Strictly super ideal numbers vs 60/60...

matt_k · Jan 29, 2020

Hi, gang. My understanding of what constitutes a 60/60 diamond might be fuzzy, so I wanted to get some opinions on a set of numbers and ask if these would be considered traditional super ideal numbers or do they veer more toward 60/60 numbers? Or are all RBC stones that are graded as AGS 000 technically super ideal?

What do you think of these numbers? Would THIS be a 60/60?

Depth: 61.9
Table: 56.4
Crown angle: 34.5
Pavilion angle: 40.7
LGF: 76%
star: 52%
Thin to slightly thick

oh, and the other two percentages I always forget the name of, but they are 15.3% and 43%

thanks!

headlight · Jan 29, 2020

A 60/60 is just that... 60% table and 60% depth.
The proportions you just listed are great... is that off of an AGS0 report?
These proportions are what you want. The 60/60 is an iff-y thing. Many years ago the concept of a 60/60 was in vogue. There were good ones but there were also bad ones, as the other proportions had to play nicely.
Your question about if all AGS0 are super ideal. Well, I suppose that depends on who you are asking. But to simplify it, I would explain it as a stone with grade of AGS0 should have ideal light performance. What then would take it to the next level, hence super ideal, is if it's cutting is of top precision which would mean perfect H & A. These stones are "branded", and can be found through vendors such as White Flash for their A Cut Above line, Brain Gavin Diamonds, and the Crafted by Infinity through High Performance Diamonds. There are also some others.

Double E · Jan 29, 2020

This is not 60 / 60, and could be quite a good set of proportions if comes from AGS grading report as mentioned by headlight.
However I do think I’ve got one 60-60. The stone has a 60% table and 60.x % depth, sorry I forgot the exact number. Mine is quite sparkly making me feel that it’s not a bad 60/60~ just one thing I noted, 60/60 usually comes with a shallower crown, ( professionals pls correct me if I m wrong) as mine is only 13.x %, which in my opinion, is not that appealing on the profile view of the diamond. Someone who will also look at the build of the stone may think that it’s too flat.

headlight · Jan 30, 2020

@Double E I used to have a stone with a 61% table, 61.3% depth, and 14% crown height and I agree... not the most appealing profile view, flat.

matt_k · Jan 30, 2020

headlight said:
A 60/60 is just that... 60% table and 60% depth.
The proportions you just listed are great... is that off of an AGS0 report?
These proportions are what you want. The 60/60 is an iff-y thing. Many years ago the concept of a 60/60 was in vogue. There were good ones but there were also bad ones, as the other proportions had to play nicely.
Your question about if all AGS0 are super ideal. Well, I suppose that depends on who you are asking. But to simplify it, I would explain it as a stone with grade of AGS0 should have ideal light performance. What then would take it to the next level, hence super ideal, is if it's cutting is of top precision which would mean perfect H & A. These stones are "branded", and can be found through vendors such as White Flash for their A Cut Above line, Brain Gavin Diamonds, and the Crafted by Infinity through High Performance Diamonds. There are also some others.

Thanks for the info, @headlight. I really appreciate it. Yeah, it's an AGS 000 true hearts diamond, actually. And I think the hearts and idealscope look good. And the price is AMAZING. The only catch is that it does have a large feather on the table facet, but it is pretty light in color overall. I used the video tool at JA and shrunk it down to the smallest size and I swear I couldn't see it. I feel like over 90% of people who saw this diamond from 10 inches away would probably have no idea about that inclusion. I probably do have more relaxed reviews than most on clarity and color, but I think the majority of si1 and si2 diamonds are not really all that detectable to the average person so long as the diamond is 1.5 carats or less(AND as long as the inclusions are not very dark-- like black crystals or really dark feathers, for instance).

