Why I love 60/60 diamonds- compared to AGS0 IS/ASET and photos

[Rockdiamond]

HI everyone!
The purpose of this discussion is not to "settle" anything- rather to discuss the methodology of buying a diamond- both in person, and online.
Reflector technology works, and it''s here to stay.
We can agree on that.

My point, is that the use of reflector technology has created an interesting situation. Although undeniably effective, there''s an element to diamond buying that is lost in their use.

The tremendous appeal of this technology is that it "levels the playing field" for the consumer.
It works incredibly well, as evidenced by the huge number of satisfied buyers here on PS. The efficacy is well documented here.


In terms numbers as a whole, reflector technology plays a role in very small percentage of diamond purchases overall.
Lack of use of IS ASET does not, in iteslf, indicate a lack of dedication to great make in diamonds.

Let''s eliminate the mall- and chain stores selling commercial, sometimes poorly made goods.
We still have Tiffany''s Cartier and the "big boys" who do not use reflector technology. We still have Blue Nile, the number one internet diamond seller.
GIA does not use reflector technology.
Would we all be better served if everyone used it?
Isn''t absolutely essential in an internet situation?

As I said above- I don''t think we''ll ever "settle" this one. But since it''s really been something that , from a diamond lover''s standpoint- is really important to me, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss it.


60/60 and the rise of the near tolk
To my recollection, Lazaare Kaplan was the company that successfully coined the phrase "Ideal Cut" - sometime in the ''80''s.
The art of diamond cutting was not nearly as widespread back then as it is today.
By and large, I see less seriously "off make" diamonds coming out of India, for example, as compared to 20 years ago. Of course there are still badly cut diamonds around, but due to advances in technology, the general level of cutting has improved, to a degree. A lot of the Indian good I''ve seen over the past few years have been, at least ostensibly, cut to near tolk proportions.

But even though there was far less technology available to cutters, there were some really well cut diamonds around in the years after WWII.

One aspect that has not changed is that you need to maintain a balance of yield and beauty to be profitable in the diamond cutting business.
When I started to work in diamonds, 60/60, as a target depth table combination made a lot of sense, to a lot of people. The 60% table opens up the heart of the diamond- really allowing a lot of light. The larger table can make the diamond look larger, in many cases.
In fairness to the whole topic, my own personal preferences were surely shaped leaning diamonds in the late ''70''s when 60/60 was the number to hit. To this day, I prefer a slightly "spreadier" stone, such as a 60/60 in a round diamond.
When I started seeing the LK Ideal Cut Diamonds, the table just seemed a little ......squeezed.
Not to say they were not extremely beautiful face up- or set in rings. Just that after looking at 60% tables- and being trained at a company that produced extremely consistent , well cut 60% tabled diamonds, they looked ...different.
There''s no debate which type of cutting design does better using reflector technology.
My point is that, in some instances, something gets lost in this equation.

Is the diamond that does better on the reflector tests the better diamond?

To illustrate what I''m talking about, I got two diamonds. This is by no means a "study" - but it does illustrate the debate clearly.
Here''s what I did.
The other day I looked thru some 1/2carat stones with AGS and GIA reports.
I picked one that is an AGS0. and one that is a 60 tabled stone.
It''s a little deep at 61, but it works for this discussion because using my naked eye, this is the diamond I would pick.
I love BOTH the diamonds that I used- just love the GIA stone a little more.


Round Brilliant Diamond, Loose
WEIGHT: 0.52ct
SHAPE: Round Brilliant
COLOR: E
CLARITY: VS2
MEASUREMENTS: 5.27 - 5.21 x 3.17 mm
TOTAL DEPTH: 60.5%
TABLE SIZE: 56.3%
POLISH: ID
SYMMETRY: ID
FLUORESCENCE: NONE

The second stone has an older GIA report- from before the cut grade.
Round Brilliant Diamond, Loose
WEIGHT: 0.54ct
SHAPE: Round Brilliant
COLOR: E
CLARITY: VVS2
MEASUREMENTS: 5.25 - 5.24 x 3.20 mm
TOTAL DEPTH: 61.0%
TABLE SIZE: 60%
POLISH: EX
SYMMETRY: VG
FLUORESCENCE: NONE

I''ve got my own images, as well as the ASET/IS images, so graciously provieded by Dave Atlas

Thank you for anyone who wishes to participate.
I''ll post images tomorrow.....

