shape
carat
color
clarity

Please help with interpreting these

Franqui62

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 16, 2021
Messages
45
Honestly I’m addled!
These are images of another stone I like, but I’m starting to see red/pink/green/blue/black/white like a kaleidoscope now :twirl:
Not even sure if these are ASET/Idealscope or what.
Be nice! I’ve had a hard day at work and tomorrow promises to be worse :roll: FC5027CE-788F-474C-84C9-20227970CE4C.jpeg F933E2AF-E3D9-46A9-B97C-9E419887EE73.jpeg
 

DejaWiz

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Apr 23, 2021
Messages
515
Those are definitely what are called "advanced images", also known as IS and ASET.
 

Karl_K

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
11,534
grading report number?
or
all the info from the report please.
 

DejaWiz

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Apr 23, 2021
Messages
515
Anyone know if this is this an established independent grading lab, or an in-house grading system?

This is all I could find in regards to the nomenclature used:

 

Franqui62

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 16, 2021
Messages
45
flat top 60-60 style stone bright but a bit lifeless with 59t 32.5 crown angle.

Thanks.

Ive double checked the handwriting and it is E, not F.

So an older cut stone?

When you say lifeless, have you got any examples I can compare?
 

DejaWiz

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Apr 23, 2021
Messages
515
In my opinion, it's way more effort to find a well-performing 60/60 cut than a super ideal cut.

Here's a video by JannPaul showing the severe light performance limitations of a big spread 60/60 cut (they are shills for the ASET, so ignore their negative remarks about the IS...both are equally important to have in order to properly vet and scrutinize any diamond):

 

Dancing Fire

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
33,394
No lab report?
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
5,206
So an older cut stone?

In 1919, Marcel Tolkowsky proved to the world that a stone with 53% table, 59.3% depth, 16.2% crown height, 34.5 crown and 40.75 pavilion was the true ideal cut. Later, we would learn there has to be some accounting for girdle thickness which slightly alters the "perfect" table & depth. While Tolk gets credited for the discovery, Henry Morse had actually been doing similar things since 1860.

https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/tolkowsky-ideal-cut-diamond

I am not really certain the exact date the term "60/60" was born, but it is used to identify a stone where the table and depth both equal 60%, or thereabouts. Early myth was that those two proportions resulted in the perfect diamond. But that simply isn't true. A round diamond is not defined by only two proportions, but rather the harmony of all the proportions working in effect with one another. So it is possible to have studs or duds that would be classified as 60/60's. However, the range for studs to exist are pretty limited as noted below in the proportion charts.

https://www.whiteflash.com/diamond-education/60-60-diamonds

Examples of poorly proportioned stones that are BOTH considered 60/60's:

1624558434686.png

GIA grade proportion charts for stones with 60% tables. Notice how few hit the excellent (EX) grade criteria?

1624558514472.png

Similar proportions chart from AGS for 60% tables. The red indicates AGS' best cut grade, 0 or ideal. This is even considerably less than GIA's EX.

1624558637508.png
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
5,206
This entire article is a worthwhile read, but I will pinpoint the video comparisons as it directly compares a 60/60 stone, similar to the proportions you listed against a Tolk style ideal cut stone.

Generally speaking, most people are drawn to fire (rainbow light) over white light return. There are select situations like pendants or earrings where white light return may be preferred. But for e-rings, most prefer the most fire.

https://www.whiteflash.com/diamond-education/diamond-fire

This first video is recorded at 24 frames/second. The AGS Tolk cut is on the left and the GIA 60/60 is on the right.


This is the same video, but slowed down to 2 frames/second to further help identify slight angle changes and differences in performance. Again, AGS Tolk on the left and GIA 60/60 on the right.


If you have time to dive deeper, I would suggest reading the following thread. In particular there is reference to a re-cut that Brian Gavin did (of Brian Gavin Diamonds, aka BGD) for a PS member. She was very happy with the results, but I think the thread overall confirms what I mentioned above -- 60/60 doesn't inherently mean good or bad, it depends on all the other proportions that work in unison with those two select proportions that either make or break the stone.


