Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Thoughts on this princess cut from GOG

slg47

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
9,667
I don't like it...the ASET shows some leakage and you can see that it would have gotten a large deduction in light performance if graded by AGS.
 

jstarfireb

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
6,232
Something tells me it might be the competitor signature princess from the videos. By that I mean it's the one they're using to compare their diamonds against and prove that they're better...that should tell you something!

http://vimeo.com/5239762 - it may be the diamond on the right?

It's not terrible, but you can definitely do better.
 

diamondseeker2006

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
56,145
Would you consider Princess of Hearts? Those are square with cut corners and the prices have been reduced temporarily. I actually like them better than princess cuts because you don't have the danger of those corners chipping.
 

jstarfireb

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
6,232
I went back and looked at your other thread again. The other diamond from GOG that was also 1.54 ct is a much better choice. Even though it's I color instead of G...the cut looks way better.
 

Rhino

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 28, 2001
Messages
6,275
All depends on where your priorities lie. This diamond is a great example of "you get what you pay for". It clearly has the size/clarity/color/price vantage but at the expense of cut. If your priority is cut quality this is clearly not the stone (although diamonds with similar optics are advertised as "Ideal" on this site for around 9k+) so its a great value for what it is. If your priority lies in optics though, then absolutely take the advice given in this thread.
 

Rhino

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 28, 2001
Messages
6,275
jstarfireb|1319346537|3045777 said:
Something tells me it might be the competitor signature princess from the videos. By that I mean it's the one they're using to compare their diamonds against and prove that they're better...that should tell you something!

http://vimeo.com/5239762 - it may be the diamond on the right?

It's not terrible, but you can definitely do better.
Hey j,

It's not that particular one but if this person wanted to see a comparison I'd be happy to shoot it for him.

Kind regards,
Jon
 

Rockdiamond

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
8,406
Rhino said:
All depends on where your priorities lie. This diamond is a great example of "you get what you pay for". It clearly has the size/clarity/color/price vantage but at the expense of cut. If your priority is cut quality this is clearly not the stone (although diamonds with similar optics are advertised as "Ideal" on this site for around 9k+) so its a great value for what it is. If your priority lies in optics though, then absolutely take the advice given in this thread.
Hi Jon,
What do you mean by "optics"
 

Rhino

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 28, 2001
Messages
6,275
A diamonds optics consist of 4 components. 2 observed in diffuse lighting and 2 in spot lighting.

In diffuse lighting one can observe

*Brightness and
*Patterned scintillation both static and dynamic (aka AGS contrast)

In spot lighting one can observe

*Fire and
*Sparkle scintillation

Turn up the volume, particularly in diffuse lighting where one can more accurately observe body color and you will alter a person's perception of the actual diamond color when observed in the face up position.
 

Rockdiamond

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
8,406
Thanks for responding Jon!
Are the classifications you've listed for "optics" out of AGS literature?
BTW- If I've not said this lately, I very much admire your site- and the way you discuss the diamonds.
Different than my point of view, but clearly, you've got very good points.
 

Rhino

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 28, 2001
Messages
6,275
Rockdiamond|1319407462|3046098 said:
Thanks for responding Jon!
Are the classifications you've listed for "optics" out of AGS literature?
BTW- If I've not said this lately, I very much admire your site- and the way you discuss the diamonds.
Different than my point of view, but clearly, you've got very good points.
Always a pleasure man. The nomenclature is there in both GIA and AGS, just gotta dig a little. :) Thank you for your kind words too. I know our approaches and view points are very different. Thank God the world is a big place eh?
 

Rockdiamond

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
8,406
Yes sir!
There's no Ying, without a Yang.

