Why are the ‘Best’ Cuts on the Edge of the Table-Bezel Zone?

[Serg]

Re: Why are the ‘Best’ Cuts on the Edge of the Table-Bezel Z

Serg:
. I am impressed by the extensive work by you and your team. You have done much since we met 10 years ago!
. At that time I was impressed by your discussion of angular size of light sources and pupil reception angles.
. I am pleased to see you use the term' slope' instead of 'angle' for facet inclination from the girdle plane; there are so many different angles to consider in a faceted gem that it is nice to have a specific term for this feature. A mathematician would use 'slope'.
. I can't understand that some still cannot accept the viewer's obstruction of light as a cause of some dark areas. It is obvious.

Thank You, Bruce.
Sorry, I have other opinion about our results in last 10 years. We changed nothing in industry yet( may be just improve fancy color diamonds)
round cut is still "Ideal" and commodity, Consumer education for Diamond Beauty is absent, trade has mainly wrong understanding about beauty, a lot of brainwashing you may see everywhere ,...Consumer confidence become low and low, Diamond industry is killing itself and can not compete with other markets,
10 years ago we had better possibility for adequate Cut grading system

 

[diagem]

Re: Why are the ‘Best’ Cuts on the Edge of the Table-Bezel Z

Serg:
. I am impressed by the extensive work by you and your team. You have done much since we met 10 years ago!
. At that time I was impressed by your discussion of angular size of light sources and pupil reception angles.
. I am pleased to see you use the term' slope' instead of 'angle' for facet inclination from the girdle plane; there are so many different angles to consider in a faceted gem that it is nice to have a specific term for this feature. A mathematician would use 'slope'.
. I can't understand that some still cannot accept the viewer's obstruction of light as a cause of some dark areas. It is obvious.

Thank You, Bruce.
Sorry, I have other opinion about our results in last 10 years. We changed nothing in industry yet( may be just improve fancy color diamonds)
round cut is still "Ideal" and commodity, Consumer education for Diamond Beauty is absent, trade has mainly wrong understanding about beauty, a lot of brainwashing you may see everywhere ,...Consumer confidence become low and low, Diamond industry is killing itself and can not compete with other markets,
10 years ago we had better possibility for adequate Cut grading system

Sergey, i disagree with you..., you guys changed more than just improved colors, the problem is the industry takes what one gives them in the most simplistic way (well most industry players).
You guys gave a new way to look at Light performance but most cutters decided the easy way out...., rounds (aka commodity) and maybe some princesses...
Light performance won't necessarily make a Diamond beautiful without adding more ingredients to the mix..., and two & a half shapes makes it simply boring.

I totally agree with you though on this: "...Consumer education for Diamond Beauty is absent, trade has mainly wrong understanding about beauty, a lot of brainwashing you may see everywhere ,...Consumer confidence become low and low, Diamond industry is killing itself and can not compete with other markets,"

I believe the industry will eventually wake up..., present market conditions will force cutters to either become much more creative or risk being tossed out of this industry. They must understand its not all about price!
Those who will fight to stay will have to figure out the only way to move in the right direction is through education!!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Re: Why are the ‘Best’ Cuts on the Edge of the Table-Bezel Z

I agree with Sergey Yoram.
GIA round cut grading has been a powerful and effective method to sell diamonds from paper without anyone looking at the stones.
This means a lower cost of doing business.
It means more rough diamonds get turned into rounds to make the money go round and round faster and faster.

Without effective ways for retail buyers and consumers to be able to judge diamond beauty, rarity will continue to be the primary pricing and trading model.
Before GIA's cut grading system, and even before the GFC hit, we had a chance to make some changes.
Unfortunately to be effective we need resources and that means money and brains.

If the industry had a centralized nervous system (i.e. a brain) it would employ Sergey and fund him to move us all in the right direction.

 

[Karl_K]

Re: Why are the ‘Best’ Cuts on the Edge of the Table-Bezel Z

If the industry had a centralized nervous system (i.e. a brain) it would employ Sergey and fund him to move us all in the right direction.

Finding someone who is as smart and knowledgeable as him but disagrees on key points and putting them in a grading system death-match would give better results.

 

[Karl_K]

Re: Why are the ‘Best’ Cuts on the Edge of the Table-Bezel Z

I know we are ranging all over the place, Sorry Bruce.

