagonal plus the minimum width divided by 2, or would you prefer to see both diagonals plus both min and mox widths divided by 4? It won''t be greatly different, but these numbers are obtained digitally and can be readily crunched.

THANKS