shape
carat
color
clarity

What is fair price for nice oval with 80% total depth.

Rhino

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 28, 2001
Messages
6,340
If I may pose another question pertaining to proportions which may challenge your thinking.

In the trade we tend to look at the traditions passed onto us from on high and never question it.

Traditionally, total depth has been determined by dividing the depth to the width with no consideration whatsoever to the length. Why not divide the depth by the length? What makes one right and the other wrong?

In Sergey's example the Ideal cut has

80.1% depth according to width alone
57.5% depth according to length alone
66.9% total depth % based on average diameter

The standard oval brilliant ...

61.6% depth based on width alone
44.8% depth based on length alone
51.9% total depth % based on average diameter.

The question we need to ask ourselves is ... what do the optics suggest?

Do oval brilliants with 61.6% total depth percent behave like rounds with 61.6% total depth? OR Do oval brilliants with 61.6% total depth behave more like rounds with 51.9% total depth?

Think about it.

With all respect,
Rhino
 

AV_

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 5, 2018
Messages
3,889
@Rhino your outrageous example reminds fine diamond beads - as deep as wide, with monstruous laser drilling & that sort of brilliance - hardly discounted.
 

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
18,423
If I may pose another question pertaining to proportions which may challenge your thinking.

In the trade we tend to look at the traditions passed onto us from on high and never question it.

Traditionally, total depth has been determined by dividing the depth to the width with no consideration whatsoever to the length. Why not divide the depth by the length? What makes one right and the other wrong?

In Sergey's example the Ideal cut has

80.1% depth according to width alone
57.5% depth according to length alone
66.9% total depth % based on average diameter

The standard oval brilliant ...

61.6% depth based on width alone
44.8% depth based on length alone
51.9% total depth % based on average diameter.

The question we need to ask ourselves is ... what do the optics suggest?

Do oval brilliants with 61.6% total depth percent behave like rounds with 61.6% total depth? OR Do oval brilliants with 61.6% total depth behave more like rounds with 51.9% total depth?

Think about it.

With all respect,
Rhino
Jonathon I strongly disagree. Why not do princess cuts from the diagonal etc etc.
One mai reason is the math gets to hard - you have 3 marquise one 2.5 to 1, 2 to 1 and 1.8 to 1 in LxW.
And are you going to give those numbers for the above marquise as averages of (LxW)/2 as you do?
It is meaningless and obscurantist.
 

Serg

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 21, 2002
Messages
2,620
Any Total depths types in % has not any sense for Fancy cuts. Depth normalisation either for min diameter or average diameter are both very misleading for fancy cuts.
For any cut( fancy cuts and even round cut) much better to use Spread instead total depth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AV_

Paul-Antwerp

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
2,859
May I dare to offer a conclusion after seeing the various replies?

When diamond-observers (consumers and professionals) are presented with carat-weights, they are totally distracted, and automatically assume that a premium is attached to a 1.51 compared to a 1.25. Even when asked directly to simply put a dollar-value on the stone, regardless of weight, the fear for the size-premium persists.

I personally have a similar experience with expressing Clarity. Consumers hearing VVS automatically assume 'expensive'. Even in cases where I show them that the VVS2 is cheaper than the otherwise completely equal VS1, they tend to prefer buying the VS1.

I think it just shows how brain-washed we are by the concept of the 4 C's. Even when all present data are contrary to a higher C meaning a higher price, the majority responds according to the 4C-logic they have been taught.

Live long,
 

Serg

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 21, 2002
Messages
2,620
@Serg , price/carat ultimately. I'd have to pay more per carat to have the same spread with better light performance.

I was referring to @Paul-Antwerp reply.

So you will happy pay more for left oval if price per carat will less than for right oval, will not you?
Will you happy if :
1) left oval has -10% price per carat in compare with right oval ?
2) -5%?
 

Rockdiamond

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
9,711
Paul brings up a great point. Consumers and the trade seem handcuffed by certain parameters whch are more tied to perception as opposed to reality. But how can we change it?
When someone calls and tells us “ I only want to look at ( fancy shaped) stones of EX Polish/symmetry” it makes sense from a business perspective to go with the flow. Our position would always be to educate the consumer but for sure there are times we loose the sale to another seller who may be very content allowing the misconception to stand. In the end such a consumer may pay more for a lesser stone.
 