Here is where im at:
There are some designs and proportions that just have "it" the first time you see it you know it is beautiful, then you show it to others and they find the same.
There are different formulas for "it".
Define "it" and what all the diamonds that have "it" have in common and you can find other designs that have a better chance of having "it".

 

[MarionC]

Re: Why are the ‘Best’ Cuts on the Edge of the Table-Bezel Z

Is this why photographs of diamonds [cyclops] differ from the way they look in person [2 eyes]?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Re: Why are the ‘Best’ Cuts on the Edge of the Table-Bezel Z

Is this why photographs of diamonds [cyclops] differ from the way they look in person [2 eyes]?

Yes, and it is also why we should not be worried about a tiny bit of leakage under the table in an ideal-scope image - because those stones usually have good light return to each eye.
Its only when there is a lot of leakage that you will see the dark zone with your eyes (or the dirt and gunk).

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Why are the ‘Best’ Cuts on the Edge of the Table-Bezel Z

Just when you start thinking you know a little something about diamond light performance, along comes "binocular rivalry" !

Serg- can you elaborate on what you mean when you say consumer education about diamond beauty is absent? That's an intriguing statement when you consider that everyone selling diamonds is trying to communicate to the market that their diamonds are the best.

 

[Serg]

Re: Why are the ‘Best’ Cuts on the Edge of the Table-Bezel Z

Just when you start thinking you know a little something about diamond light performance, along comes "binocular rivalry" !

Serg- can you elaborate on what you mean when you say consumer education about diamond beauty is absent? That's an intriguing statement when you consider that everyone selling diamonds is trying to communicate to the market that their diamonds are the best.

Bryan,

just few examples.

1)Have consumers any real chance to receive knowledge that GIA triple EX 1ct has much more Fire than GIA Triple EX 0.3Ct?( both have exactly same proportions, symmetry ).( of course somebody will see difference in Fire between 0.9 ct and 0.8 ct with same exactly same cut. So if somebody prefer more Fire( and Beauty) He may be need by H SI1 instead E VS. Instead this trade tell consumer if you want bigger size you have select H SI1 instead E VS, Buy Triple EX, AGS0 if you need best performance,..)

2) Do you know any Consumer definitions for Brilliancy , Fire which help to Consumer compare different Cuts by Fire, Brilliancy?
for example show difference in Fire Between Emerald and round cut?( quantity of flashes is not only one important difference . )

3) There are many rules to drink wine ( even beer ) . Cold and warm beer are different products . How is about Light conditions to observe( Taste ) diamond Beauty?

Basic things are not known for consumer( and for trade). In same time a lot of information how to split hair.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Why are the ‘Best’ Cuts on the Edge of the Table-Bezel Z

Just when you start thinking you know a little something about diamond light performance, along comes "binocular rivalry" !

Serg- can you elaborate on what you mean when you say consumer education about diamond beauty is absent? That's an intriguing statement when you consider that everyone selling diamonds is trying to communicate to the market that their diamonds are the best.

Bryan,

just few examples.

1)Have consumers any real chance to receive knowledge that GIA triple EX 1ct has much more Fire than GIA Triple EX 0.3Ct?( both have exactly same proportions, symmetry ).( of course somebody will see difference in Fire between 0.9 ct and 0.8 ct with same exactly same cut. So if somebody prefer more Fire( and Beauty) He may be need by H SI1 instead E VS. Instead this trade tell consumer if you want bigger size you have select H SI1 instead E VS, Buy Triple EX, AGS0 if you need best performance,..)

2) Do you know any Consumer definitions for Brilliancy , Fire which help to Consumer compare different Cuts by Fire, Brilliancy?
for example show difference in Fire Between Emerald and round cut?( quantity of flashes is not only one important difference . )

3) There are many rules to drink wine ( even beer ) . Cold and warm beer are different products . How is about Light conditions to observe( Taste ) diamond Beauty?

Basic things are not known for consumer( and for trade). In same time a lot of information how to split hair.

Serg-
I think I understand some of what you mean here. In particular #3 is thought provoking, and not just because I like beer. It would be interesting to develop some guidance for consumers on how they could design lighting in some spaces of their home to accentuate certain aspects of diamonds. To help them fully appreciate their gems.

