Peter Yantzer on diamond cutting

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 4/25/2009 6:40:14 PM
Author: DiaGem
Since Paul was involved (with Peter) in explaining weight ratio on Princess cuts (a concern I am familiar with on other shapes)..., I would dare ask why Paul doesnt get involved into a dialect with AGS in regards to approaching a new (more correctly) depth % calculations on fancy shapes which should be calculated differently than calculated on rounds...

GIA doent take us (professionals) into consideration as much..., but AGS (Peter) sounds like they might be more open minded on this ''important'' issue!

Measuring non-rounds for weight ratio should not be calculated the same as rounds are..., after all, nothing else can/is?

Just thinking out loud

.

Hi Diagem,

I am surprised to hear that you and others have an issue with depth %-calculations. I had the impression that I was the only one taking up this debate in the past four years.

As for asking AGS to change their system, I fear that we (and especially they) have to remain practical. Current calculation-methods are known industry-wide, and it is confusing if one lab is suddenly going to use another approach, unless that lab succeeds in reaching the entire industry and the consuming public with a clear explanation of the reason of the different approach.

Looking at the different approach used for reporting girdle thickness in the past years, I still do not want to buy a drink to all the industry-people who do not understand this method of reporting. Not because I am cheap, there are simply too many who do not know, and I cannot afford giving such a multitude of drinks.

Live long,

 

[Stephan]

Date: 4/27/2009 10:27:01 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Hi Diagem,

I am surprised to hear that you and others have an issue with depth %-calculations. I had the impression that I was the only one taking up this debate in the past four years.

As for asking AGS to change their system, I fear that we (and especially they) have to remain practical. Current calculation-methods are known industry-wide, and it is confusing if one lab is suddenly going to use another approach, unless that lab succeeds in reaching the entire industry and the consuming public with a clear explanation of the reason of the different approach.

Looking at the different approach used for reporting girdle thickness in the past years, I still do not want to buy a drink to all the industry-people who do not understand this method of reporting. Not because I am cheap, there are simply too many who do not know, and I cannot afford giving such a multitude of drinks.

Live long,

AGS should not change the value they show in the depth tag.
They could create a new tag to show this information.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

All in all, I was thinking about Peter''s presentation, and one thing struck me compared to other presentations by him that I have attended in the past.

In the past, I often saw Peter present to basically two different audiences, either a group of gemology- and cut-specialists or a group of interested retailers.

When talking to a group of interested retailers, I sensed that the general feeling in the audience was one that indicated interest, but in the end, most retailers had little to no clue about how to use this information.

When talking to the cut-geeks, I sensed a different feeling, one in which most people present were searching where the information offered was incomplete and where they could stress that, so that it improved their self-image.

This presentation of last week was different in the sense that all present were current or future Infinity-retailers, and while the presentation was highly technical, it created a great deal of enthousiasm, since these people had the genuine feeling that they could actually use this information in their daily operations.

Live long,

 

[diagem]

Date: 4/27/2009 10:27:01 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

Date: 4/25/2009 6:40:14 PM
Author: DiaGem
Since Paul was involved (with Peter) in explaining weight ratio on Princess cuts (a concern I am familiar with on other shapes)..., I would dare ask why Paul doesnt get involved into a dialect with AGS in regards to approaching a new (more correctly) depth % calculations on fancy shapes which should be calculated differently than calculated on rounds...

GIA doent take us (professionals) into consideration as much..., but AGS (Peter) sounds like they might be more open minded on this ''important'' issue!

Measuring non-rounds for weight ratio should not be calculated the same as rounds are..., after all, nothing else can/is?

Just thinking out loud

.

Hi Diagem,

I am surprised to hear that you and others have an issue with depth %-calculations. I had the impression that I was the only one taking up this debate in the past four years.

Always had an issue with this subject (I am a fancy shapes kind of guy

), but learned early that correct education and simple common sense will teach those who are willing to listen. Beauty and [total depth] numbers dont mix or tell the story.

As for asking AGS to change their system, I fear that we (and especially they) have to remain practical. Current calculation-methods are known industry-wide, and it is confusing if one lab is suddenly going to use another approach, unless that lab succeeds in reaching the entire industry and the consuming public with a clear explanation of the reason of the different approach.

I dont know..., I pointed out AGS as they [due to extensive scientific research] swayed from the industry wide methods to come up with their own ''proprietors'' systems and believe they know how to be pioneers...

I believe as a fact total depth calculations are error-ed if used the same on all shapes.

Looking at the different approach used for reporting girdle thickness in the past years, I still do not want to buy a drink to all the industry-people who do not understand this method of reporting. Not because I am cheap, there are simply too many who do not know, and I cannot afford giving such a multitude of drinks.

Live long,

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/27/2009 11:07:31 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

This presentation of last week was different in the sense that all present were current or future Infinity-retailers, and while the presentation was highly technical, it created a great deal of enthousiasm, since these people had the genuine feeling that they could actually use this information in their daily operations.


Live long,

Sound like John is doing awesome work educating the troops and building up the excitement level!!!

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 4/27/2009 5:01:25 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 4/27/2009 11:07:31 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

This presentation of last week was different in the sense that all present were current or future Infinity-retailers, and while the presentation was highly technical, it created a great deal of enthousiasm, since these people had the genuine feeling that they could actually use this information in their daily operations.


Live long,

Sound like John is doing awesome work educating the troops and building up the excitement level!!!

Yes, he is. He visits each store at least once a year, most of them twice. While there he goes over cutting in great depth with the staff as well as the owners of the stores. It normally takes two or three visits for the staff to begin to understand what is happening in the world of cut. We get someone jaded here on Pricescope, but it is an incredibly complex subject and it takes more than one run at it to fully understand it.

