WHY do people want whiter diamonds?

[diamondseeker2006]

I see in a few posts a couple of pages back the topic of cut entered the conversation, and I wanted to express a few thoughts. I totally get why some people might want old diamonds just as some might want old (antique furniture). But what I want to say is, if I want a piece of antique furniture or an antique diamond, I want fine craftsmanship. I have seen pictures of some antique Tiffany pieces with large OEC's that were absolutely magnificent! They obviously were cut by master cutters. They couldn't possibly be considered wonky, and I would love, love, love to have them! (But I can't because they were larger, higher color, and mega expensive!)

I love old cuts, but I also appreciate fine light performance. There are some PSer's with finely cut OEC's. I realize there are also those who no longer really care about that and are happier with a charming old cut that might be a little wonky or out of round to me. But I need to make one thing clear. All AVR's are different. I think Jon has tried to choose some of the more desirable OEC appearances and develop the angle combinations needed to give them good light performance. That may be why they look similar, but they are not all identical like a ring cast in a mold or something. They aren't cookie cutter because they are HAND CUT and will have different angle combinations, tables, depths, etc.

Yoram is one of the finest cutters in the world, and my stone is hand cut. In fact, a stone like mine takes a lot longer to cut that a typical excellent round brilliant. I believe it will have even more value over time due to rarity and the fact that it is exceptionally well cut. I realize not everyone likes it, and that is fine.

My personal goal is not to buy stones that are either old or new; my goal is to buy fine craftsmanship in every diamond, colored stone, and jewelry piece that I buy. I don't discriminate based on age! (And I'd like to have a D color and a Y-Z color diamond to add to my collection so that I can say that I don't discriminate based on color. )

 

[Rhino]

I agree. The virtual facets can tell you a lot about a diamond and its cut.

Many times in a round brilliant cut diamond it is possible to see one, two or even three narrow virtual facets on either side of the "arrow" in a hearts and arrows cut diamond. These narrow virtual facets are result of lack of precision in cutting the hearts and arrows pattern and because the flashes of light and dispersion from them will be smaller and less noticeable, they have the effect of "robbing" the diamond of some of its brilliance.

Of course, the diamond cut grade report will not be affected by these small "extra" virtual facets, even though the appearance will be affected.

Wink

Could I request a pic or a diagram of these one/two/three narrow sliver virtual facets flanking the arrows?

Karl posted this pic in another thread on H&A patterning
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/h-a-pattern-vs-crispness.146607/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/h-a-pattern-vs-crispness.146607/[/URL]

But I assume these are not what you mean?

Actually this is exactly what I mean. I have tried to draw some small red lines around some of the tiny virtual facets. I just had carpel tunnel surgery so the result is NOT pretty. Karl's photo that you provided is a wonderful example of what I am talking about. This diamond may have a high cut grade, I really do not know, but it will NOT be a top looking stone, no matter the paper.



The greenish looking arrow at 3 o'clock has at least two tiny virtual facets on the top of it, and some angular shaped ones on the bottom of it that interrupt a lot of the light it could give without them.

Karl, that is an incredible photo!

Wink

That is a cool pic and Wink … sorry to hear about your recent surgery. Hope you have a quick recovery.

 

[Rhino]

When in fact they are more like this:

 

[Rhino]

Do you think that might be responsible for the mish mash of virtual facets on the lower edge of the green arrow at 3 o'clock? Do you remember the "official" cut grade of that diamond?

Wink

I want to say its an AGS0/GIA ex. I do recall that the h&a images looked pretty good as the scopes don't show split mains.

I do not have enough samples to say for 100% certain so this is my opinion not a fact.
I believe it was responsible for part of it. They aligned well enough to show as solid in a h&a scope which shows them with low resolution and broad strokes but under Marty lighting it shows the mains are not perfectly aligned but tilted across the face from each other therefor split.

If the cut is AGS0/GIA excellent and the scan looks pretty good to me, how can I as a consumer know that this diamond isn't as well performing?

There really is only one way. While photos and videos will give you a tremendous leg up, the final proof is in the viewing. You must see the diamond to believe the diamond. Be sure you are buying from a vendor with a strong return policy and do not be embarrassed to use it if you do not like the diamond.