With regard to #2, it seems to me that there are many systems in the market attempting to give consumers a way to compare different aspects of light performance from stone to stone. Some much better than others, and all subject to debate at some level. Regarding comparing light performance between round and emerald, I'm not sure how much real benefit there is for the consumer. I don't think it will matter much to a customer who prefers one shape over another that the one she doesn't care for is higher in some aspect of LP. If you like chocolate ice cream, you are not likely to change your mind because someone can demonstrate that strawberry fires up more taste buds on some area of your tongue.

In a similar vain, I don't think consumers need to be convinced that "bigger is better". That has long been the prevailing mentality in the industry and in the market, and we have been educating around the LP sacrifices of taking that approach too far.

Moreover, beauty itself is possibly undefinable. There are so many aspects that go into it and it is such a personal perception, not unlike art and music. So maybe the best we can do is continue to split hairs and try to develop understanding of all the individual elements so that consumers understand their diamonds in as much detail as they want to. That may the best available path to building consumer confidence in the product.

So, anyone want to talk about binocular rivalry?

 

[Serg]

Re: Why are the ‘Best’ Cuts on the Edge of the Table-Bezel Z

Bryan,

re:With regard to #2, it seems to me that there are many systems in the market attempting to give consumers a way to compare different aspects of light performance from stone to stone.

Do you know one that compare beauty of two diamonds with different cut design?

re:Regarding comparing light performance between round and emerald, I'm not sure how much real benefit there is for the consumer.


Fire flashes have
1) Chroma( depends Brightness and Saturation. Simply it is as Brightness X Saturation.
2) Size
3) Position( distribution)
4) Lifetime
5) may be visible by Both eyes in same time or only by one eye

Emerald Fire flashes have much more LifeTime and size then most other cuts.
For some consumers it is very important( preference depends form age and Taste)

Round Cut, Emerald cut usually produce Color flashes visible by both eyes in same or similar time.
So Brain sees similar number flashes as one eye sees.

Some other cut produce Flashes mostly visible by one eye. So Brain( if you have and use both eyes) Sees twice number flashes as one eye sees.

+ you need account lifetime that create big variety for customisation according real consumers preference and needs instead splitting hair in round cut

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Why are the ‘Best’ Cuts on the Edge of the Table-Bezel Z

Bryan,

re:With regard to #2, it seems to me that there are many systems in the market attempting to give consumers a way to compare different aspects of light performance from stone to stone.

Do you know one that compare beauty of two diamonds with different cut design?

re:Regarding comparing light performance between round and emerald, I'm not sure how much real benefit there is for the consumer.

Fire flashes have
1) Chroma( depends Brightness and Saturation. Simply it is as Brightness X Saturation.
2) Size
3) Position( distribution)
4) Lifetime
5) may be visible by Both eyes in same time or only by one eye

Emerald Fire flashes have much more LifeTime and size then most other cuts.
For some consumers it is very important( preference depends form age and Taste)

Round Cut, Emerald cut usually produce Color flashes visible by both eyes in same or similar time.
So Brain sees similar number flashes as one eye sees.

Some other cut produce Flashes mostly visible by one eye. So Brain( if you have and use both eyes) Sees twice number flashes as one eye sees.

+ you need account lifetime that create big variety for customisation according real consumers preference and needs instead splitting hair in round cut

Serg,
You point to out alot of interesting areas for exploration and greater understanding. But just to be argumentative,

Do you know one that compare beauty of two diamonds with different cut design?

The problem with the premise of this question is in defining "beauty". You can break down some of the beauty elements and even quantify them, but at the core is something very subjective.

The ray tracing systems that are designed to map where flashes of white and colored light are likely to be observed can be used to compare and contrast some different shapes. And this kind of approach is great in furthering our understanding of cut design and light performance.

But to an extent it is sort of a "reverse beauty" exercise. It is helpful in understanding WHY we find something beautiful - but may not be predictive.

And when you introduce some of the variables being discussed in this thread regarding stereo vision and the mysterious role of the brain in our perception (the graphic Garry posted is very cool) you start to understand how subjective it is (or at least how far we are from fully understanding it).

I do share your attitude that we need to do more to help consumers understand the fundamental differences between diamonds of different cut qualities and designs. But I don't know how we get there without continuing to split hairs over individual elements. Ultimately it is the consumer and his or her particular brain that assembles all the data and looks at the stone and says "That's the one for me".

