Question about "warped diamonds"

[tlow]

I hope I am not rehashing anything but i couldn''t find anything of serious substance on the forum about "warped diamonds" as they are called in the advanced tutorial. Anyways, is there any sustance to this? It seems to me that after spending everyday the last 2.5 weeks looking at various diamonds, like 99.99% of all diamonds cut would be "warped". Am I missing something? Or is there a certain tolerance to a diamonds "warpedness" ie a good range is between 0-1% difference in the sum and overall depth?

 

[belle]

there are plenty of threads out there..

try searching the authors name that came up with the ridiculous theory.

 

[WinkHPD]

You have been visiting one of the most disrespected men in the diamond trade''s site.

He makes a lot of claims, many of which are simply not true.

I suggest you do some research here, at the AGS site at the GIA site, and learn some less biased views of the diamond world. I think you will be plesantly surprised at the quality of information here, both existing and available if you ask questions.

Wink

Wink

 

[tlow]

So everyone seems to agree the guy is full of it, but why does his name even show up on this website. For the very little time I''ve been here it seems very reputable and respectable, so why include his name? Secondly, i found a couple people say you do want the sums to add up to about 1.5-2% less than the overall depth. Is there any truth in that? Or is adding up all the depths and girdle a pointless excercize? If you get a Sarin report and run all the numbers, the diamond is either going to be in right porportions overall or it isn''t (meaning crown and pavilion angles). Meaning if you have a huge spread in either, it will make a "warp" in the diamond. It seems to be basic geometry??? I am being totally naive and ignorant?

 

[marriahlyn]

All diamonds are warped unless they are bought from him!! He sells diamonds too and unless he has a vested interest.......your diamond is warped. well, I have a stunning "warped" diamond on my finger. I cannot believe this man is STILL pulling this crap.

 

[belle]

Date: 8/14/2006 9:19:26 PM
Author: tlow
So everyone seems to agree the guy is full of it, but why does his name even show up on this website. For the very little time I''ve been here it seems very reputable and respectable, so why include his name?

where are you getting this from?

are you sure you''re looking up the right person?

 

[mrssalvo]

Date: 8/14/2006 9:46:05 PM
Author: belle

Date: 8/14/2006 9:19:26 PM

Author: tlow

So everyone seems to agree the guy is full of it, but why does his name even show up on this website. For the very little time I''ve been here it seems very reputable and respectable, so why include his name?

where are you getting this from?

are you sure you''re looking up the right person?

ditto miss belle. the person who uses the term warped diamonds is not respected here. who is it you are referencing?

 

[tlow]

I think we are getting alittle off topic of what my question actually was. Everyone seems to agree that this Fred Cuellar dude is slightly off in his term of a warped diamond. My question is, "Is the process of adding up the depths and the girdle and comparing it to the total depth a worthwhile thing to look at?" Whether it be exact or a 1.5-2% difference...is there any merit in summing the depths?

 

[belle]

Date: 8/14/2006 10:13:14 PM
Author: tlow

I think we are getting alittle off topic of what my question actually was.

i don''t think we are. it was your question that i quoted and answered above.

i guess someone else can enlighten you further on ''warpedness''. i''ve read the threads and don''t really care to argue the claims anymore. this is in no offense to you, i just don''t want to go there.

 

[pricescope]

>>"Is the process of adding up the depths and the girdle and comparing it to the total depth a worthwhile thing to look at?"

It depends how the girdle is measured.

From Tutorial->Girdle:

In USA girdle thickness of rounded diamonds were always measured at the thinnest part or ''valley''. In Europe the girdle is measured at the main or bezel facet junction, which is normally 1.6 or 1.7% thicker than the valley. The new AGS system now measures girdle thickness at the thick part.

Warped diamonds. Mr. Fred Cuellar wrote a diamond buying guide and has advised consumers not to buy diamonds if the crown, girdle and pavilion percentages do not add up to the same as the total depth percentage; he calls these "warped diamonds". Therefore most US graded diamonds are warped by 1.6 or 1.7%. Hopefully GIA will also change and then there will be no more ‘warped’ diamonds. e.g. 15% crown height, 1% Medium girdle and 43% pavilion depth should have a 60.7% total depth, not 59%. The girdle measurement at the thickest part would be 2.7%. 15 + 2.7 + 43 = 60.7%

 

[RockDoc]

Oh gee, the ducks are flying again !



Rockdoc

 

[perry]

tlow ask''s...

So everyone seems to agree the guy is full of it, but why does his name even show up on this website.


The reason Fred Cuellar and "Warped" diamonds are discussed on this website - is that Pricescope is a consumer education and discussion website. Literally hundreds of vendors are mentioned here with some discussion (mostly good, some bad) by various people.

Since Fred Cuellar exist; and has made a "splash" in more than one way - he gets discussed here.

Please note that just being discussed here is not a recomendation here. The Owners of this forum (Leonid and Irena) do not make recomendations.

Also, an individual who post a recomendation, a good experience, or even a bad experience may only be sharing one side of the story (or even outright lying). You have to sort through the many various post and judge the credibility of the posters yourself.

I hope that clarifies what this forum is and how it works.

I also suggest that you will not find a better consumer education and consumer freindly forum than this one. Why don''t you stick arround a bit and learn in an environment where is someone post something that is not demonstrably true - or contraversial --> you will see the responses from others challanging it or offering the other side of the contraversy.

Perry

 

[Eva17]

I love this place

 

[oldminer]

Warped Diamonds is a good novel for a cold and lonely night by the fireplace. Leondid's explanation of how this situation and the term came to be is excellent. It is because until recently we were unable to measure diamonds at every mm around the stone, and because the major labs around the world could not agree on a universal standard of how to report girdle thickness. This led people who were number oriented to find that apparently the depth numbers didn't add up. It was a small amount of error in the scheme of things, but one fellow figured out how to raise doubt in the mind of potential buyers leading them to his method of getting the unwarped diamonds he promotes.

In a recent thread I gave a detailed bit on how ImaGem provides unwarped information on the components of the depth measure while , at the same time, keeps the all minute details that don't seem to add up in the records affilliated with each diamond. THis can help in re-identification later, but giving them on a report would continue to confusion over depth measures not making complete sense. It is a good, potentially universal standard, for providing depth measures and maybe someday it will get a review by some of the trade's major decision makers.

Here is an excerpt from the thread I posted before:

"ImaGem measures the girdle thickness at the bezel facets and also all around the diamond. It calculates the average girdle thickness at the bezel facets and also calculates the average overall girdle thickness. For internal consistency it takes the average bezel facet girdle thickness and subtracts the average overall girdle thickness and divides this by 2. It then adds 1/2 to the crown height and 1/2 to the pavilion depth. However, the angles reported are "derived" at the actual BEZEL facet / girdle location. Therefore, what does appear to be error is simply a consistent methodology for reporting the measures. It has no bearing on the angle calculation, but does make the crown height, girdle thickness and pavilion depth equal to the total depth percentage reported."