Super-ideal, historical perspective

[Karl_K]

Applying a round based criteria to some fancies can lead you to worse cut diamonds.
Also you can follow the numbers and cut a ags0 light performance round not so with step cuts, you can follow their directions and cut a dog.
Why?
AGSL does not grade patterns and the obstruction model is deeply broken.
The deeply broken obstruction model is not a huge deal with MRB but it is with other cuts.
Some beautiful step cuts will get ags0 but they did not get that way because of being ags0.
On the other hand a sub-par step cut could be ags0 but have poor patterns and less than beautiful obstruction areas.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Applying a round based criteria to some fancies can lead you to worse cut diamonds.
Also you can follow the numbers and cut a ags0 light performance round not so with step cuts, you can follow their directions and cut a dog.
Why?
AGSL does not grade patterns and the obstruction model is deeply broken.
The deeply broken obstruction model is not a huge deal with MRB but it is with other cuts.
Some beautiful step cuts will get ags0 but they did not get that way because of being ags0.

Like I said, I'm sure cutters have very good reasons for resisting.

However, it seems to me that AGSL would be amenable to input from the manufacturing community to improve their metrics in order to achieve greater adoption by the market.

It's not like AGSL has a huge constituency that is wedded to the status quo on fancy grading at this point in time! Changes could be made with little disruption.

GIA has indicated they are working on a fancy cut grade system. But when we will see that is anyone's guess. Not anytime soon I suspect.

 

[Karl_K]

With ovals a diamond could be ags0 and have less than desirable bow ties because again agsl does not grade patterns.
In fact if you blindly follow ASET theories you most likely will have bow-ties.
I get a laugh at the oval designs that shift the bow-tie towards the long side and call it ideal.

 

[Karl_K]

However, it seems to me that AGSL would be amenable to input from the manufacturing community to improve their metrics in order to achieve greater adoption by the market.

How do you grade patterns using a ray tracer?
You dont.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Would it be the case that Type IIa would be the magic 100 for transperancy?

If so, could that increase demand for MMDs? (If I am correct in thinking most are IIa??)

Sadly many type IIa (and probably all MMD's) are brown and need HPHT bleaching

I am now wondering if an HCA with increased focus on apparent spread could potentially increase demand for 60/60 and shallow-cut Super Ideals!
Yes, it could well do so. In general they will get a pretty low HCA score. But conversley, there are many extremely well prices diamonds with great HCA scores that small spreads mainly because of thick girdles. They often have very shallow pavilions and steep crown angles with small tables. While Yo'All perfectionists focus on soupy doupy's - there are many people who would like to buy by $/Sq mm and others who need to front up with a magic weight to keep parents and outlaws happy (the Dowry stuff).

 

[diagem]

Hi Yoram,

We are on the same page, not surprisingly. It is the double-edged sword of categorization.

Sure, we like there being cut-grades at labs, for instance. It makes part of our communication so much easier. But there is a flip-side. If the categorization (for instance of a lab's cut-grade) becomes accepted, cutting-houses in general tend to cut towards the minimum requirements of that category. See for instance the cutting of steep/deep in the old AGS-system or in the current GIA-system.

See also the abundance of diamonds just reaching a weight of 1 Ct. It is because the categorization into Rapaport size-brackets creates huge benefit to just be within the 1Ct-category, and not below it. Let's hope that Garry's initiative with relation to apparent size will help attacking that one.

In that sense, every categorization also is a burden in marketing a product better than the minimum requirements of a category. This makes me relatively skeptical about simplifying categories, also the category of 'super-ideal'.

Live long,

Hi Paul,

You are stressing categorization, and rightfully so, but there will always be cutters who aim for the minimum threshold within gemological requirements, actually the majority will, it makes total sense in a world of mass-production.

On the other hand, cutters who dont game the systems, and really want to exhibit the difference (and there is a difference), are using the same old tools as the cutters who "game the systems" do.

When we look at other luxury-high performance offerings like cars, motorcycles or as Serg keeps mentioning wines, such dont market their offerings in the same manner as their average peers who offer similar but definitely not the same products.

just a small example:

https://auto.ferrari.com/en_EN/sports-cars-models/car-range/ferrari-488-gtb/

https://www.lexus.com/models/LC-hybrid

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Hi Paul,

You are stressing categorization, and rightfully so, but there will always be cutters who aim for the minimum threshold within gemological requirements, actually the majority will, it makes total sense in a world of mass-production.