A friend of mine was looking for a 1.5 carat diamond with a really great cut and a K color for around $5,000.... and I found THIS one at $5,350. I feel like it is an amazing value overall. And it's kind of impossible to get a diamond of that size with that quality of cut for only a little more than five thousand bucks(especially considering the fact that it does not have fluorescence, so the significant discount in price is derived completely from the large table feather). My pal said it was absolutely imperative that it be no less than 1.5 carats. And he wanted the best cut possible for the money. What do you guys think? do you think it's worth the money, all things considered? I was advised that the location of this SI2 grade-making inclusion probably would not compromise the integrity of the diamond. And i talked to four different people at James Allen (and two other online Diamond advisors) who all felt like the average person would never detect that inclusion from like 10 to 12 inches away. Granted, my close-up vision isn't great. But I put on my glasses and shrunk it down and I really just don't think it would be noticeable to anyone who wasn't looking for it (or who did not already know in advance that it had a large table inclusion).

1.54 Carat round diamond

This True Hearts TM diamond, 1.54 carat K color si2 clarity has ideal proportions and a diamond grading report from AGS

www.jamesallen.com

matt_k · Jan 30, 2020

Thanks for the feedback!

sledge · Jan 30, 2020

15.3 is the crown height and 43 is the pavilion depth. These values are driven, and will change, by the exact table, crown angle and pavilion angle.

As others indicated, a 60/60 stone means the depth & table both equal (or nearly equal) 60%. The old school thought was those proportions would yield the "perfect" stone. Short version is that theory was debunked.

There are angles that people find appealing in a 60/60 stone, one being a 33/41 combo. But that brings it's own set of nuances. One being, that the steep 41 pavilion doesn't creep over the 41.2 mark for actual values, and also that you end up with a flatter top diamond (crown height 13% or so).

Here is an example of such a stone:

1.20 Carat J VS2 Round Brilliant Natural Diamond GIA Certified 6342317325 Excellent Cut - D44539111

www.adiamor.com

Depending on the exact proportions of the 60/60 stone you consider, they can offer a few advantages. One being that many times weight is pushed out horizontally vs downwards in depth, so you get a little more spread for the same carat weight. Also, with a larger table comes smaller upper girdle facets which is where rainbow light is produced. While you won't get as much fire, you do get more white light return. So a difference of personality from a Tolk style cut that super ideals are modeled on.

The stones also look different visually with a larger table. Which is better is preference I suppose. I like small tables and fat arrows, but that is my preference. So a 60/60 isn't aesthetically pleasing from that standpoint alone.

As far as super ideal, there's not a firm industry definition, but here is how I define it:

Has newer AGS000 certification with 3D scan and computer generated ASET on cert
Has all advanced images (ASET, IS and H&A)
Has true H&A symmetry
May or may not be branded, but typically is

matt_k · Jan 30, 2020

sledge said:
15.3 is the crown height and 43 is the pavilion depth. These values are driven, and will change, by the exact table, crown angle and pavilion angle.

As others indicated, a 60/60 stone means the depth & table both equal (or nearly equal) 60%. The old school thought was those proportions would yield the "perfect" stone. Short version is that theory was debunked.

There are angles that people find appealing in a 60/60 stone, one being a 33/41 combo. But that brings it's own set of nuances. One being, that the steep 41 pavilion doesn't creep over the 41.2 mark for actual values, and also that you end up with a flatter top diamond (crown height 13% or so).

Here is an example of such a stone:

1.20 Carat J VS2 Round Brilliant Natural Diamond GIA Certified 6342317325 Excellent Cut - D44539111

www.adiamor.com

Depending on the exact proportions of the 60/60 stone you consider, they can offer a few advantages. One being that many times weight is pushed out horizontally vs downwards in depth, so you get a little more spread for the same carat weight. Also, with a larger table comes smaller upper girdle facets which is where rainbow light is produced. While you won't get as much fire, you do get more white light return. So a difference of personality from a Tolk style cut that super ideals are modeled on.

The stones also look different visually with a larger table. Which is better is preference I suppose. I like small tables and fat arrows, but that is my preference. So a 60/60 isn't aesthetically pleasing from that standpoint alone.

As far as super ideal, there's not a firm industry definition, but here is how I define it:

Has newer AGS000 certification with 3D scan and computer generated ASET on cert

Has all advanced images (ASET, IS and H&A)

Has true H&A symmetry

May or may not be branded, but typically is

Thanks, @sledge! Great in-depth response, as usual. You da man!

Also: your thoughts on that 1.54 K SI2, good sir? I would appreciate it if you could address just the cut and overall light performance first, and THEN give me your opinion on the clarity and/or relative eye-cleanliness. And what do you think the price tag on a cut of this quality would be had it been a completely eye-clean VS2?