When you get it, take it outdoors, take it into a corner and block most of the light by yourself facing into the corner, take it indoors under fluorescent light, under incandescent light and in the shade of a green leafed tree if possible. If it is a top performer it will SHOW you so.

Wink

Wink, love how you never fail to include the "in the shade of a green leafed tree". ALSO one of my fans! Even better if sunlight randomly peers through the leaves as the wind blows so you catch a cacophony of brightness, fire, along with a mix of the surrounding environment. What a show!

 

[JulieN]

Rhino, please clarify what it means when one of your diamond pages says it faces up a higher color than its lab graded color.

 

[Rhino]

Rhino, is the stone you are currently wearing the 1.67 by chance?

(Am I allowed to ask?)

Haha… I think I know which one you're thinking of (pinkish undertones!) but nope … close in weight though. A 1.64ct.

 

[Rhino]

Rhino, please clarify what it means when one of your diamond pages says it faces up a higher color than its lab graded color.

Sure Julie.

I don't think I've ever stated that a diamond faces up whiter than it's actually lab graded color (ie. used those words exactly) because that does sound misleading but I'm sure I've stated that certain diamonds can and will face up whiter than other diamonds of the same color grade due to their cut quality. There is a difference.

To expound, and here is what I say...

If you take two diamonds of the same color grade and put them side by side, one being a commonly cut diamond (I particularly like to use ones with light leakage) and the other with AGS Ideal optics, the diamond with the AGS Ideal optics will in fact face up whiter than the one with leakage. When I am doing live presentations in the store I'll in fact use two "I" color diamonds. I do not tell my client this up front though when I'm giving a presentation on cut. I simply ask them … as you view these 2 diamonds (in either overhead diffuse or natural daylight) which one would you say is the whiter diamond? Without fail they always point to the one with Ideal optics. I then reveal they are in fact the same color grade and will show them how body color is examined against flat white and under northern daylight fluorescence and explain how the cut quality of a diamond does in fact perform an optical illusion in the sense that our eyes interpret the more reflections of bright white light as a higher color when in fact it is simply more reflections of bright white light. NEVER though will we misrepresent what the diamonds actual body color is. The point however drives home the fact why we emphasize optics in cut above both clarity and color in the overall scheme of priorities. In the minds of most layman superior optics leads the average layman to think a diamond is not only whiter but also "more clear" as well (as long as it's eye clean of course). Make sense?

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[JulieN]

In the past few weeks, I definitely did see one of your diamond pages with such a comment on it. Let us just say, for example purposes, it was a round graded an H and the page said it faces up like a G. H color is noticeable, but the band for the grade is not so wide that we will make distinctions between a "high H" and a "low H." Also, let us imagine an ideal world where all lab grades are correct, no misgrading or difference of opinions.

If I see a GOG diamond page that has such a comment, does it mean it faces up equivalent to the average face-up color of your superior H&A G stones? And if so, does that not imply the H is better cut than your average superior H&A stone? Or does it mean something else?

 

[JulieN]

Here, I found it: "This diamond faces up like an F color."

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/11493/

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Julie, obviously Jon will have to answer that question, and I have never seen a notation like that on the site before, especially in regard to an ideal cut round. But I can tell you from personal experience, my first GOG H&A stone was a GIA graded H. It met my size, color, clarity, cut, and price requirements, and in the course of buying, Jon mentioned that it was a very high H/borderline G. He put it on the colorimeter and it measured G color. I kept the stone a few years before selling and getting a new stone. When I sent it back to be sold, we got a new grading report from AGS. The stone was graded ideal cut and G color, exactly as Jon had told me. I was very, very lucky because I was able to sell my stone as a G. So in that case, he certainly could make a true statement that the stone faced up like a G, because it WAS a G according to AGS!

 

[JulieN]

Yes DS, that is certainly possible in the real world, that is why I asked Jon to assume an imaginary world where all diamonds are correctly graded, just for the purpose of clarifying what it means when GOG says "this diamond faces up like an F" when it is a G. I assume in this case that GOG agrees with the G grade, or else they would resubmit, show a picture of their colorimeter at F, or use the easier to understand "this diamond is a borderline F/G"

 

[gregchang35]

G graded AGS v F GIA?

 

[Rhino]

I know it's probably inconceivable around these parts, and perhaps even moreso coming from me (a former disciple of precision cut), but I emphatically feel that the 'charm' of OECs is about more than just their history/age.

