What is the definition of a Pricescope super-ideal cut diamond?

[strmrdr]

What are the parameters?
Lets see if we can come to an agreement on this.
Then it will be interesting to see where they fall on the new AGS and gia cut scales when they are fully released down the road.

 

[Greentree]

You've basically asked for the definition of a fine wine. Every maker of fine wine will claim their vintage to be superior. Every taster is going to look for the particular characteristics in the wine that they prize the most.

Likewise, most can agree on the general characteristics of an ideal cut diamond. However, ultimately, after doing a lot of your own personal research on the subject, you'll have to decide for yourself what a super-ideal cut is. There just is no undisputed definition.

 

[bar01]

According to NiceIce - Super Ideal Characteristics.

Full Text in this link Here:

Super Ideal


Partial text from the link:

Here is the range of proportions and factors that we find produces ideal cut diamonds with exceptional visual performance more often than not… We actually refer to a diamond cut to the following specifications to be (Ideal)3™ ‘Super Ideal’ as opposed to merely being ideal cut:

Total Depth between 59 – 61.8% (only effects the diameter of the stone)
Table Diameter between 53 – 57% (least critical factor)
Crown Angle between 34.3 – 34.8 degrees
Pavilion Angle between 40.6 – 40.9 degrees
Girdle: prefer 0.7% thin up to 1.8% medium, faceted
Culet: GIA none or AGS pointed (same thing, different terms)
Polish: GIA Excellent / AGS Ideal (the highest from each lab)
Symmetry: GIA Excellent / AGS Ideal (the highest from each lab)

 

[strmrdr]

I know it is a hard question but people ask us all the time is this diamond ideal? or is this diamond super-ideal? and what Im trying to do with these threads is define it within the collective knowlege of pricescope what we consider super-ideal and ideal and non-ideal. :}
We also use the results of more tools than the labs so far have considered in deciding what is ideal so it will be interesting to compare their results to ours.

 

[Dancing Fire]

strmrdr
if i'am gona buy a stone sight unseen here's my super ideal cut stone.

table 55-56%,
total depth 60.8-61%
crown angle 34.2-34.4
pavil angle 40.7-40.8
pavil depth 42.8-43%
girdle thin-med faceted,
gia ex/ex or ags id/id H&A.
HCA score 1.0-1.5
AGA 1A cut

with all the measurements in a very tight range not more than .2' and .2% variance.

 

[strmrdr]

vtigger86,
Sounds real good to me but is it too tight a standard for general usage on PS?

 

[Dancing Fire]

----------------
On 10/21/2004 1:38:47 AM strmrdr wrote:

vtigger86,
Sounds real good to me but is it too tight a standard for general usage on PS?----------------

yes,is too tight even for PS cut freak , you got to be real lucky to find one.

 

[Greentree]

Aw man, you guys are asking for it if you are buying a super ideal cut based on numbers alone. Only a close visual inspection with a FireScope or, at least, a IdealScope can tell you for sure what you've got. In the final analysis, it's visual, purely visual.

 

[bar01]

----------------
On 10/21/2004 3:12:03 PM Greentree wrote:

Aw man, you guys are asking for it if you are buying a super ideal cut based on numbers alone. Only a close visual inspection with a FireScope or, at least, a IdealScope can tell you for sure what you've got. In the final analysis, it's visual, purely visual.----------------

I think this was just about defining the PS ideal cut parameters to help us consumers in selections?

Nobody is saying to buy a stone based only on these numbers. Of course you should do both a visual inspection and get an ideal scope image (hopefully as part of the presale data) for a final check.

For consumers like me however, having experts take provide the super ideal cut parameters mentioned here - including AGS0, HCA <2.0 or AGA 1A/1B helps me weed out potentional (likely) poor performers (so many diamonds to choose from on the net) so that when I get the diamond for final inspection - it is probably going to be a very easy visual confirmation.

 

[strmrdr]

----------------
On 10/21/2004 3:12:03 PM Greentree wrote:

Aw man, you guys are asking for it if you are buying a super ideal cut based on numbers alone. Only a close visual inspection with a FireScope or, at least, a IdealScope can tell you for sure what you've got. In the final analysis, it's visual, purely visual.----------------

Thank you for bringing up a great point numbers alone should not decide what the standard is.
I think thats what would make our standard better then the Labs is that we would consider multiple tools.
We need to think outside the box.
From another thread here is my list that any of the PS vendors should be able to provide:
Sarin/ogi or ags cert.
Heart photo
Arrow Photo
Red light scope image
clarity photos
trusted vendor looking at the diamond and giving their opinion and/or preselecting it

Now we need to narrow the range for each of those areas.