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 5/14/2009 9:32:20 PM
Author:Rockdiamond
Let''s eliminate the mall- and chain stores selling commercial, sometimes poorly made goods.

We still have Tiffany''s Cartier and the ''big boys'' who do not use reflector technology. We still have Blue Nile, the number one internet diamond seller.

David, regarding BN, they use GCAL certification which includes a sort of reflector technology for their in-house Signature Ideal rounds, so I don''t think you can''t use that as a justification that they don''t want to use it. More likely they can''t because they are drop-shippers and it is almost impossible to supply all the stone owners equipments and photography set-up and know how to take decent IS/ASET image.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 5/14/2009 9:32:20 PM
Author:Rockdiamond

But even though there was far less technology available to cutters, there were some really well cut diamonds around in the years after WWII.

RD

if you send in a few of these stones to GIA lab today...IYO, any chances of these stones coming back from GIA with an EX,EX,EX grade?

maybe it was well cut for that era,but may not be what some of us would call well cut today?

 

[purrfectpear]

Personally I don''t think the fact that Blue Nile is the largest internet seller has anything to do with quality. They sell some ideal stones, and they sell a lot of so-so cut stones. Blue Nile became the largest (and had NO problem outselling local B & M stores) based on one thing. Cost. Well, cost and advertising

Robbins Bros sell thousands of diamonds, so do Bailey, Banks and Biddle. What does that have to do with whether reflector technology helps source and identify an ideal cut diamond?

There have been more than a few Blue Nile customers who posted about their drop shipped disappointments.

 

[Regular Guy]

David,

Thanks for bringing this discussion forward.

Despite my particular longevity on this board, I'm quite the diamond novice, having not seen really a great many of them at all...but the ideas behind the purported science behind their beauty have engaged me, somehow, for some time...keeping me in the game, at least in part.

I think what you're doing is reasonable, but I'll share some sidebars. When you said...let's compare a 60/60 and an AGS0, this seemed like it could be problematic from the start, because I do believe that the requirements for AGS0 leave 60/60 as an option for earning that 0...so you certainly at least, if I'm right...could have a GIA 60/60 that is somewhat different from the AGS0, but could have earned an AGS0 if it was sent there instead...in which case...what would we end up knowing?

Serg wrote a simple query recently, saying something like...what is reflector technology showing, vis-a-vis performance? Indeed.

I'll link here the text for this in the on-line tutorial.

David, your language makes reflector technology a black box, which I think it's not intended to be. You say:

Date: 5/14/2009 9:32:20 PM
Author:Rockdiamond


..... Just that after looking at 60% tables- and being trained at a company that produced extremely consistent , well cut 60% tabled diamonds, they looked ...different.
There's no debate which type of cutting design does better using reflector technology.
My point is that, in some instances, something gets lost in this equation.

Is the diamond that does better on the reflector tests the better diamond?

I am not speaking with hardly any clinical experience at all, just the conceptual model, really. But, it seems to me the intention at least with reflector technology, is to do maybe 3 things:

a) provide a standardized lighting environment, so you can compare, without concern for a shop's good or bad lighting scheme
b) it may discount for the observer's head obscuring the light source

but...(c) is the thing...

c) it is designed to show leakage.

What is leakage. If you go into any kind of store that sells actual diamonds, they will know how to talk to you about the 4 Cs. What are they? Carat, color, clarity....and cut. What do they have the pictures of when they want to show you cut? They show you the sqat diamonds, and the long diamonds...and the arrows...showing you how the light a diamond is a machine to manage light for...fails when the diamond is not cut just right.

What is the IS with respect to this last (c). I understand it primarily shows you if it is cut right or wrong to waste the disposition of light coming at it.

This is consistent with what you are saying, David, and consistent with saying 8 stars are cut to get red all around. But...I think the theoretical point is just that it matches the target that jewelers have been talking about in the simplest ways forever. That, to the extent that a diamond can be a sparkly little gem, some simple principles mark whether it does this well, and I understand the IS is nothing more than a tool for assessing that in a simple way. It is not otherwise any kind of goal...to have a good score for it...in and of itself.