I know the scientists here are not inclined to be defeatist - 'by gawd we can crack this code' - and I am not suggesting we simply give it up to "taste". I think an ever deeper understanding of all these elements greatly helps the consumer decide which diamond is best for them.

 

[Karl_K]

Re: Why are the ‘Best’ Cuts on the Edge of the Table-Bezel Z

Fire flashes have
1) Chroma( depends Brightness and Saturation. Simply it is as Brightness X Saturation.
2) Size
3) Position( distribution)
4) Lifetime
5) may be visible by Both eyes in same time or only by one eye

They also have shape. Take 2 identical flashes that are 8x as long as they are wide rectangular from an emerald cut or se or the mains in an RB. One is horizontal and one vertical. They will react differently with the viewer.
A triangle or round shape flash of the same intensity size and position and lifetime and viability would react different than the rectangular flashes.
I have been trying to point out that shape and dwell time(lifetime) are important aspects of diamond flashes for years now.

Here is the thing white light flashes have all those things also and they need to be considered in the same way.

 

[Karl_K]

Re: Why are the ‘Best’ Cuts on the Edge of the Table-Bezel Z

1)Have consumers any real chance to receive knowledge that GIA triple EX 1ct has much more Fire than GIA Triple EX 0.3Ct?.

Depends on the lighting in some lighting the smaller stone will have more fire while the larger stone is showing mostly brightness.

 

[Serg]

Re: Why are the ‘Best’ Cuts on the Edge of the Table-Bezel Z

Bryan,

re:With regard to #2, it seems to me that there are many systems in the market attempting to give consumers a way to compare different aspects of light performance from stone to stone.

Do you know one that compare beauty of two diamonds with different cut design?

re:Regarding comparing light performance between round and emerald, I'm not sure how much real benefit there is for the consumer.

Fire flashes have
1) Chroma( depends Brightness and Saturation. Simply it is as Brightness X Saturation.
2) Size
3) Position( distribution)
4) Lifetime
5) may be visible by Both eyes in same time or only by one eye

Emerald Fire flashes have much more LifeTime and size then most other cuts.
For some consumers it is very important( preference depends form age and Taste)

Round Cut, Emerald cut usually produce Color flashes visible by both eyes in same or similar time.
So Brain sees similar number flashes as one eye sees.

Some other cut produce Flashes mostly visible by one eye. So Brain( if you have and use both eyes) Sees twice number flashes as one eye sees.

+ you need account lifetime that create big variety for customisation according real consumers preference and needs instead splitting hair in round cut

Serg,
You point to out alot of interesting areas for exploration and greater understanding. But just to be argumentative,

Do you know one that compare beauty of two diamonds with different cut design?

The problem with the premise of this question is in defining "beauty". You can break down some of the beauty elements and even quantify them, but at the core is something very subjective.

The ray tracing systems that are designed to map where flashes of white and colored light are likely to be observed can be used to compare and contrast some different shapes. And this kind of approach is great in furthering our understanding of cut design and light performance.

But to an extent it is sort of a "reverse beauty" exercise. It is helpful in understanding WHY we find something beautiful - but may not be predictive.

And when you introduce some of the variables being discussed in this thread regarding stereo vision and the mysterious role of the brain in our perception (the graphic Garry posted is very cool) you start to understand how subjective it is (or at least how far we are from fully understanding it).

I do share your attitude that we need to do more to help consumers understand the fundamental differences between diamonds of different cut qualities and designs. But I don't know how we get there without continuing to split hairs over individual elements. Ultimately it is the consumer and his or her particular brain that assembles all the data and looks at the stone and says "That's the one for me".

I know the scientists here are not inclined to be defeatist - 'by gawd we can crack this code' - and I am not suggesting we simply give it up to "taste". I think an ever deeper understanding of all these elements greatly helps the consumer decide which diamond is best for them.

Bryan,
instead splitting hairs during comparison one sort Beer from different producers, I suggest
1) to create conditions for comparison( consumer comparison) different sorts beers.
2) create consumer oriented language to discuss about beer Taste( how is helpful for communication with consumer below definition one sort of beer: "beer brewed from traditional ingredients, matured by secondary fermentation in the container from which it is dispensed, and served without the use of extraneous carbon dioxide"" or "Beer is measured and assessed by bitterness, by strength and by colour."