OoohShiny

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
8,228

OoohShiny

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
8,228
Paul brings up a great point. Consumers and the trade seem handcuffed by certain parameters whch are more tied to perception as opposed to reality. But how can we change it?
When someone calls and tells us “ I only want to look at ( fancy shaped) stones of EX Polish/symmetry” it makes sense from a business perspective to go with the flow. Our position would always be to educate the consumer but for sure there are times we loose the sale to another seller who may be very content allowing the misconception to stand. In the end such a consumer may pay more for a lesser stone.
I guess this brings us back to Serg's excellent work - trying to capture beauty so it can be compared and considered as part of a range of variables/criteria :)

Although that triggers my brain to think "but would the beauty criterion then over-ride all the others or just form another criterion to be overlooked/ruled out by some buyers?"... :lol:


I do want to respond to Serg but my brain is not working today - I need to ponder a while!
 

Rhino

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 28, 2001
Messages
6,340
Sorry been a little tied up.

Jonathon I strongly disagree. Why not do princess cuts from the diagonal etc etc.
One mai reason is the math gets to hard - you have 3 marquise one 2.5 to 1, 2 to 1 and 1.8 to 1 in LxW.
And are you going to give those numbers for the above marquise as averages of (LxW)/2 as you do?
It is meaningless and obscurantist.

LOL... No no ... I call it thinking outside of the box. I have 2 questions for you Garry. Can you explain to me why depth divided with width is correct and why depth divided by length is incorrect?

When you consider the light return and leakage of the typical oval brilliant does it resemble more to you the optics of an Ideal Cut round or a non ideal shallow cut round?

May I dare to offer a conclusion after seeing the various replies?

When diamond-observers (consumers and professionals) are presented with carat-weights, they are totally distracted, and automatically assume that a premium is attached to a 1.51 compared to a 1.25. Even when asked directly to simply put a dollar-value on the stone, regardless of weight, the fear for the size-premium persists.

I personally have a similar experience with expressing Clarity. Consumers hearing VVS automatically assume 'expensive'. Even in cases where I show them that the VVS2 is cheaper than the otherwise completely equal VS1, they tend to prefer buying the VS1.

I think it just shows how brain-washed we are by the concept of the 4 C's. Even when all present data are contrary to a higher C meaning a higher price, the majority responds according to the 4C-logic they have been taught.

Live long,

Totally agree. We are "programmed" to think a certain way as we are trained in our professions but when push comes to shove, who says this is right and this is wrong? Depth divided by width alone does not communicate the whole story in my professional opinion.

Pardon my French, but WTF is that??? :shock: lol :lol:

HAHA!!!!!! The quickest example I could find of a shallow cut round. :lol-2:
 

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
18,423
Jonathon there are programmed ways of thinking. GIA and all labs measure depth % across the shortest direction on fancy shapes. You know that. So does everyone else.
It is misleading to do otherwise.
Just as it is misleading not to declare a diamond grown in a factory as man made.
And you were programmed to look right, look left and right again before crossing a road. Do that where I live and you will get killed.
 

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
18,423
When you consider the light return and leakage of the typical oval brilliant does it resemble more to you the optics of an Ideal Cut round or a non ideal shallow cut round?
Sorry Jonathon, missed this.
Some parts of a typical oval can behave / look like a nice round.
Some parts (like a bowtie effect) can show a dark star wich is common for a heart and arrow and a shallow stone.
Some parts - usually above and below the central area, but still inside the table - usually show crushed ice effect. Yours and Sergey's oval have solved that, but I expect there will be other issues.
 

Serg

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 21, 2002
Messages
2,620
Sorry Jonathon, missed this.
Some parts of a typical oval can behave / look like a nice round.
Some parts (like a bowtie effect) can show a dark star wich is common for a heart and arrow and a shallow stone.
Some parts - usually above and below the central area, but still inside the table - usually show crushed ice effect. Yours and Sergey's oval have solved that, but I expect there will be other issues.

Garry,
Octonus did not design any Oval cut yet! I never published any Octonus Oval samples.
we have HiVI design for Cushion, Marquise shapes and may be for Emerald.
 
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top