While I can still appreciate the beauty that goes into a top-cut stone, I'm sorry to say that I find them boring overall now. They just feel formulaic and cookie cutter to me now - not horribly distinctive and not nearly as pleasing to my eye as the lovely facet arrangement of a nicely cut OEC. I tend to think of ideal MRBs now like paint-by-numbers paintings; follow the recipe and you'll get a reasonably predictable and repeatable result.

OECs, on the other hand, feel like freehand paintings where beauty lies directly in the heart of the quirkiness; it's exactly why they are beautiful and charming. They feel much more whimsical and unique to me than ideal stones do, and the proof is in trying to match two OECs for earrings. It's pretty easy to match two ideal-cut MRBs, but far more challenging to match two OECs.

I think that's why I'm not a fan of the imitation OEC-flavor stones being cut today; it's less about the lack of history and much more about the lack of quirk. The very nature of having more precision strips the essence of the charm from them for me.

I guess I've morphed into a 'color outside the lines' type in my old(er) age. Who knew?

I can appreciate where you're coming from Alj. BTW good to see you around. As one who has once served the PS community you know as well as I do though that many people wanting to get engaged do not want to leave their hard earned dollars to chance and perhaps even a diamond that scores greater than a 10 in light performance for something their wife will look down upon for the rest of her life.

You see … when you first started participating on these boards Hearts & Arrows Ideal Cuts *were not the norm* as compared to most of the modern round brilliant cut diamonds being cut. You and I as well as the other old timers here witnessed the evolution of cut grading in America's two most conservative labs. Even today H&A are still not the norm but there are more AGS Ideal cuts and even GIA Ex's that aren't necessarily H&A which are virtually indistinguishable from H&A that we can say you've seen one … you've seen em all so to speak. That's why I get where you're coming from. It's also why I like to personally think outside of the box myself and feature as much variety of diamonds in ideal optics.

You see though … as DS expressed below, even though brands of other facet structures and optics like Star129, Leo, Solasfera, etc. may have predictable optics within that brand it is still not so "cookie cutter" when you look at the bigger picture of diamonds on the world market and outside of the tiny microcosm that is Pricescope because among consumers walking around today just in your home town … how many actually have a Solasfera on their hand? An AVR? A CrissCut? Etc? Those diamonds that you are tending to call cookie cutter are in fact genuinely rare in the grand scheme of things no? At least that is the perspective I am looking at it from as I believe others like DS are as well. We will also introduce consumers in our store to natural OEC's and gladly show lineups side by side of whatever it is they want to compare. No arm twisting. Many consumers when observing these lineups actually see the AVR as the one notably "different" from the others and in a positive way. Bottom line is that we listen to what the end consumer wants and fill that need. That is and always will be the most important thing in the service to others IMO. Once again good seeing you on the boards and hope this finds you well Alj.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Rhino]

Here, I found it: "This diamond faces up like an F color."

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/11493/

LOL… it looks like my lab assistant was getting a little too radical in his description. I told him to stop taking those percosets while at work darn it!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

 

[JulieN]

It is affecting his grammar as well.

 

[Rhino]

way past my bedtime. I'll point this out in the morning after I get in. It's pretty funny actually because an F next to a G … REALLY?!?!? I'm curious why it was written though and I'll find out and run a colorimeter exam on it too. If it's not a low F or borderline F Julie … I say 10 lashes?

 

[Ashleigh]

There really is only one way. While photos and videos will give you a tremendous leg up, the final proof is in the viewing. You must see the diamond to believe the diamond. Be sure you are buying from a vendor with a strong return policy and do not be embarrassed to use it if you do not like the diamond.

When you get it, take it outdoors, take it into a corner and block most of the light by yourself facing into the corner, take it indoors under fluorescent light, under incandescent light and in the shade of a green leafed tree if possible. If it is a top performer it will SHOW you so.

Wink

Hi Wink, thanks for the advice. I was actually hoping there is some technology that could help consumers identify the best performer instead of eyeballing it ourselves, especially for people outside of US. I actually bought a GIA triple excellent stone, everything looked well on paper but it just didn't have as much dispersion as my other H&A diamonds. So this shows not all GIA triple X are the same. Thankfully there was an upgrade policy. I actually tried to compare all its numbers against others that are excellent performers (I own or have owned these excellent performers) and don't see much difference and wondered why that is so. I'm glad to learnt from Karl's and your posts that there're other factors like virtual facets at play. I'm not going to prepare that I understand all that talk. All that just serve to tell me to eyeball it before setting.