Thanks in advance for your feedback!

sledge · Jan 31, 2020

On paper the proportions of the JA TH looks great. What I'd expect to see.

56.4 table, 61.9 depth, 34.5 crown, 40.7 pavilion, 76 LGF & 52 stars

Additionally, this is a fairly new cert -- 7/2019 -- and it was scanned and has a computer generated ASET to confirm light performance.

But when I look at the video, the top 3 arrows are going translucent faster than when they should as the diamond spins. Something seems out of whack to me. Maybe it's that grade setting feather messing with the light return. Either way, something looks off to me.

In regards to color, K is too tinted for my own preferences but that is a user preference and my opinion shouldn't matter. Only the person buying and/or wearing the stone opinions matter. That said, it does look whiter than this particular J.

1.53 Carat round diamond

This True Hearts TM diamond, 1.53 carat J color si2 clarity has ideal proportions and a diamond grading report from AGS

www.jamesallen.com

As far as inclusions go, I am very hesitant to buy an SI2 without careful vetting. Quite frankly I don't know that I trust JA to vet a stone at the level I would do so myself. That grade setting feather on the table is nasty IMO. As already noted I think it's affecting LP of the stone. Additionally I see you have clouds as your second worst inclusion with a note that says "additional clouds not shown". That note concerns me with an SI2.

Lastly, estimated cost for a 1.527 K VS2 is about $8,000, using BGD's V Day code. So slightly bigger than the one you are looking at. Ma

1.527 K VS2 Signature Round

Buy diamonds online - AGS graded 1.527 carat K VS2 Round super ideal cut Brian Gavin Hearts & Arrows Diamond. Lifetime Upgrade Policy!

www.briangavindiamonds.com

Which doesn't make sense to me BTW. They advertise 14% off, but the math doesn't work. If I was seriously buying I'd talk with Lesley to ensure I got the proper discount as their cart doesn't seem to calculate properly.

Txborn79 · Jan 31, 2020

sledge said:
Which doesn't make sense to me BTW. They advertise 14% off, but the math doesn't work. If I was seriously buying I'd talk with Lesley to ensure I got the proper discount as their cart doesn't seem to calculate properly.

It’s actually 11% off or 14% if you pay by wire

matt_k · Jan 31, 2020

sledge said:
On paper the proportions of the JA TH looks great. What I'd expect to see.

56.4 table, 61.9 depth, 34.5 crown, 40.7 pavilion, 76 LGF & 52 stars

Additionally, this is a fairly new cert -- 7/2019 -- and it was scanned and has a computer generated ASET to confirm light performance.

But when I look at the video, the top 3 arrows are going translucent faster than when they should as the diamond spins. Something seems out of whack to me. Maybe it's that grade setting feather messing with the light return. Either way, something looks off to me.

In regards to color, K is too tinted for my own preferences but that is a user preference and my opinion shouldn't matter. Only the person buying and/or wearing the stone opinions matter. That said, it does look whiter than this particular J.

1.53 Carat round diamond

This True Hearts TM diamond, 1.53 carat J color si2 clarity has ideal proportions and a diamond grading report from AGS

www.jamesallen.com

As far as inclusions go, I am very hesitant to buy an SI2 without careful vetting. Quite frankly I don't know that I trust JA to vet a stone at the level I would do so myself. That grade setting feather on the table is nasty IMO. As already noted I think it's affecting LP of the stone. Additionally I see you have clouds as your second worst inclusion with a note that says "additional clouds not shown". That note concerns me with an SI2.

Lastly, estimated cost for a 1.527 K VS2 is about $8,000, using BGD's V Day code. So slightly bigger than the one you are looking at. Ma

1.527 K VS2 Signature Round

Buy diamonds online - AGS graded 1.527 carat K VS2 Round super ideal cut Brian Gavin Hearts & Arrows Diamond. Lifetime Upgrade Policy!

www.briangavindiamonds.com

Which doesn't make sense to me BTW. They advertise 14% off, but the math doesn't work. If I was seriously buying I'd talk with Lesley to ensure I got the proper discount as their cart doesn't seem to calculate properly.