Did you hear anything similar in pubs? but what consumer hear in jeweler shops about diamond Beauty ( nothing or Triple Ex, raytrasing, Light return , ASET, IS, BS,..)
where is Consumer oriented Brilliancy definition ? Fire definition ? sales person can not communicate with consumer because he has not aware about product performance , he has not language for communication about performance , taste ( Just about 4C and gimmick tools + something about craftsmanship )

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Re: Why are the ‘Best’ Cuts on the Edge of the Table-Bezel Z

Bryan,

re:With regard to #2, it seems to me that there are many systems in the market attempting to give consumers a way to compare different aspects of light performance from stone to stone.

Do you know one that compare beauty of two diamonds with different cut design?

re:Regarding comparing light performance between round and emerald, I'm not sure how much real benefit there is for the consumer.

Fire flashes have
1) Chroma( depends Brightness and Saturation. Simply it is as Brightness X Saturation.
2) Size
3) Position( distribution)
4) Lifetime
5) may be visible by Both eyes in same time or only by one eye

Emerald Fire flashes have much more LifeTime and size then most other cuts.
For some consumers it is very important( preference depends form age and Taste)

Round Cut, Emerald cut usually produce Color flashes visible by both eyes in same or similar time.
So Brain sees similar number flashes as one eye sees.

Some other cut produce Flashes mostly visible by one eye. So Brain( if you have and use both eyes) Sees twice number flashes as one eye sees.

+ you need account lifetime that create big variety for customisation according real consumers preference and needs instead splitting hair in round cut

Serg,
You point to out alot of interesting areas for exploration and greater understanding. But just to be argumentative,

Do you know one that compare beauty of two diamonds with different cut design?

The problem with the premise of this question is in defining "beauty". You can break down some of the beauty elements and even quantify them, but at the core is something very subjective.

The ray tracing systems that are designed to map where flashes of white and colored light are likely to be observed can be used to compare and contrast some different shapes. And this kind of approach is great in furthering our understanding of cut design and light performance.

But to an extent it is sort of a "reverse beauty" exercise. It is helpful in understanding WHY we find something beautiful - but may not be predictive.

And when you introduce some of the variables being discussed in this thread regarding stereo vision and the mysterious role of the brain in our perception (the graphic Garry posted is very cool) you start to understand how subjective it is (or at least how far we are from fully understanding it).

I do share your attitude that we need to do more to help consumers understand the fundamental differences between diamonds of different cut qualities and designs. But I don't know how we get there without continuing to split hairs over individual elements. Ultimately it is the consumer and his or her particular brain that assembles all the data and looks at the stone and says "That's the one for me".

I know the scientists here are not inclined to be defeatist - 'by gawd we can crack this code' - and I am not suggesting we simply give it up to "taste". I think an ever deeper understanding of all these elements greatly helps the consumer decide which diamond is best for them.

Hi Bryan,
One example with wine is a website here http://www.cellartracker.com/ where someone has started a service to let consumers offer their own reviews. Of course thanks to Robert Parker and others there is a language for communication commonly known and quite consistent in the case of wine. Tanin's, sweetness, acidity, flintyness, chewy etc mean somewhat similar things to most wine buffs.
What Sergey is saying is this type of languge is missing in the diamond industry.
The closest perhaps that we have is the term "life". However that has quite a different meaning among Indian diamondtaires than western experts (in my experience).
When we consider the 3 obvious terms, Brilliance, Fire and Scintillation, there are as many definitions as there are experts, labs and grading tools / systems.
In the Aust Gemmologist article we give our very carefully considered definitions. But these themselves are not useful for consumers.
We define diamond brilliance as an illusion caused when the perceived brightness of the object exceeds its actual brightness. This can happen at several diamond facets at the same instant.
Scintillation is quick bright flashes that appear and disappear quickly. It can only be seen as a diamond moves when lit by small bright lights. (Brilliance (and fire) can be seen in diamonds illuminated by large relatively dim lights, and small bright ones.)
Diamond Fire is separate colored flashes characterized by brightness, saturation, size, shape, lifetime (duration) and color gradient. Colored fire flashes can also have ‘bloom’ and ‘star’ optical effects. Fire flashes can be slower like brilliance flashes, need not be very bright, and can originate from both large relatively dim lights, and small bright ones.