Oh yes, I love all my diamonds under trees, even the not so excellent performing one looked fantastic there. I tried taking pictures many times under trees but the camera always blocked out the colors. Besides, I never have a tree long enough to myself to practise photo taking. Don't want passerbys to think I'm weird

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Ashleigh, you certainly can buy an idealscope and use it if buying a round (or an ASET scope if buying a fancy cut). That is far better than just eyeballing the stone. There are certain things I can see with just the eye, but to really see how much leakage there is, I'd need more than just my eyes since there are "Excellent" cut stones with leakage. And while they may still be pretty stones, I honestly would want the best possible cut within my budget if I were paying thousands of dollars.

 

[Ashleigh]

Ashleigh, you certainly can buy an idealscope and use it if buying a round (or an ASET scope if buying a fancy cut). That is far better than just eyeballing the stone. There are certain things I can see with just the eye, but to really see how much leakage there is, I'd need more than just my eyes since there are "Excellent" cut stones with leakage. And while they may still be pretty stones, I honestly would want the best possible cut within my budget if I were paying thousands of dollars.

The Aset was good and all other technology showed that diamond to be an excellent performer but it didn't please my eyes as much as the rest of the diamonds. Hence I agree with Rhino that even within the realm of ideal cuts, it's not exactly a cookie cutter to a certain extent.

 

[arkieb1]

Here, I found it: "This diamond faces up like an F color."

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/11493/

LOL… it looks like my lab assistant was getting a little too radical in his description. I told him to stop taking those percosets while at work darn it!

I agree colour and clarity are both subjective. I have seen several people describe their stones as eyeclean SI2s and I have looked and they are not eyeclean to my eye. So it's the same problem - what works for one person doesn't work for all.

I get what you are saying, you are attempting to describe stones that face up whiter top down than their graded colour, or for that matter stones that are SI1s or SI2s that are eyeclean to 98% of the population. It's funny we had another discussion a couple of times in other threads about people who have had laser eye surgery, there was a common consensus that a number of members, myself included, can see inclusions other people generally don't see. The scientific reason for this is, possibly, because we ended up with either perfect or better than 20/20 vision.

I can think of a couple of examples of your staff descriptions being too "radical" one was mentioned above and the other a friend of mine enquired about a stone, it was described rather radically as well, by this I mean the face colour was depicted in a way that could potentially be misleading.

Again, I am not here to attack you. I think the educational videos you make are wonderful, the videos you make for customers demonstrating cut and sometimes colour and clarity are wonderful as well. Maybe it would be more honest to say it's a really high "I" rather than it faces like a "H" or the underlying body colour or hue masks the overall colour grading in a positive way but then alas for your average customer that might be more info. than they wanted to know.....

I could return my recent purchase because it was purchased from a reputable vendor, and debated for days what to do, but being on the other side of the world makes this a huge logistical pain in the butt. And I both love and dislike things about the stone as well

Trying to have descriptions that are as humanly accurate as possible (which I know you try and do) and allowing for the fact people do see colour and clarity subjectively so that if you have a customer like me with eagle eyes, perhaps take that into account. I am sure it is difficult, but if you can master an even greater level of impartiality in the descriptions, the bonus for your customers is the experience of opening the box and expecting one thing and getting something nice, but not quite what you were expecting versus opening the box and the item being as described and then some..... and I say that to all vendors, not just to you.

 

[Rhino]

Here, I found it: "This diamond faces up like an F color."

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/11493/

LOL… it looks like my lab assistant was getting a little too radical in his description. I told him to stop taking those percosets while at work darn it!

I agree colour and clarity are both subjective. I have seen several people describe their stones as eyeclean SI2s and I have looked and they are not eyeclean to my eye. So it's the same problem - what works for one person doesn't work for all.

