Re Cutters

[pyramid]

As extremely thin and very thin girdles are usually discouraged, should cutter not be told not to cut the diamonds with those to prolong the durability of the diamond, which after all is meant to last forever, or for a few decades anyway without damage?

I take it that the Super ideal diamonds will never have ''very thin'' or ''extremely thin'' as a measurement, is that the case?

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

You should not under-estimate the lack of knowledge of many cutters or cutting-houses.

Let me paint a cartoonesk but realistic picture of the big players in the diamond industry. The big shot, the sightholder (around 100 worldwide) cannot ever be the specialised technician, which examines rough and then decides how to best approach its cutting. His job nowadays is to arrange the financing of his group, to make sure that his supply-line of rough is guaranteed, and to decide which country is technically and more often politically most interesting to establish a next factory. Other than that, he must set up strategies to obtain more of the downstream profit-margin, by establishing brands, retail-partnerships and jewelry-production. I wonder how many diamonds these people still examine.

Production and what is produced is of secondary importance. If a sightholder can make sure that he has a steady supply of rough, what ever happens with the rough afterwards is less important.

As such, the companies that have a defined strategy on what they aim to produce for which segment of the market are exceptions. The result of such a strategy is after all that one accepts some limitations on what can be cut, thus reducing the weight-retention and increasing the production-cost of the finished product. One needs to have balls to decide for producing a more expensive product (cost-wise).

Therefore, in the majority of cases, diamonds are still cut with weight-retention as the main decision-maker. Of course, there is an overall tendency to improve the average cut-quality, but this did not reach the point yet that overly thin girdles have become non-existent.

Finally, at the cutting-level, the decision-maker will not necessarily notice that the thin girdle is less desired at the retail-level. If he cuts a parcel of 10 stones with highly undesirable table-size, it will be very difficult to sell this parcel, and he will have immediate feedback. In the case of extremely thin girdles, however, this will not be the case in all 10 stones of the parcel. When he is selling the parcel, the retailer might discount the one or two thin-girdled stones more, and thus arrive at a lower average price, which he offers, but the seller will only notice a slightly lower price than expected, and not a criticism of the cut-quality on part of his parcel.

Is this somewhat clear?

 

[pyramid]

Thank you Paul-Antwerp. Yes your post if very clear. I did not stop to think about the financial side from the sight-holders, companies, point of view. I realise now that super-ideal stones are more expensive for a reason and that few companies will make the decision to sell them, especially when there a more people buying the unbranded stones. I was totally looking at it from the retail level and what a consumer would want, but I had forgotten that you get what you pay for.

Maybe my question should have been that with all the diamonds on the market, of average quality (not talking about super-ideals/branded) why do customers buy diamonds with very thin girdles when they could look around for a diamond that did not have this problem. Would that mean though that they may find a different problem (for the consumer) ie. more inclusions or poorer cut? What I mean is would a very thin girdle be equal to the other problems in diamonds of the same price level?

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 9/18/2006 3:32:06 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
You should not under-estimate the lack of knowledge of many cutters or cutting-houses.
Is this somewhat clear?

that was awesome to read!! Thank you for sharing that! I find the whole diamond mindset so esoteric and compelling....

 

[He Scores]

RE: why do customers buy diamonds with very thin girdles when they could look around for a diamond that did not have this problem.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Pyramid,
All things equal, a diamond with a thicker girdle will have a SMALLER diameter than one with a thinner girdle. Two, thin girdles aren''t as fragile as one might believe. While they are more susceptable to breakage than say a thicker one of course, the more obtuse angle between top angle and bottom angle is an equal culprit. Both situations can be "lived with" if one simply wears their jewelry sensibly and doesn''t play football, move furniture, etc. while wearing their diamond.


Bill Bray
Diamond Cutter

 

[pyramid]

Thank you HeScores. I am not meaning a ''Thin Girdle'' but I was referring to ''Very Thin'' and ''Extremely Thin'' here.

Do you still feel the same about these grades?

 

[He Scores]

Pyramid,

Of course it goes without saying that Extremely thin needs to be more cautiously worn that the others, but in a nutshell, yes, my feelings are basically the same.


Bill Bray
Diamond Cutter

 

[pyramid]

He Scores

I am sorry if my tone in my post came across as calling you out for something, I was not, I genuinely do not know if it would be the same for 'Very Thin girdles'.

I noticed you said obtuse angle, so do you mean in a thicker girdle the large angle crown/pavillion edges are also a bit vulnerable too?

 

[He Scores]

Stones with shallow crown angles and shallow pavillion angles are more likely for breakage than stones with high crown angles and high pavillion angles.

Bill Bray
Diamond Cutter

 

[pyramid]

He Scores: So did you mean acute angle rather than obtuse angle in your previous post or does the obtuse angle have an effect also?

 

[He Scores]

Pyramid...I''m sorry, yes I meant the more acute the angle is between top mains and bottom mains the more susceptable the stone is toward chipping.

Bill

 

[pricescope]

I am late with my picture, but here: Girdles are the same for the 1st and 2nd and = a, but 1st one looks more "chipable" even form the picture.

 

[pyramid]

Thank you HeScores, I understand now what you were meaning.

Thank you Pricescope, yes that drawing shows the difference between the angles very well.