Here are the lab reports on both stones used in the videos.

GIA Stone:
1624560242796.png
ci_gia2217469490.jpg

AGS Stone:
1624560292279.png
ci_ags-104089831020.jpg
 

Franqui62

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 16, 2021
Messages
45
In 1919, Marcel Tolkowsky proved to the world that a stone with 53% table, 59.3% depth, 16.2% crown height, 34.5 crown and 40.75 pavilion was the true ideal cut. Later, we would learn there has to be some accounting for girdle thickness which slightly alters the "perfect" table & depth. While Tolk gets credited for the discovery, Henry Morse had actually been doing similar things since 1860.

https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/tolkowsky-ideal-cut-diamond

I am not really certain the exact date the term "60/60" was born, but it is used to identify a stone where the table and depth both equal 60%, or thereabouts. Early myth was that those two proportions resulted in the perfect diamond. But that simply isn't true. A round diamond is not defined by only two proportions, but rather the harmony of all the proportions working in effect with one another. So it is possible to have studs or duds that would be classified as 60/60's. However, the range for studs to exist are pretty limited as noted below in the proportion charts.

https://www.whiteflash.com/diamond-education/60-60-diamonds

Examples of poorly proportioned stones that are BOTH considered 60/60's:

1624558434686.png

GIA grade proportion charts for stones with 60% tables. Notice how few hit the excellent (EX) grade criteria?

1624558514472.png

Similar proportions chart from AGS for 60% tables. The red indicates AGS' best cut grade, 0 or ideal. This is even considerably less than GIA's EX.

1624558637508.png

Thanks. So that’s reassuring. It comes just into both the
This entire article is a worthwhile read, but I will pinpoint the video comparisons as it directly compares a 60/60 stone, similar to the proportions you listed against a Tolk style ideal cut stone.

Generally speaking, most people are drawn to fire (rainbow light) over white light return. There are select situations like pendants or earrings where white light return may be preferred. But for e-rings, most prefer the most fire.

https://www.whiteflash.com/diamond-education/diamond-fire

This first video is recorded at 24 frames/second. The AGS Tolk cut is on the left and the GIA 60/60 is on the right.


This is the same video, but slowed down to 2 frames/second to further help identify slight angle changes and differences in performance. Again, AGS Tolk on the left and GIA 60/60 on the right.


If you have time to dive deeper, I would suggest reading the following thread. In particular there is reference to a re-cut that Brian Gavin did (of Brian Gavin Diamonds, aka BGD) for a PS member. She was very happy with the results, but I think the thread overall confirms what I mentioned above -- 60/60 doesn't inherently mean good or bad, it depends on all the other proportions that work in unison with those two select proportions that either make or break the stone.


Here are the lab reports on both stones used in the videos.

GIA Stone:
1624560242796.png
ci_gia2217469490.jpg

AGS Stone:
1624560292279.png
ci_ags-104089831020.jpg

In 1919, Marcel Tolkowsky proved to the world that a stone with 53% table, 59.3% depth, 16.2% crown height, 34.5 crown and 40.75 pavilion was the true ideal cut. Later, we would learn there has to be some accounting for girdle thickness which slightly alters the "perfect" table & depth. While Tolk gets credited for the discovery, Henry Morse had actually been doing similar things since 1860.

https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/tolkowsky-ideal-cut-diamond

I am not really certain the exact date the term "60/60" was born, but it is used to identify a stone where the table and depth both equal 60%, or thereabouts. Early myth was that those two proportions resulted in the perfect diamond. But that simply isn't true. A round diamond is not defined by only two proportions, but rather the harmony of all the proportions working in effect with one another. So it is possible to have studs or duds that would be classified as 60/60's. However, the range for studs to exist are pretty limited as noted below in the proportion charts.

https://www.whiteflash.com/diamond-education/60-60-diamonds

Examples of poorly proportioned stones that are BOTH considered 60/60's:

1624558434686.png

GIA grade proportion charts for stones with 60% tables. Notice how few hit the excellent (EX) grade criteria?