I get what you are saying, you are attempting to describe stones that face up whiter top down than their graded colour, or for that matter stones that are SI1s or SI2s that are eyeclean to 98% of the population. It's funny we had another discussion a couple of times in other threads about people who have had laser eye surgery, there was a common consensus that a number of members, myself included, can see inclusions other people generally don't see. The scientific reason for this is, possibly, because we ended up with either perfect or better than 20/20 vision.

I can think of a couple of examples of your staff descriptions being too "radical" one was mentioned above and the other a friend of mine enquired about a stone, it was described rather radically as well, by this I mean the face colour was depicted in a way that could potentially be misleading.

Again, I am not here to attack you. I think the educational videos you make are wonderful, the videos you make for customers demonstrating cut and sometimes colour and clarity are wonderful as well. Maybe it would be more honest to say it's a really high "I" rather than it faces like a "H" or the underlying body colour or hue masks the overall colour grading in a positive way but then alas for your average customer that might be more info. than they wanted to know.....

I could return my recent purchase because it was purchased from a reputable vendor, and debated for days what to do, but being on the other side of the world makes this a huge logistical pain in the butt. And I both love and dislike things about the stone as well

Trying to have descriptions that are as humanly accurate as possible (which I know you try and do) and allowing for the fact people do see colour and clarity subjectively so that if you have a customer like me with eagle eyes, perhaps take that into account. I am sure it is difficult, but if you can master an even greater level of impartiality in the descriptions, the bonus for your customers is the experience of opening the box and expecting one thing and getting something nice, but not quite what you were expecting versus opening the box and the item being as described and then some..... and I say that to all vendors, not just to you.

Thank you Arkie. I'm going to bring up your post here as well as Julie's comments in a meeting today. This is greatly appreciated and if we do make any comments along those lines, if we don't have demonstrable proof to back up the comment, (ie. master stone comparison or colorimeter testing to confirm) your suggestion hits the nail squarely on the head. Thank you.

Rhino

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Ashleigh, you certainly can buy an idealscope and use it if buying a round (or an ASET scope if buying a fancy cut). That is far better than just eyeballing the stone. There are certain things I can see with just the eye, but to really see how much leakage there is, I'd need more than just my eyes since there are "Excellent" cut stones with leakage. And while they may still be pretty stones, I honestly would want the best possible cut within my budget if I were paying thousands of dollars.

The Aset was good and all other technology showed that diamond to be an excellent performer but it didn't please my eyes as much as the rest of the diamonds. Hence I agree with Rhino that even within the realm of ideal cuts, it's not exactly a cookie cutter to a certain extent.

Oh, that is great! If you have narrowed down a group of stones that all have excellent cut and no leakage, then absolutely you can then just choose whichever your eyes prefer! The tools are just to narrow down the best of the potential stones. It's great when one has the opportunity to view several great stones at once!

And I agree, every stone is different. I can't imagine NOT striving for cutting stones with excellent cut and light performance regardless of the style of stone! And there are quite a few specialty cuts with excellent light performance as evidenced by the selection that GOG carries.

 

[WinkHPD]

I actually bought a GIA triple excellent stone, everything looked well on paper but it just didn't have as much dispersion as my other H&A diamonds. So this shows not all GIA triple X are the same.

You have no idea how much I wish this comment that appeared on the first page of this thread, or even as the thread topic.

It is simply put and 100% correct. And you can add AGS Ideal to the GIA triple X.

It is particularly important for the relatively new prosumerswho seem to think the HCA is a selection tool rather than a rejection tool.

Sadly, buried here on page 1,000,000 only the bored or the white diamond thread interested will see it.

Too bad, as your comment really needs to be seen and understood by all.

Wink

 

[Rhino]

I actually bought a GIA triple excellent stone, everything looked well on paper but it just didn't have as much dispersion as my other H&A diamonds. So this shows not all GIA triple X are the same.

You have no idea how much I wish this comment that appeared on the first page of this thread, or even as the thread topic.

It is simply put and 100% correct. And you can add AGS Ideal to the GIA triple X.

It is particularly important for the relatively new prosumerswho seem to think the HCA is a selection tool rather than a rejection tool.

Sadly, buried here on page 1,000,000 only the bored or the white diamond thread interested will see it.

Too bad, as your comment really needs to be seen and understood by all.

Wink

I'd second that Wink.

 

[yssie]

Karl,

I agree. The virtual facets can tell you a lot about a diamond and its cut.