Thanks so much for your input! I really appreciate it.

sledge · Jan 31, 2020

Txborn79 said:
It’s actually 11% off or 14% if you pay by wire

Thanks for clarifying.

Guess I should have read the fine print. I understand what they are doing, but I don't like their technicality game. Yes, you get to 14% overall, but the marketing is deceptive IMO.

Just say 11% + 3% extra if you use wire. I prefer transparency.

Having bought from & enjoyed my experience with BGD, I mean this in a constructive manner.

matt_k said:
Thanks so much for your input! I really appreciate it.

Glad to help.

diamondseeker2006 · Feb 1, 2020

Is this for yourself or for an engagement ring?

Because if it is for an engagement ring, this is a big NO, in my opinion.

"The only catch is that it does have a large feather on the table facet..."

A feather is a crack and if it is plotted, it is surface reaching. It looks really bad in the video. Get a smaller stone with better clarity and no feather under the table. There's a reason the price is low.

Mlh · Feb 1, 2020

@diamondseeker2006 , is the feather here a concern because this is an Si2? Are feathers that are plotted a concern regardless of clarity grade? Thank you!

Double E · Feb 2, 2020

Personally I will avoid stone with big and easily visible (this depends individually) feather under table, while there would be some cases I can accept. As a VS2 stone, there’s a feather located under a upper girdle and star facet of my stone, it’s not reaching the girdle though. I can locate it easily every time I look at it closely (a distance shorter than many vendors’ definition of eye clean), but hard to see it under normal viewing distance. I found it totally fine and didn’t affect its sparkle, “once it passed my line of mind clean”. This is just my take on it^^

diamondseeker2006 said:
Is this for yourself or for an engagement ring?

Because if it is for an engagement ring, this is a big NO, in my opinion.

"The only catch is that it does have a large feather on the table facet..."

A feather is a crack and if it is plotted, it is surface reaching. It looks really bad in the video. Get a smaller stone with better clarity and no feather under the table. There's a reason the price is low.

On the other hand, I would rather like to verify “plotted feather = surface reaching feather?

matt_k · Feb 2, 2020

Double E said:
Personally I will avoid stone with big and easily visible (this depends individually) feather under table, while there would be some cases I can accept. As a VS2 stone, there’s a feather located under a upper girdle and star facet of my stone, it’s not reaching the girdle though. I can locate it easily every time I look at it closely (a distance shorter than many vendors’ definition of eye clean), but hard to see it under normal viewing distance. I found it totally fine and didn’t affect its sparkle, “once it passed my line of mind clean”. This is just my take on it^^

On the other hand, I would rather like to verify “plotted feather = surface reaching feather?

Thanks for your feedback. It was indeed for an engagement ring, for a friend. Someone with an EXTREMELY tight budget looking for the best possible cut (and no less than 1.5 carats). It arrived in the mail today, and upon inspection looks pretty incredible. I used my cell phone as a lightbox (switching to a white screen and laying it face up in imitation of Gary Holloway's old light box that used to be for sale ), and then placed the stone in a clear container and then put it on top of the lit face of the cell phone.... looking into the asset scope I was rewarded with a stunning image of a textbook excellent asset display: bright and vivid blues, uniformly saturated reds, minimal greens--- it was a thing of beauty. Same with the ideal scope: a piercingly solid pink. The hearts & arrows viewer presented me with solid hearts, and nice fat arrows. As for the table inclusion? Even with my glasses on from roughly nine or 10 inches away I could just barely make it out (and that is with me knowing what to look for). And two of my friends and my next door neighbor didn't see the inclusion at all with their naked eyes(I asked them to look for it).

It's a VERY good Diamond. To top it off, I had something even better than a CZ to compare it to: I had a CBI 1.64 carat K SI1 from HPD. Wink sent the diamond loose for me to examine( before having it set to satisfy the insurance requirements-- which Wink is providing for free from his Valentine's day setting sale ). He had not even received the check from my insurance company, in fact--- but he knew I really wanted it this weekend because I had a hand model available (said hand model flaked out on me, unfortunately, but I am extremely grateful for Wink's trust and helpfulness). Long story short, the true hearts si2 held its own. Yes, the CBI was better and bigger, with crisper hearts... but the asset images for both diamonds were very damn close. Bottom line, that SI2 is a keeper ( and of course the CBI stone is perfection). So me AND my budget-conscious friend both lucked out this weekend.

gm89uk · Feb 2, 2020

If you can't see the feather, tilt it and look at it in various lighting environments, you might notice a line with a different reflection. If BG is quizzed is happy there are no durability concerns, I wouldn't hesitate with this diamond. You have the diamond, your vendor is an expert in cutting and they can better answer to durability concerns than anyone here.