On the other hand, cutters who dont game the systems, and really want to exhibit the difference (and there is a difference), are using the same old tools as the cutters who "game the systems" do.
/QUOTE]

We do and we don't.

In the case of lab-categorization, we are almost forced to follow the categorization. I think that marketing our product without lab-grades would be a bigger challenge even.

But in the case of other categorization, for instance 'H&A', 'super-ideal', and so on, we personally try to avoid the categorization. We do see consumers, prosumers, even professionals trying to use the simplification of such category, but we would like to avoid that. The reason is that the benefit coming from the simplicity of a category might hide the uniqueness.

Live long,

 

[Texas Leaguer]

How do you grade patterns using a ray tracer?
You dont.

If it can't be done by ray tracing, it certainly won't be done by any table based system that GIA comes out with.

So where does that leave us in the quest for a cut grading system that will grow demand for fancies?

Seems to me we are moving into an era that is ripe for the development of exciting new shapes and facet arrangements. But it will need to be supported by grading systems to reach full potential. Or even to get untracked.

 

[OoohShiny]

Perhaps in the future, if we are to increase the range of cuts out there and also be able to break away from the bounds of lab grading, there will need to be two different approaches to diamonds:

- lab-graded - like now;

- 'artisanal' - where cutters can be free to cut diamonds as 'art', less-than-perfect ASETscope results and AGS ray-tracing analysis be damned!

I think this is what Yoram might be getting at - the key question being how can 'artisanal' stones be marketed successfully in a market focused so strongly on what a piece of paper that comes with a stone says.

If I am correct, I think things are complicated by the fact that the public are distrustful of any high-value items sold without paperwork - I know that I am very wary of ungraded stones because how can I (and anyone else) be sure of what I am paying a lot of money for if a dedicated grading company has not assessed the stone?

Or would stones still need to be graded in terms of colour, clarity and carat size, but leave out AGS-style ASETscope images etc.? (like how stones must have been sold 'in the old days'?)

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Sorry, but I think that you are on the wrong foot here.

Taking Yoram's production, which I and my colleague Lieve have both seen, seeing them, it is clear that these are exceptional fancy shapes with stellar performance. Categorized however, they are also AGS-Ideal if AGS has a cut-metric for them.

But they can in no way be compared to the bottom-area of AGS-Ideal. Seeing it is believing it. They are clearly superior.

Even if a category of 'super-ideal' would be created for such diamonds, Yoram's product would still be superior to the bottom-area of such 'super-ideal' category. The problem of categorization persists.

Live long,

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Grading/ratings/reviews are important for all products these days. I think it is naiive to think that won't continue to be the case going forward. Especially with a product that is very expensive and emotionally significant, and that is purchased only occasionally. Consumers lack the confidence that they can determine quality/value on their own, and they are not inclined to have blind faith in their merchant. And if they are buying remotely online, good analytics are an absolute requirement.

We can criticize GIA for a cut grade system that is too broad, and we can criticize AGSL for not factoring in pattern or stereo vision. But they at least give us a structure around which to intelligently discuss the aspects of cut quality as they pertain to diamond beauty.

As critical as everyone is about the lax nature of the GIA system, it was a boon to sales of better cut round diamonds and it served to improve the overall cutting of round diamonds worldwide. That demonstrates the power of even a 'flawed' system.

If we hold out for a perfect system, we lose opportunity to grow our industry. As the saying goes, 'perfection is the enemy of the good'.

The aspects of diamond beauty that ray tracing or other methodologies cannot adequately describe allows for the taste factors that can be addressed in the artesanal narrative.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

It is funny that De Beers have gone alone and not offered Light Box grading.
I have also seen a ring that a clients nephew bought for a lot of money with perhaps the worst diamond I ever saw. Marketed as 'art'. To each there own.
Sergey is trying to make it possible to provide horsepower, torque, ride smoothness etc so that 'Art Diamonds' and regular cuts can be categorised with some form of quality/value substantiation. Not easy.

 

[diagem]

It is funny that De Beers have gone alone and not offered Light Box grading.
I have also seen a ring that a clients nephew bought for a lot of money with perhaps the worst diamond I ever saw. Marketed as 'art'. To each there own.
Sergey is trying to make it possible to provide horsepower, torque, ride smoothness etc so that 'Art Diamonds' and regular cuts can be categorised with some form of quality/value substantiation. Not easy.

I think I am with De Beers on that one...
If you can press enter “1.25ct, 6.80mm, G-SI1” on your computer and within a few days have one made, why offer any grading?

 

[diagem]

We do and we don't.