Many times in a round brilliant cut diamond it is possible to see one, two or even three narrow virtual facets on either side of the "arrow" in a hearts and arrows cut diamond. These narrow virtual facets are result of lack of precision in cutting the hearts and arrows pattern and because the flashes of light and dispersion from them will be smaller and less noticeable, they have the effect of "robbing" the diamond of some of its brilliance.

Of course, the diamond cut grade report will not be affected by these small "extra" virtual facets, even though the appearance will be affected.

Wink

I received an email from Paul Slegers of Crafted by Infinity Diamonds who has an issue with my comments as he doubts that technically the diamond is in fact robbed of its brilliance. He suggests two corrections, ", 1. The virtual-facet-thing has far more consequence in the observation of fire and scintillation.

2. With a standard round-brilliant having over 16,000 virtual facets (Wow, I forgot that AGSL communicated that incredibly high number to us!), what I am trying to show in this photograph is nice to understand the theory, but I think that we need to agree that even the best photography does not succeed in capturing the distinction between all those virtual facets. Most probably, our eyes cannot either, but they surely can catch the delta between on and off (scintillation) or between colors (fire) being more dramatic (attractive?) when the borderline is not disturbed by fuzziness, caused by extremely small extra virtual facets."

Paul has, for many years, been a tremendous mentor to me. When he talks, I listen and ask questions and usually find that he is correct I have to agree with him, that technically, rather than robbing brilliance in the scientific sense that it really does have more affect on the observance of dispersion and white light. In order for dispersion to be discerned by the human eye the ray of light that is dispersed must be wider than the pupil of the eye when it is seen. If it is not, all of the colors will enter the eye and be perceived of as white light. (This is true of cameras too, which is why if you want to show dispersion in a diamond via camera it is necessary to use a smaller aperture for the same reason.) So, when you get a dispersed ray from a tiny virtual mirror, it stands to reason that it will be a small ray with a great chance of being too small to only partially enter the pupil of the eye, thus its rays will be discerned as white light, not colored. And since the rays are smaller they may not appear as bright as they would if they were larger more commanding rays. In fact, many of them will be so small as to not be discernible to the human eye.

As for item 2, the words "The Delta" are bolded by me, as this is an important concept and should also be more thoroughly explained.

Here again I will quote Paul, as his explanation to me asking what he meant by "the delta" was incredibly concise and clear and deserves to be quoted rather than paraphrased.

"‘Delta’ is a scientific word to describe ‘change’. The delta between 1 and 7 is 6.

In a diamond’s case, I will explain it for the biggest virtual facet, the arrow-shaft.

- When moving the stone, light source or the observer, the size and shape of that big virtual facet changes, but that is not terribly important as it will remain big.

- Scintillation is when a dark virtual facets turns to bright, in this case the arrow shaft.

- To date, even the best lab (AGSL) studies scintillation by counting the number and size of virtual facets being bright.

- My theory is that they should study the ‘delta’, meaning how fast and undisturbed the VG changes from dark (0) to bright (100).

- Before, I have explained this as ‘crispness’, but possibly ‘delta’ is a better explanation. Even AGSL does not study or did not succeed in studying that delta.

- The fuzziness of extra virtual facets creates a delta that does not go instantly from 0 to 100, but from 0 to 30 for a split-second, then to 70 for another split-second, back to 50 for a split-second, then to 100 (if it even reaches 100?). Human eyes and brains detect that, photography, even video probably does not.

- The same delta is present in observing Fire.

- The observation of more pure spectral colors is due to the ‘delta’ being undisturbed by extra virtual facets."

I must admit that this concept is new to me, but now that it is opened to my eyes it makes incredible sense. Stones with larger virtual facets that are unhindered by myriads of small virtual facets reducing their size are going to have a more noticeable pop and pizzazz than those that do have the smaller virtual facets "muddying things up". That I already knew. What I did not think of before was that they might change the manner in which scintillation is observed with their less than 100% success rate in turning to the bright side.

And this leads me again to the concept that I have held to for many many years. Ya gotta buy the diamond, not the paper.