 

[strmrdr]

ok lets get to work...
I think that niceice's recomendation is a great one
for the sarin/ogi/ags measurement requirements.

Total Depth between 59 – 61.8% (only effects the diameter of the stone)
Table Diameter between 53 – 57% (least critical factor)
Crown Angle between 34.3 – 34.8 degrees
Pavilion Angle between 40.6 – 40.9 degrees
Girdle: prefer 0.7% thin up to 1.8% medium, faceted
Culet: GIA none or AGS pointed (same thing, different terms)
Polish: GIA Excellent / AGS Ideal (the highest from each lab)
Symmetry: GIA Excellent / AGS Ideal (the highest from each lab)

The only change Id make is add some of the minor facet measurements into the mix.


add in excellent in proportions, light return and symmetry on the ideal-scope based on this chart:

http://www.ideal-scope.com/using_reference_chart.asp
Or the same level using simular scopes.

 

[strmrdr]

Clarity and clarity photos.
Its my opinion that a super-ideal diamond
has to be eyeclean.
While clarity isnt in itself a part of the cut the clarity
of the diamond can depend on the how its cut in
relation to the inclusions or it is cut in a way that they
are removed.
I also think that surfaace blemishes that some labs
dont consider such as naturals for the clarity grade
should be considered and avoided if they detract
from the stone.

Any open feathers automaticaly knock it
off the PS. super-ideal list.
A PS. super-ideal diamond not only has to look awesome
it has to be durable also.

What do you think so far?

 

[valeria101]

Would you take the post of David Atlas (LINK) as refference on this ?

After all, there are so many narrow definitions of "ideal". Why make yet another one ? The more precies such a receipe is, the easier to contest it. I do have a bit of trouble accepting a standard that is bound to go out of fashion next week.

Numbers are so easy to nudge back and forth. So... no numbers please

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

This is a waste of time and effort Storm. You are all being prescriptive and damaging. You are becoming dinasuars.

Your world of 55.5% to 56.1% and 34.35 to 34.766686 by 40.555 to 40.6798 shows you have a great risk of disappearing somewhere we would rather not end up.

Think about what you want - brilliancy? balance? firey?

You are schooled to think balance and safety, but you have not seen well cut out-lyers - beacuse they are not cut yet.

Why would you reject a 58% 33 41?
What is wrong with 48% 36 40.3?

Have you ever seen these stones in fine symmetrical stones?

Please stop it - it is damaging. Consumers believe this tripe and go shopping and pass on beautiful diamonds. They drive a wedge between you Internet freaks who need to know numbers for the sake of the #'s and forget the diamond itself.

Please go read this that i wrote many years ago and look closely at the 3 diamonds I ran on a very early DiamCalc with the Al Gilbertscope option. Remeber too that Al is now one of the GIA cut team and that AGS are using a very similar type of scope to that modeled there.
If you were shown 3 such stones I would be surprised if you did not find them all quite beautiful.

MOVE ON

 

[strmrdr]

----------------
On 10/22/2004 1:37:41 AM valeria101 wrote:



Would you take the post of David Atlas (LINK) as refference on this ?


After all, there are so many narrow definitions of 'ideal'. Why make yet another one ? The more precies such a receipe is, the easier to contest it. I do have a bit of trouble accepting a standard that is bound to go out of fashion next week.


Numbers are so easy to nudge back and forth. So... no numbers please

Val your link didnt work.
Part of what Im doing is taking it beyond the numbers by
using the other common tools available from the PS vendors.




----------------

 

[strmrdr]

Gary,
Prove to me that the labs didnt just
develp criteria to fit what they wanted it too.
They have been changing them as often as some
people change their socks lately anyway.

You have screamed for ages that ags0 is too wide
a standard and when someone questions widening it
further you resort to name calling and hostility.
You sound like its the end of the world when I try to
bring together the collective experence/teachings of pricescope
into one standard mainly because it doesnt
fit your crusade of the week.

Nowhere have I said that only diamonds that fit
this standard are worth owning.
I started this thread because I figured it would
be interesting and for no other reason.

Btw Im still waiting for your reply on the other thread
about eye dominence and symetry in a diamond.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Storm if you do not understand that AGs have narrowed their standard then stop! Look. Learn.