Even Peter said in his video that "We are getting VERY CLOSE to understanding scintillation". This from someone who is brilliant and who has been part of the team studying this for many years. I feel honored to even be in the same room with Peter yet he is one of the friendliest approachable men I have ever met. He really believes he is nothing special and does not understand why we all put him so high on the pedestal. He is a true hero to so many of us in the trade!

John, with his background in teaching, and he was a very special teacher, having won state and national awards with his drum lines and bands, has done an incredible job of both learning and internalizing the information as it is made available and then putting it into understandable bite sized pieces. I give him complete credit for the outstanding level of competence that he has elevated his many students to!

Wink

 

[strmrdr]

Honestly I think that the best minds are only getting close to the beginning of the road to understand scintillation.
The start of the journey not the end.

I feel that VF's are the most important piece of the explanation at the diamond level but it goes far beyond that level.
ETAS and DETAS are another part of the puzzle.
But when the journey is done there are going to be thousands of parts to the puzzle.
Scintillation is dynamic and forever changing and on the road we are going to find assumptions that work in one condition and not another.
The biggest variable will always be lighting and environment.
The second will be eye sight differences
The third will be viewing distance

Change any one of those things and a lot of assumptions can go out the window.

The one fact that will remain constant is there is no one best diamond cut.
It is impossible for any one cut to be best in all lighting.
So the biggest hurdle of all outside the lab is going to be compromise.

 

[risingsun]

Date: 4/23/2009 7:11:35 PM
Author: Wink
It was an interesting excersize, diamonds 1 and 3 were neck and neck in the voting for favorite with only one vote separating them, and # 4 was nearly unanimous in being the least favorite diamond.

In this segment, Peter explains why.

Wink

This link isn''t working for me. The one about "taste" played without a problem. Can someone help me with this. Thx

 

[oldminer]

"In this video both Peter Yantzer and Paul Slegers of Infinity Diamonds talk about the importance of weight ratio

http://www.screencast.com/t/fDyvyMDw"


I found this an interesting topic and have covered this ground many times with Paul and others. My own belief is that a lab or a company which grades the quality of Light Performance should do that in a vacuum. Afterwards they ought to look at the spread of the diamonds which perform the best, but to my way of thinking, those diamonds which perform the best AND have the larger spread are the overall best cut. Diamond from the middle of the spread may be just fine, but those which have the least spread while retaining high light perfromance are the worst of the high light performance group. If one is going to combine spread with light behavior into an overall grade, then those somewhat smaller, but fine looking diamonds grade lower overall. What if the light performance of some of those smaller diamonds is greater than some of the spreadier ones? Who intreprets where such a stone then belongs in grading? I know AGS is trying to be "the one", but it is a big role to play.

My suggestion has always been to separate Light Behavior grading from physical measurement grading. Provide a Light Behavior Grade AND a Craftsmanship Grade without any overall combination of the two. Consumers, retailers, and diamond dealers can easily manage these extra facts without forcing them into a combined score. Such a combined score limits the flexibility of cutters, limits the availability of choice for consumers, restricts the ability to brand certain characteristics, and does nothing to encourage the world of traditional cutters to adopt such a arbitrary approach. I think the goal should be to quantify the best light performance ranges of each cut and to use our existing knowledge of the nature of diamonds to insure that we then grade them for Durability, Finish, and Size (weight ratio). Report both Light and DFS grades and you have done the best descriptive job you can do without restricting choice. I think such an open, and complete system does not require a combined grade and stands a chance of being adopted by the global diamond community.

Congrats to Peter, AGS, John, Wink, Paul and all the others making the effort. This is not a criticism, but just my thinking on the subject serving to make diamond grading mean something universal.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 4/28/2009 11:20:27 AM
Author: risingsun

Date: 4/23/2009 7:11:35 PM
Author: Wink
It was an interesting excersize, diamonds 1 and 3 were neck and neck in the voting for favorite with only one vote separating them, and # 4 was nearly unanimous in being the least favorite diamond.

In this segment, Peter explains why.

Wink

This link isn''t working for me. The one about ''taste'' played without a problem. Can someone help me with this. Thx

Not sure what to tell you on this except perhaps to try it from a different computer. It works fine for me, even in the quoted thread and i just visited Screencast to make sure that nothing is different. Both files are flv files that are supposed to be cross platform formats, ie both windows and macs can use them.

Wink

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/28/2009 11:20:27 AM
Author: risingsun

Date: 4/23/2009 7:11:35 PM

Author: Wink

It was an interesting excersize, diamonds 1 and 3 were neck and neck in the voting for favorite with only one vote separating them, and # 4 was nearly unanimous in being the least favorite diamond.


In this segment, Peter explains why.


Wink

This link isn''t working for me. The one about ''taste'' played without a problem. Can someone help me with this. Thx

try rebooting then trying again.
Sometimes the codec gets locked and it cant be reused until the computer is rebooted.

 

[risingsun]

Date: 4/28/2009 5:35:23 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 4/28/2009 11:20:27 AM
Author: risingsun

Date: 4/23/2009 7:11:35 PM

Author: Wink

It was an interesting excersize, diamonds 1 and 3 were neck and neck in the voting for favorite with only one vote separating them, and # 4 was nearly unanimous in being the least favorite diamond.


In this segment, Peter explains why.


Wink

This link isn't working for me. The one about 'taste' played without a problem. Can someone help me with this. Thx

try rebooting then trying again.
Sometimes the codec gets locked and it cant be reused until the computer is rebooted.

I switched from AOL to IE and the video played without a problelm. Thanks for the suggestion about the reboot. Ever since we got Windows Vista, things have been very wonky