Wink

Wink, I just have to say that THIS is how I finally understood what you meant by "crispness". That it isn't so much the presence or absence of the artifact itself, more how sudden the shift from one artifact to another is - so a "crisp" shift in behaviour between two adjacent facets should be a step-function, not a smoothed curve. I don't think I really understood until I started buying OECs and was able to see some examples of "non-crispness" greatly exaggerated... and it must be one of those things that once you see, you can't unsee!
Seeing this explicitly stated like this does make a lot of sense.

Hey Yssie!

Well ... I personally didn't say THAT particular one had charm but I suppose there are people who may. And yes ... different buyers have different priorities. Most of the consumers we serve do care greatly about diamond optics and place it high in priority and there are some who don't. The key IMO is being able to listen to whom it is you are serving and doing your best to meet their needs based on *their* priorities.

So, did that particular one have charm?

What I was trying to say earlier is that sometimes even the same customer has different priorities for different purchases. I don't expect RB-esque light return and face-up brilliance from genuine antiques so that's just not part of my metric - I'm much more particular about the whether the faceting appeals to me, regardless of how it corresponds to face-up performance. I *will* own an Octavia one day and even if they were sold by multiple vendors I would still come to GOG for it because my priorities for that purchase would be exactly what you specialise in! And I'll go to JbEG for wonky antiques because that's what they specialize in, and my priorities for that purchase would match their priorities as purveyors of diamonds better than they'd match GOG's.

So takehome... is still "see the stone with your own eyes"

I actually bought a GIA triple excellent stone, everything looked well on paper but it just didn't have as much dispersion as my other H&A diamonds. So this shows not all GIA triple X are the same.

You have no idea how much I wish this comment that appeared on the first page of this thread, or even as the thread topic.

It is simply put and 100% correct. And you can add AGS Ideal to the GIA triple X.

It is particularly important for the relatively new prosumerswho seem to think the HCA is a selection tool rather than a rejection tool.

Sadly, buried here on page 1,000,000 only the bored or the white diamond thread interested will see it.

Too bad, as your comment really needs to be seen and understood by all.

Wink

In my humble opinion one of the issues is that you really do need to SEE it to really believe it. Or, at least, I really needed to see it to believe that small changes could make huge differences in appearance and output... and the more stones I see, the more I don't trust anything but my or my reps' eyes. Having the opportunity to see lots of different types of stones is a big part of it.

 

[aljdewey]

I know it's probably inconceivable around these parts, and perhaps even moreso coming from me (a former disciple of precision cut), but I emphatically feel that the 'charm' of OECs is about more than just their history/age.

While I can still appreciate the beauty that goes into a top-cut stone, I'm sorry to say that I find them boring overall now. They just feel formulaic and cookie cutter to me now - not horribly distinctive and not nearly as pleasing to my eye as the lovely facet arrangement of a nicely cut OEC. I tend to think of ideal MRBs now like paint-by-numbers paintings; follow the recipe and you'll get a reasonably predictable and repeatable result.

OECs, on the other hand, feel like freehand paintings where beauty lies directly in the heart of the quirkiness; it's exactly why they are beautiful and charming. They feel much more whimsical and unique to me than ideal stones do, and the proof is in trying to match two OECs for earrings. It's pretty easy to match two ideal-cut MRBs, but far more challenging to match two OECs.

I think that's why I'm not a fan of the imitation OEC-flavor stones being cut today; it's less about the lack of history and much more about the lack of quirk. The very nature of having more precision strips the essence of the charm from them for me.

I guess I've morphed into a 'color outside the lines' type in my old(er) age. Who knew?

I can appreciate where you're coming from Alj. BTW good to see you around. As one who has once served the PS community you know as well as I do though that many people wanting to get engaged do not want to leave their hard earned dollars to chance and perhaps even a diamond that scores greater than a 10 in light performance for something their wife will look down upon for the rest of her life.

You see … when you first started participating on these boards Hearts & Arrows Ideal Cuts *were not the norm* as compared to most of the modern round brilliant cut diamonds being cut. You and I as well as the other old timers here witnessed the evolution of cut grading in America's two most conservative labs. Even today H&A are still not the norm but there are more AGS Ideal cuts and even GIA Ex's that aren't necessarily H&A which are virtually indistinguishable from H&A that we can say you've seen one … you've seen em all so to speak. That's why I get where you're coming from. It's also why I like to personally think outside of the box myself and feature as much variety of diamonds in ideal optics.