Rockdiamond · Feb 2, 2020

sledge said:
As others indicated, a 60/60 stone means the depth & table both equal (or nearly equal) 60%. The old school thought was those proportions would yield the "perfect" stone. Short version is that theory was debunked.

Hi all!
This is like saying “ the old school thought old mine brilliant diamonds were the “perfect” stone. And well, that’s been debunked.”
The differences in the beauty between a well cut 60/60 , OMB , OEC are simply differences in taste. You can’t debunk someone’s taste.

gm89uk · Feb 2, 2020

Rockdiamond said:
Hi all!
This is like saying “ the old school thought old mine brilliant diamonds were the “perfect” stone. And well, that’s been debunked.”
The differences in the beauty between a well cut 60/60 , OMB , OEC are simply differences in taste. You can’t debunk someone’s taste.

I think you're possibly barking up the wrong tree. No one is stating 60:60 stones cannot be beautiful, just that 60% table and 60% depth does not guarantee a diamond to be a well performing one as was possibly once suggested.

sledge · Feb 2, 2020

Rockdiamond said:
Hi all!
This is like saying “ the old school thought old mine brilliant diamonds were the “perfect” stone. And well, that’s been debunked.”
The differences in the beauty between a well cut 60/60 , OMB , OEC are simply differences in taste. You can’t debunk someone’s taste.

Come on David. If you are going to quote me, then take the effort to understand my post in its ENTIRETY.

Based on what I've researched it's a very true statement people originally thought 60/60 stones were the bomb because controlling those two proportions yielded the ideal cut. And obviously that simply isn't true. Some proportions will indeed make a nice 60/60 stone but you still have to consider the other proportions and not just table and depth.

So yes, the theory a 60/60 stone yields a perfect stone has been debunked.

The other part of my post you ignored was that I gave an example of a 33/41 that is a 60/60 but has a promising CA and PA to make it work.

I also mentioned you get a larger stone (aka better yield) and you get a different personality than a Tolk style (or OEC or OMC for that fact, but I didn't originally say that). Again, all true statements.

Lastly I mentioned the stones look different as well, and a look I don't prefer. While I may prefer something different than you, it does not mean I'm against it. But I do believe a buyer needs to know the differences to make a decision for himself/herself.

I feel I was very objective and gave a pretty decent and accurate overview. I am not certain why you are so sensitive to this. I appreciate the comment and feedback and reality check but many times it feels like you take things I say as an attack. I am sorry if I have made you feel that way. It was not my intent.

Edited to add:

What are 60/60 Diamonds? | Whiteflash

Before gem laboratories began cut grading so called 60/60 diamonds were the default standard. Learn why 60 table and 60 depth is not always ideal.

www.whiteflash.com

What is a 60/60 ideal cut diamond?

Hi Danny, I’m in the process of shopping for a diamond engagement ring, and need you to settle an argument that I’ve been having with a co-worker, who purchased what is referred to as a 60/60 ideal cut diamond for his wife a few years ago… he insists that the combination of a 60% table diameter...

www.briangavindiamonds.com

The 60/60 Ideal Cut Diamond and Other Captivating Tales

The 60/60 Ideal Cut Diamond fallacy claims that table diameter and depth combination produce excellent light return without accounting for crown/pavilion angle.