(Karl you may enjoy the fact that light source and type are included in those definitions).

 

[Karl_K]

Re: Why are the ‘Best’ Cuts on the Edge of the Table-Bezel Z

Karl you may enjoy the fact that light source and type are included in those definitions.

Its a step in the right direction but until we can scientifically define common consumer lighting conditions and viewing distance we are still shooting in the dark.
Once we have that data then we could better apply the information in the article as well as design better scopes. and tools.

 

[diagem]

Re: Why are the ‘Best’ Cuts on the Edge of the Table-Bezel Z

I know we are ranging all over the place, Sorry Bruce.

Here is where im at:
There are some designs and proportions that just have "it" the first time you see it you know it is beautiful, then you show it to others and they find the same.
There are different formulas for "it".
Define "it" and what all the diamonds that have "it" have in common and you can find other designs that have a better chance of having "it".

I agree 100% Karl..., now lets try to define "it"?
How do you measure "it"?
What do you measure?
The subjectivity of beauty might get lost in translation with the science developed for symmetric Rounds/Squares?
Can we add "design" features other than LP into "it"? If yes, how can Labs incorporate these important elements in their cut grading metrics?
Where does science halt and gives way to design (due to asymmetric limitations)?
The answers we know are complicated, but if we start answering these queries we will be on the track towards to future of cut.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Re: Why are the ‘Best’ Cuts on the Edge of the Table-Bezel Z

I had an excellent example last night of comparing wines.
We had 4 wines by the glass in a first class restaurant (15th in wine spectator).
Each was stunning, all were very different, but all to our taste.
South of France (MtVentoux area) syrah/granach. Argentinian Malbec, Zinfandel from Napa valley and a cabernet from Columbia valley.
the restraunts notes are attached. Of course there is no points system attached, but the standard of the house led one to have confidence they would all be good. The last one was the stand out, and was priced accordingly.

 

[Karl_K]

Re: Why are the ‘Best’ Cuts on the Edge of the Table-Bezel Z

I had an excellent example last night of comparing wines.
We had 4 wines by the glass in a first class restaurant (15th in wine spectator).
Each was stunning, all were very different, but all to our taste.
South of France (MtVentoux area) syrah/granach. Argentinian Malbec, Zinfandel from Napa valley and a cabernet from Columbia valley.
the restraunts notes are attached. Of course there is no points system attached, but the standard of the house led one to have confidence they would all be good. The last one was the stand out, and was priced accordingly.

Garry,
Picture this, Its your first time ever buying wine you have not studied wines and you do not want to know about wines you just want a good wine that goes with your dinner and it is likely the only time you will ever buy wine.
How is what is written there going to help you?
It is written in wine speak much the same way we speak diamond speak.

 

[Serg]

Re: Why are the ‘Best’ Cuts on the Edge of the Table-Bezel Z

I had an excellent example last night of comparing wines.
We had 4 wines by the glass in a first class restaurant (15th in wine spectator).
Each was stunning, all were very different, but all to our taste.
South of France (MtVentoux area) syrah/granach. Argentinian Malbec, Zinfandel from Napa valley and a cabernet from Columbia valley.
the restraunts notes are attached. Of course there is no points system attached, but the standard of the house led one to have confidence they would all be good. The last one was the stand out, and was priced accordingly.

Garry,
Picture this, Its your first time ever buying wine you have not studied wines and you do not want to know about wines you just want a good wine that goes with your dinner and it is likely the only time you will ever buy wine.
How is what is written there going to help you?
It is written in wine speak much the same way we speak diamond speak.

re:It is written in wine speak much the same way we speak diamond speak

really ?

"Aromas of Bright red Fruits , Blackberry, tobaco"
from one side
and
Light return, ASET, H&A, Triple EX from other side
or
unknown Brilliancy, Fire from third side.