You see though … as DS expressed below, even though brands of other facet structures and optics like Star129, Leo, Solasfera, etc. may have predictable optics within that brand it is still not so "cookie cutter" when you look at the bigger picture of diamonds on the world market and outside of the tiny microcosm that is Pricescope because among consumers walking around today just in your home town … how many actually have a Solasfera on their hand? An AVR? A CrissCut? Etc? Those diamonds that you are tending to call cookie cutter are in fact genuinely rare in the grand scheme of things no? At least that is the perspective I am looking at it from as I believe others like DS are as well. We will also introduce consumers in our store to natural OEC's and gladly show lineups side by side of whatever it is they want to compare. No arm twisting. Many consumers when observing these lineups actually see the AVR as the one notably "different" from the others and in a positive way. Bottom line is that we listen to what the end consumer wants and fill that need. That is and always will be the most important thing in the service to others IMO. Once again good seeing you on the boards and hope this finds you well Alj.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

Where did I suggest at all that most guys getting engaged should lean toward OECs, or to put their dollars at risk? I'm not even advocating to sway preference to OECs, to be honest. I'm merely sharing a reason why I find OECs more appealing that isn't the suggested reason offered in an earlier post.

As someone who finds OECs more appealing than MRBs, I felt it would resonate to share why I prefer them, and it's not just because they are antique. Their appeal to my eye has little to do with age and more to do with what I personally find beautiful.

DS, I'll stay away from noting a specific brand of OEC repros, but I will say that brands are generally about consistency with minimal variance margins, which is the opposite of individual and unique. I had no idea that there were so many cookie-haters on PS, but since some of you seem slighted by the notion of cookie cutter, I'll try a different way.

If I were a fan of dining at a high-end chain steakhouse like Morton's or Ruth's Chris, there is no doubt the food would be excellent.....and also likely much more elite fare than average. But it is still predictable, and it should be. The whole point of branding--of going to a "name--is knowing what you can expect to get with minimal variance from the standard. Is there some minor difference from location to location? Sure. Greatly appreciable to most? Probably not. For me, that's what ideal stones are like....substantially interchangeable with very little (and maybe even imperceptible) difference.

Following that analogy, OECs are like dining at single location chef-run restaurants. Some are average, and some are blow-your-mind amazing. I'm individually more of a blow-your-mind amazing restaurant patron. Sure, the food is good at the upscale chains, but the wonder of discovering something yummy and different is missing. For me personally, I find the non-chains more appealing overall.

Let me also say that I don't expect everyone to share my preference, any more than I share yours. Preferences aren't right or wrong; they just are. DS's preference leans more toward precision, and mine leans away from precision. Neither is right or wrong.

 

[Rhino]

Little interesting update Julie, DS, Arkie ...

I brought up that 1.2ct G VS2 today. My nephew Matt told me he thought the slightly whiter face up appearance was due to the medium blue fluorescence which in fact it does have. Matt, my son, daughter, etc. have eyes like eagles and unless I have my reading glasses on I pale in comparison. I told him ok ... duly noted but if we are going to put any notes like that on our website we at least have to state *why* we say this and/or demonstrate why too ... otherwise it merely sounds like a sales pitch. In any case my curiosity did get the best of me and I grabbed the diamond to run a colorimeter test on it (I ran two) and this was the worst results of the two exams.

 

[Rhino]

Hi Yssie

So, did that particular one have charm?

What I was trying to say earlier is that sometimes even the same customer has different priorities for different purchases. I don't expect RB-esque light return and face-up brilliance from genuine antiques so that's just not part of my metric - I'm much more particular about the whether the faceting appeals to me, regardless of how it corresponds to face-up performance.

I hear you Yssie and couldn't agree more. You are a great example of such a person too.

I *will* own an Octavia one day and even if they were sold by multiple vendors I would still come to GOG for it because my priorities for that purchase would be exactly what you specialise in! And I'll go to JbEG for wonky antiques because that's what they specialize in, and my priorities for that purchase would match their priorities as purveyors of diamonds better than they'd match GOG's.

So takehome... is still "see the stone with your own eyes"

Absolutely. We have had the great pleasure of working in cooperation with Erica and Grace on certain projects with mutual clients and they are exemplary.

Kind regards,
Rhino

 

[JulieN]

Very nice, Jon. No flogging today.