niceice.com

Rockdiamond · Feb 2, 2020

Guys - from a historic perspective, you’ve got it very wrong. After my training at Harry Winston, I was working for the largest diamond company in the world in the 80’s. A lot of “cut mavens”.
Absolutely no one I knew believed that simply having a table and depth of 60% made a diamond well cut.
In fact, cutting was far more primitive in those days. No computers. While there were a limited number of amazing l, super well cut stones on the market, there were far more horribly cut diamonds on the market-and quite a few of the bad ones may have had 60% tables and or depths.
Given that there was no cut grading at the time, humans had to pick the finest cut stones.
The shift away from 60/60 had nothing to due with beauty or performance. It had everything to do with increased yield.
That’s the part of the discussion that “gets my goat”. The sort of stones I’m speaking of are almost never being cut theses days. And it’s got zero to do with performance. So the beauty of a spready stone was - and never will be “debunked”

Rockdiamond · Feb 3, 2020

There’s an issue that exists here. By posting “articles” published by companies that get people to pay more for smaller tabled ( super ideal) diamonds- the article is an advert- but it's posing as educational.

The distortions include pictures that are in no way related to reality.

Or that it’s “mathematically proven” a 53% table is “better” than a 59% table. ( btw- I don’t see a lot of 53% table super ideal stones)
Or the second-hand stories of how someone told someone else that if the table and depth were 60% it would magically be a well-cut diamond. 60/60 was a trade term. Virtually no buyers in the ‘90’s and before were asking for table depth numbers.
By all means, today’s general understanding of cut is light years ahead of what it was in the past.
But these adverts pretending to be informative are designed to push people towards a specific product- and members reposting them are a great help to the sellers. Of course, the people selling that product will claim it’s better than anything else. Just go ask a Ford dealer how great a Chevy is.

sledge · Feb 3, 2020

The WF article was posted as I believe it gave a pretty good overview of 60/60 stones, both some of their pros and cons. You should be more open minded, and read the actual article.

Literally 3 paragraphs in, the following is stated....

"While it is true, as illustrated in the profile views of the computer renderings above, that many unfavorable proportion combinations can result in 60/60 percentages, there are also combinations that have the potential to produce outstanding performance and which can earn GIA Excellent and even AGS Ideal grades. In both cases it is necessary to know much more about the diamond than just table and depth percentages."

But moving away from the evil empire of super ideal vendors, maybe this PS wiki base article will provide sufficient validation.

"Some older members of the diamond industry share a strange fallacy that if a diamond has proportions of 60% depth and 60% table, then it will be beautiful. It’s a great idea, but it does not always work."

Diamond Cut: 60/60

Some older members of the diamond industry share a strange fallacy that if a diamond has proportions of 60% depth and 60% table, then it will be beautiful. It’s a […]

www.pricescope.com

Rockdiamond · Feb 3, 2020

@sledge- I did read all three articles you linked to. In their entirety.
They are all basically saying the same thing. I get that you're trying to be objective- just that the ads ( posing as education) you posted are ads for Super Ideal, plain and simple.
So it's 10000% great if you believe what they are saying. But not to pass it along as gospel.

Yes, they admit that a 60/60 can be just as nice as a super ideal, but then go on to trash them.
Then the aspect of yield: no one is cutting super well cut 60/60's precisely because it costs too much weight. This directly contradicts what one of the ads is saying- but again when it's posted in an attempt to advertise Super Ideal diamonds, what's the motivation?
Virtually the entire RBC cutting has shifted to small tables/smaller diameter (spread) for the yield.
The ironic thing is that Super Ideal stones truly don't fit int the mold I'm speaking of. Such stones are not cut for yield.
But for some reason, PS posted and (* more on that in a moment) some super ideal sellers insist on posting articles designed to impune 60/60.

When I first joined PS< Garry and I were totally at odds on this very subject.
There was no one else arguing for the beauty of 60/60- no one but me, and I was very vocal.
Hence the PS page trashing 60/60.
Hence this rediculous completely distorted picture of how "bad" a 60'/60 can be ( which is also published on one of the ads you referred us to)

What would the reason be to post something like this distorted picture?
Any diamond grader worth his salt would pretty much throw up looking at either one of these travesties.
Do you actually believe people thought the two images ( which by the way are CG, not real diamonds)- would anyone state that the examples in this picture are well cut?
Where's the image of 57 table 62 depth stones distorted like this?

It's no "evil empire"- but there's a definite bent to continually "overstress" the benefits of SI diamonds here, .....so having a counterpoint is super important to make sure there's an even-handed discussion.

Texas Leaguer · Feb 3, 2020

In a sense the GIA Ex is the new 60/60.