I am agree that many wine descriptions are far away from precise description but
if in Average ! Italian restaurant you tell" I do not like chianti , I prefer brunello " then Waiter understand you and suggest glass of Amarone and he does not suggest you Barolo . In good restaurant you will receive wine list with selection brunello and Help to select right wine for you before your order and taste wine. Wine language is not perfect but it create opportunity for effective communication ( to select wine even without testing ! Yes you have to have some experience in wine before effective communication is possible.after short communication with sommelier I may select and order wine even I never try it before and usually I am happy with results . But even you have great experience in diamonds you have not chance for effective communication in average jeweler shop . In wine market the "blind"( without trial ) selection is possible, In diamond market such selection is possible only for narrow range of diamonds( like ASGO).)

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Why are the ‘Best’ Cuts on the Edge of the Table-Bezel Z

Serg/Garry,
I get the point about making diamond descriptions more accessible to the mainstream consumer. But I think I share some of Karl’s skepticism.

Now, I personally have never been one to avoid flowery language and I do get a kick out of wine descriptions: “tar grace notes” Really?

It seems to me if we move very far in this direction we get squarely into the “marketing spin” arena. But I do make it my practice to avoid “diamond geek speak” with customers unless that is the language they prefer.

So, I think developing a better set of scientifically sound ,non-technical ways of talking about diamonds would be good for the market. I would love to hear and participate in discussion around how we can better communicate diamond light performance in real world terms that more people can relate to. Maybe that is a topic for a thread of its own.

 

[Serg]

Re: Why are the ‘Best’ Cuts on the Edge of the Table-Bezel Z

Serg/Garry,
I get the point about making diamond descriptions more accessible to the mainstream consumer. But I think I share some of Karl’s skepticism.

Now, I personally have never been one to avoid flowery language and I do get a kick out of wine descriptions: “tar grace notes” Really?

It seems to me if we move very far in this direction we get squarely into the “marketing spin” arena. But I do make it my practice to avoid “diamond geek speak” with customers unless that is the language they prefer.

So, I think developing a better set of scientifically sound ,non-technical ways of talking about diamonds would be good for the market. I would love to hear and participate in discussion around how we can better communicate diamond light performance in real world terms that more people can relate to. Maybe that is a topic for a thread of its own.

re:
So, I think developing a better set of scientifically sound ,non-technical ways of talking about diamonds would be good for the market. I would love to hear and participate in discussion around how we can better communicate diamond light performance in real world terms that more people can relate to.

Bryan,

we can not create effective language before we understand and clarify diamond beauty Phenomena's .

If we have wrong understanding of Diamond Beauty phenomenas ( Brilliancy, Fire , Scintillation ) then all all our attempts to create language for communication about these phenomenas will unsuccessful.
If we consider Brilliancy as Light return we have not any chances to create effective consumer language .
what is your understanding Brilliancy? Brilliancy is ... please continue

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Why are the ‘Best’ Cuts on the Edge of the Table-Bezel Z

My understanding of "brilliancy" , if we seperate it from fire, is brightness (light return) + dynamic contrast = Sparkle. Of course that takes on the nature of a formula (not sexy). If we are looking for a more comprehensive definition, fire is obviously is a key component so the formula looks more like brightness + dynamic contrast + dynamic fire = Life.

It's still not the holy grail because it does not convey all potential beauty elements. As you all have noted for instance, there are a number of considerations within each dimension like patterning and fire 'lifetime'. So you still will not be able to say that chocolate is better than strawberry. But you can offer that "if you like your ice cream with earthy notes of cocoa, you'll love this one, but if you prefer something more fruity and bright, this one might be for you". I would leave any mention of 'tar' completely out of the discussion.

 

[Serg]

Re: Why are the ‘Best’ Cuts on the Edge of the Table-Bezel Z

My understanding of "brilliancy" , if we seperate it from fire, is brightness (light return) + dynamic contrast = Sparkle. Of course that takes on the nature of a formula (not sexy). If we are looking for a more comprehensive definition, fire is obviously is a key component so the formula looks more like brightness + dynamic contrast + dynamic fire = Life.

It's still not the holy grail because it does not convey all potential beauty elements. As you all have noted for instance, there are a number of considerations within each dimension like patterning and fire 'lifetime'. So you still will not be able to say that chocolate is better than strawberry. But you can offer that "if you like your ice cream with earthy notes of cocoa, you'll love this one, but if you prefer something more fruity and bright, this one might be for you". I would leave any mention of 'tar' completely out of the discussion.

re: if we seperate it from fire, is brightness (light return) + dynamic contrast = Sparkle

do mirror reflections have :
1) Light return?
2) Dynamic contrast?