1624558514472.png

Similar proportions chart from AGS for 60% tables. The red indicates AGS' best cut grade, 0 or ideal. This is even considerably less than GIA's EX.

1624558637508.png

Thanks. That’s reassuring. So this stone does come into both EX and AGS 0.
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
5,206
You have to take proportions with a grain of salt.

Remember a round diamond has 8 actual crown and 8 actual pavilion facets. On lab reports they get shown as ONE single value. Each lab handles the process a little different but GIA averages all 8 and then rounds to the nearest 0.5 degree for crown and nearest 0.2 degrees for pavilion.

This gross rounding effectively gives us a ballpark range. Consequently when you push the fringe and have no other data available you take on more potential risk.

Based on the proportions alone it does appear GIA shows this in EX territory. But GIA is loose. In the 2004 AGS chart I posted from WF’s website, I show the 32.5/41 combo to be teter-tottering between AGS1 and AGS2.

However the updated 2008 AGS charts show this to be in ideal range (AGS0). Using a calculator I built based on the later proportions you can see there is a white box that shows the precise intersection point. The blue box spans 1+ and 1- in each direction to create a larger range of where the actuals may fall without the rounding and averaging.

3D8CE45F-2C4C-4816-8404-10EBD32505BF.jpeg

When I try to balance the light green in the table reflection (yellow) with the lighter colors in the red ring (blue donut) of your ASET, it appears to even out for the most part. There might be some lighter areas sporadically located throughout but overall appears pretty decent. It’s harder to judge with the green table reflection as a base, as opposed to red.

That said, the ASET shows us light return. It doesn’t assure us it’s white or rainbow light that we will see. Also it doesn’t mean we will find the look of the larger table appealing from a face up and/or profile view.

My concern for you is that if used for an e-ring it may not be as firey as you may expect. But my concern is based on my own bias that more fire is better.

491C35D4-8B18-4244-8EBB-D4031B50775E.jpeg
 

flyingpig

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
2,892
In my opinion, it's way more effort to find a well-performing 60/60 cut than a super ideal cut.

Here's a video by JannPaul showing the severe light performance limitations of a big spread 60/60 cut (they are shills for the ASET, so ignore their negative remarks about the IS...both are equally important to have in order to properly vet and scrutinize any diamond):


Marketing video to promote their H&A diamonds. They picked a 60/60 with a very steep pavilion with leakage.

You really need to be careful with their videos.
 

Franqui62

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 16, 2021
Messages
45
This entire article is a worthwhile read, but I will pinpoint the video comparisons as it directly compares a 60/60 stone, similar to the proportions you listed against a Tolk style ideal cut stone.

Generally speaking, most people are drawn to fire (rainbow light) over white light return. There are select situations like pendants or earrings where white light return may be preferred. But for e-rings, most prefer the most fire.

https://www.whiteflash.com/diamond-education/diamond-fire

This first video is recorded at 24 frames/second. The AGS Tolk cut is on the left and the GIA 60/60 is on the right.


This is the same video, but slowed down to 2 frames/second to further help identify slight angle changes and differences in performance. Again, AGS Tolk on the left and GIA 60/60 on the right.


If you have time to dive deeper, I would suggest reading the following thread. In particular there is reference to a re-cut that Brian Gavin did (of Brian Gavin Diamonds, aka BGD) for a PS member. She was very happy with the results, but I think the thread overall confirms what I mentioned above -- 60/60 doesn't inherently mean good or bad, it depends on all the other proportions that work in unison with those two select proportions that either make or break the stone.


Here are the lab reports on both stones used in the videos.

GIA Stone:
1624560242796.png
ci_gia2217469490.jpg

AGS Stone:
1624560292279.png
ci_ags-104089831020.jpg

Thanks, that 60/60 thread is a very interesting read.
 