In the case of lab-categorization, we are almost forced to follow the categorization. I think that marketing our product without lab-grades would be a bigger challenge even.

But in the case of other categorization, for instance 'H&A', 'super-ideal', and so on, we personally try to avoid the categorization. We do see consumers, prosumers, even professionals trying to use the simplification of such category, but we would like to avoid that. The reason is that the benefit coming from the simplicity of a category might hide the uniqueness.

Live long,

On the contrary, we need to develop tools that can spotlight uniqueness instead of using the same tools everyone else is offering for their products. One such tool which I have been suggesting for a few years already is real ETAS. It’s a complicated task to tackle (craftsmanship wise) but if doable (which I already showed it is) then this will highlight uniqueness and differentiate from the rest of the crowd (no matter how Gemological laboratories categorize excellent or ideal.)

 

[AV_]

real ETAS

Of course.

The only quibble I may have with projections is their 2D-ness; I am not that flat, nor are diamonds. I can't quite think if composite ETAS do indeed address this... - at least the starry patters are intuitively suitable for being so composed.

(ramble)

 

[Karl_K]

I have also seen a ring that a clients nephew bought for a lot of money with perhaps the worst diamond I ever saw. Marketed as 'art'. To each there own.

I like it that is kicken

 

[Matilda]

@Texas Leaguer I apologise for the incredibly late reply, I have been traveling for work. Thank you for your insights. I just reading and learning from this interesting thread, don't have much else to add.

I will say I am perhaps biased with fancy cuts...I adore them, blasphemy on this forum but more than rounds!! Many of my friends want them but they lack the confidence to purchase them as there is not a lot to go by to predict performance. I myself spent ages finding the stone I wanted. In any case, I wanted to show my bias haha

 

[diagem]

Of course.

The only quibble I may have with projections is their 2D-ness; I am not that flat, nor are diamonds. I can't quite think if composite ETAS do indeed address this... - at least the starry patters are intuitively suitable for being so composed.

(ramble)

Actually, it doesn’t get better than real ETAS..., pure dimensional information based the diamond cut actual structure, facet shapes and sizes, angle’s, azimuth and much much more information which we don’t know how to translate yet. But every bit of information about a cut of a diamond is displayed in “real” live term.

The biggest issue is achieving a uniformed result, this means there is no room for “any” margin of errors based technology tools and their faults.

Another issue is, even when achievable, we don’t offer enough educationals showing what it takes to achieve these levels of optical symmetry. And because of that, consumers are not inclined to pay the price tags such cuts command.

 

[AV_]

showing what it takes to achieve these levels of optical symmetry

You need an embedded journalist of sorts...

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

ETAS (effective total angulr size or imaginary spots of light returned to an imaginary plane from a ray coming from directly above) and DETAS (dynamic - with 2 degrres of rotaional tilt away)- almost half the way down page. One image wrongly labeled - the ETAs is the DETAS.
http://www.octonus.ru/oct/products/3dcalc/standard/diamcalc_32_2.phtml
Small examples from the MSS collection of DETAS on left side https://www.octonus.com/projects/list-of-all-mss-diamonds

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Real ETAS, DETAS, I get its appeal, but do we not risk losing connection with the consumer, trying to explain what the metric should show, what it does not, and how this is going to translate in real life?

And in the quest to yet again create a further 'tool' to translate light performance, are we not forgetting the most important: the eyes of the consumers (and other observers of diamonds).

Even in the small world of PS, there are plenty of threads with consumers explaining in detail how certain diamonds work with light. What they see goes further than any category, and I wonder if more tools will help in seeing this better.

After all, the reference to Ferrari or wine is nice, but I guess a test-drive of a Ferrari is the best way to explain its specific nature, as well as the tasting of wine being a lot more informational than any review.

Live long,

 

[AV_]

Real ETAS ... how this is going to translate in real life?

Place diamond against direct sun with a projection-receiving surface near & let there be play of light everywhere! One smile-inducing sport...

_
Boringly, there could be metrics for sets of points with some geometry to them, should anyone wish.

 

[AV_]

Digressing,

The art ring above-mentioned reminds diamonds depicted by the old masters - WWW ...

The look is congenial.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Paul I agree about ETAS and DETAS, but thought it was appropriate to inform participants.
And AV, yes, the sunlight trick (parallel rays from a very distant relatively small bright object) most ladies have experianced while driving a car, or sitting in a plane - exactly. But as Paul mentions - very hard for folk to use as a grading system. Even though it is profoundly effective.
The ring I posted has no life, lustre or build of setting quality