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Why are the ‘Best’ Cuts on the Edge of the Table-Bezel Z

Serg,
I'm not sure what the point is of your last question. I believe that anything mirrored back to the eye as brightness, contrast or otherwise all goes in to the perception of the diamond. Along with things we are starting to appreciate about observers themselves, from their age to how far their eyes are set apart, to how much binocular rivalry is going in their brains.

It is for these reasons that I think the quest for some absolute standards of beauty is essentially futile. But dissecting individual elements of beauty is something we can and should continue to do. Buyers will assemble the data as best suits them. Knowledgeable professionals will assist them constructively, and marketers will construct narratives that consumers may find persuasive or may reject as self-serving spin.

 

[Serg]

Re: Why are the ‘Best’ Cuts on the Edge of the Table-Bezel Z

Serg,
I'm not sure what the point is of your last question. I believe that anything mirrored back to the eye as brightness, contrast or otherwise all goes in to the perception of the diamond. Along with things we are starting to appreciate about observers themselves, from their age to how far their eyes are set apart, to how much binocular rivalry is going in their brains.

It is for these reasons that I think the quest for some absolute standards of beauty is essentially futile. But dissecting individual elements of beauty is something we can and should continue to do. Buyers will assemble the data as best suits them. Knowledgeable professionals will assist them constructively, and marketers will construct narratives that consumers may find persuasive or may reject as self-serving spin.

Bryan,

my point is:
1) Mirror reflections have brightness and contrast( static and dynamic )
2) Nobody sees Brilliancy in one mirror( except he sees diamond reflection in mirror)

So Brilliancy is not Brightness + contrast

to create consumer oriented Brilliancy definition we do not need Explain source of brilliancy, but we have to show examples where he can sees Brilliancy and where he can not see brilliancy.

Do you know any other object except Diamond cut which shows Brilliancy ?

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Why are the ‘Best’ Cuts on the Edge of the Table-Bezel Z

Serg,
I'm not sure what the point is of your last question. I believe that anything mirrored back to the eye as brightness, contrast or otherwise all goes in to the perception of the diamond. Along with things we are starting to appreciate about observers themselves, from their age to how far their eyes are set apart, to how much binocular rivalry is going in their brains.

It is for these reasons that I think the quest for some absolute standards of beauty is essentially futile. But dissecting individual elements of beauty is something we can and should continue to do. Buyers will assemble the data as best suits them. Knowledgeable professionals will assist them constructively, and marketers will construct narratives that consumers may find persuasive or may reject as self-serving spin.

Bryan,

my point is:
1) Mirror reflections have brightness and contrast( static and dynamic )
2) Nobody sees Brilliancy in one mirror( except he sees diamond reflection in mirror)

So Brilliancy is not Brightness + contrast

to create consumer oriented Brilliancy definition we do not need Explain source of brilliancy, but we have to show examples where he can sees Brilliancy and where he can not see brilliancy.

Do you know any other object except Diamond cut which shows Brilliancy ?

I believe many other objects show "brilliancy". A disco ball, the milky way galaxy, sequins, the by-catch of a trawler offshore as it descends to the crystal clear depths, Hong Kong at night.

If you are talking about "romancing the stone", I am all in favor. (As long as it is done in keeping with the facts, that is). But something tells me your point is much deeper than this and I am just missing it.

 

[Serg]

Re: Why are the ‘Best’ Cuts on the Edge of the Table-Bezel Z

re:I believe many other objects show "brilliancy". A disco ball,

Brilliancy or Scintillation ?

If Disco ball shows Brilliancy then what object shows Scintillation ?

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Why are the ‘Best’ Cuts on the Edge of the Table-Bezel Z

In my way of thinking about the term "brilliancy", scintillation is a fundamental part. That's the dynamic aspect- the on-off flashes of white and colored light in response to motion. It's the action and interaction of multiple mirrors that creates "brilliancy". Like you say, one mirror can only create a reflection. Even if that reflection is super intense, it is not "brilliant" in the sense we think about diamonds. That is, unless that one mirror is in rapid motion. And then the pattern would be uninteresting. So even if the amount of light returned was great, it would not be beautiful to look at .