At a time before there was much in the way of general knowledge about cut quality, the trade used 60/60 as a sort of shorthand for a well cut diamond. Even though many of the 60/60s being cut were attractive, it was obviously WAY too broad an assumption. But it served manufacturers' economic purposes and, in a time before laboratory cut grades, it provided a simple way for dealers to communicate to retailers and to consumers a claim that a diamond was well cut.

Not so different from the narrower but still overly broad GIA EX cut grade, which is used today in the trade as shorthand for the best cut quality, benefiting manufacturers and giving a level of comfort to consumers.

But many diamond shoppers today recognize that there is more to understand about cut quality. Hence, greater interest in tools like HCA, light performance analysis using ray tracing, and advanced imaging.

diamondsR4eVR · Feb 3, 2020

Can I ask since OP asked about 60/60 stones. Is my MRB a 60/60 with 62% table and 58.9 depth, or no? Strictly has to be 60/60. Just curious.

Rockdiamond · Feb 3, 2020

Texas Leaguer said:
At a time before there was much in the way of general knowledge about cut quality, the trade used 60/60 as a sort of shorthand for a well cut diamond.

Drilling down: We've moved from how consumers of the '90's and prior were asking for 60/60 to it being a shorthand for the trade.
That's a step in the right direction.
But 60/60 wasn't some sort of "magic pill" for the trade.
Super well-cut stones were as rare then as they are now. Actually rarer.
No cut maven I knew ( and I worked with some of the best) would ever accept a diamond as well cut based solely on depth/table numbers.
Like today, only a select few cutters were all that interested in doing what it takes to cut a "no excuses" diamond.
Unlike today, it was up to the eyes of graders to select the very best.
We can make an argument that modern technology ( reflector/ASET, etc) makes the selection far more reliable.
We could also argue that by relegating the human eye behind reflectors, in terms of judging beauty, we've lost something important. As we all know- beauty is in the EYE of the beholder- not in the ASET.

Rockdiamond · Feb 3, 2020

diamondsR4eVR said:
Can I ask since OP asked about 60/60 stones. Is my MRB a 60/60 with 62% table and 58.9 depth, or no? Strictly has to be 60/60. Just curious.

Great question- and, in this context, illuminating. Because there's truly no such a thing as "60/60" standing alone. Other aspects of the diamond ( besides table depth%) make a huge difference. And this lack of definition is yet another way to diminish the different sort of appearance a super well cut, yet non super ideal diamond.

TheLady · Feb 3, 2020

Rockdiamond said:
Great question- and, in this context, illuminating. Because there's truly no such a thing as "60/60" standing alone. Other aspects of the diamond ( besides table depth%) make a huge difference. And this lack of definition is yet another way to diminish the different sort of appearance a super well cut, yet non super ideal diamond.

Would this be considered a 60/60? If so, is it a good one?

7.32 - 7.35 x 4.39 mm

Depth: 59.9%
Table: 59%
Crown angle: 33.0 / 13.5%
Pavilion angle: 40.8 / 43.0%
LGF: 75%
Star: 45%
Medium to slightly thick (faceted) 3.5%

Rockdiamond · Feb 3, 2020

@TheLady - very good question.
If it was for a PS member, I'd run the stone through HCA...or ask Karl

If it was a stone I was considering in person, to show to a client live- I'd use my eyes.
Ostensibly, the stone rocks, based on the numbers.

Strictly super ideal numbers vs 60/60...

Shiny_Rock

Sponsored By:

Related topics:

Ideal_Rock

Brilliant_Rock

Ideal_Rock

Shiny_Rock

Attachments

Shiny_Rock

Ideal_Rock

Shiny_Rock

Ideal_Rock

Shiny_Rock

Shiny_Rock

Ideal_Rock

Super_Ideal_Rock

Brilliant_Rock

Brilliant_Rock

Shiny_Rock

Brilliant_Rock

Ideal_Rock

Brilliant_Rock

Ideal_Rock

Ideal_Rock

Ideal_Rock

Ideal_Rock

Ideal_Rock

Ideal_Rock

Brilliant_Rock

Ideal_Rock

Ideal_Rock

Shiny_Rock

Ideal_Rock