Franqui62

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 16, 2021
Messages
45
You have to take proportions with a grain of salt.

Remember a round diamond has 8 actual crown and 8 actual pavilion facets. On lab reports they get shown as ONE single value. Each lab handles the process a little different but GIA averages all 8 and then rounds to the nearest 0.5 degree for crown and nearest 0.2 degrees for pavilion.

This gross rounding effectively gives us a ballpark range. Consequently when you push the fringe and have no other data available you take on more potential risk.

Based on the proportions alone it does appear GIA shows this in EX territory. But GIA is loose. In the 2004 AGS chart I posted from WF’s website, I show the 32.5/41 combo to be teter-tottering between AGS1 and AGS2.

However the updated 2008 AGS charts show this to be in ideal range (AGS0). Using a calculator I built based on the later proportions you can see there is a white box that shows the precise intersection point. The blue box spans 1+ and 1- in each direction to create a larger range of where the actuals may fall without the rounding and averaging.

3D8CE45F-2C4C-4816-8404-10EBD32505BF.jpeg

When I try to balance the light green in the table reflection (yellow) with the lighter colors in the red ring (blue donut) of your ASET, it appears to even out for the most part. There might be some lighter areas sporadically located throughout but overall appears pretty decent. It’s harder to judge with the green table reflection as a base, as opposed to red.

That said, the ASET shows us light return. It doesn’t assure us it’s white or rainbow light that we will see. Also it doesn’t mean we will find the look of the larger table appealing from a face up and/or profile view.

My concern for you is that if used for an e-ring it may not be as firey as you may expect. But my concern is based on my own bias that more fire is better.

491C35D4-8B18-4244-8EBB-D4031B50775E.jpeg

Thank you. That’s very helpful.

I already know I am very sensitive to colour. Hence I have steered towards D,E,F stones, as I prefer lighter. For others, this is a good article with a colour test. I scored 0.
 

DejaWiz

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Apr 23, 2021
Messages
515
Thank you. That’s very helpful.

I already know I am very sensitive to colour. Hence I have steered towards D,E,F stones, as I prefer lighter. For others, this is a good article with a colour test. I scored 0.

I remember taking this test years ago and scored a 0.
Glad to see (pun intended?) that my color acuity hasn't slipped!

Screenshot_20210625-064837.png
 

DejaWiz

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Apr 23, 2021
Messages
515
Marketing video to promote their H&A diamonds. They picked a 60/60 with a very steep pavilion with leakage.

You really need to be careful with their videos.

Yes, I know it's more of a marketing video...wanted to post it to highlight the concern with most 60/60 cuts: being vigilant on avoiding leakage and getting to know how the light performance patterning usually differs from an MRB that falls within the more acceptable ranges that are often cited (and urged) here at PS.
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
5,206
Thank you. That’s very helpful.

I already know I am very sensitive to colour. Hence I have steered towards D,E,F stones, as I prefer lighter. For others, this is a good article with a colour test. I scored 0.

Am I interpreting correctly that you believe your color sensitivity prefers white light return to rainbow light return because too much rainbow light would make you feel the stone is not white enough?
 

Franqui62

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 16, 2021
Messages
45
Am I interpreting correctly that you believe your color sensitivity prefers white light return to rainbow light return because too much rainbow light would make you feel the stone is not white enough?

That’s possibly it. From observing other stones at jewellers and on other people, plus my own experience with yellowish OCD family ring, which I then had set in yellow gold which suited it better and made me less “aware” of the shade. I concluded I am sensitive to the white tones. I do like a sparkle though and some fire.
 
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    Buying or Selling Pre-Loved Jewelry
    Buying or Selling Pre-Loved Jewelry
    Jewels of the Week: July 2021
    Jewels of the Week: July 2021
    Throwback Thursdays: July 2021
    Throwback Thursdays: July 2021

Holloway Cut Advisor



Top