Would it be to much to ask for an example in the GIA literature of the term "optics" that would clarify the use of the term?
I'll explain why I ask..
You mentioned a while back that older stones were not cut for optics ( I am paraphrasing).
It seemed to me that slighted cutters of 100 years back- all due respect, I know that was not your intent.
I mean, for sure, they did not have the precision that modern cutters do- yet, the art of stone cutting - to me- does not always need to involve perfection in symmetry, for example.
I guess I mean to say that "optics" is such a general term.
One could easily make the case that asymmetrical stones are cut for optics as well- but a different type of optics.

I know this is a fine point- but both of us love what we do so much ( I suspect) for the ability to appreciate, and share these points.
 

Rhino

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 28, 2001
Messages
6,275
Rockdiamond|1319410004|3046123 said:
Yes sir!
There's no Ying, without a Yang.

Would it be to much to ask for an example in the GIA literature of the term "optics" that would clarify the use of the term?
I'll explain why I ask..
You mentioned a while back that older stones were not cut for optics ( I am paraphrasing).
It seemed to me that slighted cutters of 100 years back- all due respect, I know that was not your intent.
I mean, for sure, they did not have the precision that modern cutters do- yet, the art of stone cutting - to me- does not always need to involve perfection in symmetry, for example.
I guess I mean to say that "optics" is such a general term.
One could easily make the case that asymmetrical stones are cut for optics as well- but a different type of optics.

I know this is a fine point- but both of us love what we do so much ( I suspect) for the ability to appreciate, and share these points.

Hey Senor,

Back around 2003 GIA published articles on the subject of light reflection/regraction entitled "Diamond Optics": Reflection, Regraction and Critical Angle at this link.

http://www.gia.edu/research-resources/cut-microsite-pdfs/diamond-optics-part-1.pdf

The opening paragraph states "Polished diamonds rely on light for their beauty. Light brings together the inherent properties of
diamond, the optical effects created by faceting, and the observer’s ability to appreciate the gemstone. To understand the effects that cut proportions have on the appearance of round brilliant cut diamonds, it is important to begin with a general review of light and optics. This is the first of three articles in this diamond cut series that will briefly explore these topics as they relate to a polished diamond’s appearance.

Later in Jan of 2006 when GIA released their cut grading system ...

"GIA has calculated the cut results for 38.5 million proportion sets based on the assessment of seven components.

The first three — Brightness, Fire, and Scintillation — are appearance-based aspects.

http://www.gia.edu/diamondcut/03_the_components.html

You can not judge cut quality of a diamond without considering it's optics or appearance based aspects.

I utilize a very specific methodology which incorporates the science of both GIA as well as AGS' labs criteria which I have fused into my own system to pick and judge whatever particular shape I am considering. It is a system that can be demonstrated with science but most importantly will agree with practical observation. When I personally use the term diamond optics or state such and such a diamond has superior optics, mediocre or inferior a plethora of optical exams pass through my mind of what that particular diamond must pass to qualify as such within its given shape. I don't take the subject lightly and if it can't be proven or demonstrated I'd never make comments in for/against it.

Hope that helps.

Rhino
 

jstarfireb

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
6,232
Rhino|1319406657|3046082 said:
jstarfireb|1319346537|3045777 said:
Something tells me it might be the competitor signature princess from the videos. By that I mean it's the one they're using to compare their diamonds against and prove that they're better...that should tell you something!

http://vimeo.com/5239762 - it may be the diamond on the right?

It's not terrible, but you can definitely do better.
Hey j,

It's not that particular one but if this person wanted to see a comparison I'd be happy to shoot it for him.

Kind regards,
Jon
Thanks for clarifying. It looked like it might have been that stone based on proportions and facet patterning.

Xodus8, I think you should take Jon up on his offer and have him shoot a video of this one next to the 1.54 we recommended in another thread. I'm sure you'll notice a big difference in sparkle, and a tiny if any difference in color.
 
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    Good Customer Service Goes a Long Way
    Good Customer Service Goes a Long Way
    5.5 Carat Diamond Upgrade
    5.5 Carat Diamond Upgrade
    Style File: Julia Roberts
    Style File: Julia Roberts

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.

New posts

Top