No one has changed their standards inside 30 years.

You may be attempting to create some interst or maybe some controversy. What you are doing is creating angst. Enough. Stop it.
People do not need to creat standards that are so restrictive and perscriptive. Casual readers vist and read this stuff and think it might be gospel - and it is not - it is rubbish.

There is a huge range of nice propotions, and this is what has been my argument and gentlemans disagreement with AGS; and let me say that they have always been absolute gentlemen - even though i have been quite provacative at times. But now it is nearing the time to move on to a better system.

Your conspiracy theories are bullshit.
As someone who has fought the crusade to change and improve cut as long and hard as I would hope you might acknowledge - please look at the information on the HCA site and all the other stuff we have discussed and stop telling people that anything other than Tolkowsky + or - .00001 degrees is crap.

 

[valeria101]

Fixed that link...

David Atlas makes these short posts with incredibly high common-sense content. This is one, and there is another fresh example explaining brilliance, fire and scintilation (LINK).

I would gladly take a few more English writing lessons if they'd teach how to write like this

There must be some way to describe what to look for in diamonds.

 

[strmrdr]

Val,
Just my opinion here:
First link - Add for the ideal-scope.
When it comes to the ideal-scope in my opinion Dave has
lost his independant status by being a dealer.

I respect his as an independant appraiser but when
it comes to the ideal-sope and diamond grading/testing
machines I no longer view him as independant because
he has a $ interest in both.
Anything he says on either has to be weighed against his $
interest in them just like what the diamond vendors say
about diamonds has to be weighed against their interest.
Trust if they have earned it but verify anyway :}

The second link and Dave's first post there is classic
Dave well writen and informative.

edit to add: not wanting to upset Dave I just ignored the first thread when I first saw it but since you asked....

 

[strmrdr]

Gary, instead of name calling and complaining about how im going to destroy the diamond business.
How about sharing factual information on picking super-high
performance diamonds and what you view as the best of the best
and how to pick them.
That would be a lot more productive than telling me to shut up :}
I wont even subtract points if you mention the ideal-scope.

 

[Rhino]

Strmrdr,




I understand where Gary is coming from. In a sense we're creating a box when in fact there are many proportion combinations that yield *awesome* optical results (and I don't say that lightly if you're familiar with our screening process). I'm in the process of working up a tutorial on diamonds that perhaps have the highest light return we've yet to witness and the proportion combo's are in the mid 33 range for crown angles and pavilion angles around 41.2.

 

[strmrdr]

Rhino good afternoon :}
I too see where Gary is coming from but if he wants to
change mine or anyone elses opinions he sure is going
about it the wrong way by just telling consumers to shut up.
If he wants to teach using real world conditions instead of preach I will shut up and listen and ask questions and then decide for myself.

Im looking forward to reading and learning
from your tutorial.
And hearing your answers to the questions
Im sure to have about it.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Storm if we must use the word shut up, then I guess that is what I am asking you to do.

Now I know that you are coming at this with the best desires and intentions. And you do really help newbies etc on this board

.
But you are not "just a consumer" I am trying to shut up - you are part of a powerful sphere of influence.

In this respect Dave and I are actually at odds. Dave too believes in a very narrowly defined range of ideal-cuts. We agree to disagree about this. He believes that say AGS's new 31 degree crown angles AGS 0's and others with 47% or 61% table sizes will look different and there-fore bad - he does not think that people will accept different, even if it is pretty different.

My position however is that accepting the broadest possible range of proportions that produce beautiful diamonds will allow a free market economy, more differentiation and it will stop cutters cutting steep deep diamonds (or reduce the #).

Finally with regards Dave selling Ideal-Scopes - if it were not for Dave acting as a US distributor and partner, I would have found a shipping agent. The shipping agent would not have provided the same value adding service to clients. I would like to point out that Dave and I were very active in this field 20 years ago - we have both had honorary teaching roles to the trade over long periods. We do what we do because we believe in it. So to say Dave has lost his independance is a little silly. As I pointed out above - he disagrees with me on the range issue. he is also commercially involved with a group of dead set competitors to the work that I do with Sergey. Is that a conflict of interest - yes! And Dave has told me years ago that he was involved in a secret operation that created that conflict - but has that over ridden our ablitiy to work toward the goal of improving diamond cut? Of course not. Independence is alive and well. Dave backs the Ideal-scope because it helps. And you know it works to Storm, so be nice my freind