I hope I've mostly got this right.

Of course, now if I have gotten this right, the question raised is the alternative. If a diamond does in fact look not so good in an IS, but looks comparatively better than another diamond with a better IS...what are the implications of that? And, is that what you're even seeking to find in this study? Before engaging the study, consider asking the question this way, and what such a result could mean.

 

[hearts-arrows_girl]

Date: 5/15/2009 1:21:20 AM
Author: Regular Guy
David,

I think what you''re doing is reasonable, but I''ll share some sidebars. When you said...let''s compare a 60/60 and an AGS0, this seemed like it could be problematic from the start, because I do believe that the requirements for AGS0 leave 60/60 as an option for earning that 0...so you certainly at least, if I''m right...could have a GIA 60/60 that is somewhat different from the AGS0, but could have earned an AGS0 if it was sent there instead...in which case...what would we end up knowing?

Just curious, can a 60% table stone be an AGSO? I thought the table cut off was 57.5%. Or did they change the table size requirements?

I thought all the extra technology was to sort of help people weed out the crappy stones, but that the final decision must be made with your eyes, because how light reflects for one person''s taste may not be the same for another. And the wearer of the diamond''s opinion, is the only one that counts, because they are the one who will be staring at it all day. Others are just casual passing observers.

 

[Regular Guy]

Junebug,

Date: 5/15/2009 2:01:55 AM
Author: hearts-arrows_girl
Just curious, can a 60% table stone be an AGSO? I thought the table cut off was 57.5%. Or did they change the table size requirements?

I believe the charts presented here are close to current for showing how AGS maps it all out, allowing for substantive variation, and including GIA as well. I don''t know how many of the 9 combinations of crown & pavilion angles that are assigned to a 60 table also would be consistent with a 60 depth, but I will just shoot from the hip, and guess that with variation accounted for in girdle, it may be all 9? Someone smarter may say zero and may be right, so that may help us...but it may be an empty target, since I think even David''s example stone is a 61 depth.

Re your second point...

I thought all the extra technology was to sort of help people weed out the crappy stones, but that the final decision must be made with your eyes, because how light reflects for one person''s taste may not be the same for another. And the wearer of the diamond''s opinion, is the only one that counts, because they are the one who will be staring at it all day. Others are just casual passing observers.

This is the money question. How much is science, and how much is individual difference. Really...I think that there is science enough for us to say that big hair Suzy versus crew cut Dave as lookers is the minor part of the puzzle, and ditto for those who are near & far sighted. I think the more objective reality is in the stone, such that most will have a shared happy or less happy experience with a given stone. And, of course, the answer really does beg the question. To the extent individual differences are important, what good to you is almost any vendor anyway? If you''re on your own, no vendor is going to have any good special knowledge to help you out, particularly. Not for their expertise, that''s for sure. Carrying a big selection will be your only help, so you can shop at will.

But, I''m betting that what is viewed as attractive, particularly for rounds, is more the same than different. And, for this reason, both technology, and expertise, can correspondingly, successfully, lend a hand.

 

[Sharon101]

Date: 5/15/2009 1:21:20 AM
Author: Regular Guy
David,

Thanks for bringing this discussion forward.

Despite my particular longevity on this board, I''m quite the diamond novice, having not seen really a great many of them at all...but the ideas behind the purported science behind their beauty have engaged me, somehow, for some time...keeping me in the game, at least in part.

I think what you''re doing is reasonable, but I''ll share some sidebars. When you said...let''s compare a 60/60 and an AGS0, this seemed like it could be problematic from the start, because I do believe that the requirements for AGS0 leave 60/60 as an option for earning that 0...so you certainly at least, if I''m right...could have a GIA 60/60 that is somewhat different from the AGS0, but could have earned an AGS0 if it was sent there instead...in which case...what would we end up knowing?

Serg wrote a simple query recently, saying something like...what is reflector technology showing, vis-a-vis performance? Indeed.

I''ll link here the text for this in the on-line tutorial.

David, your language makes reflector technology a black box, which I think it''s not intended to be. You say:

Date: 5/14/2009 9:32:20 PM
Author:Rockdiamond



..... Just that after looking at 60% tables- and being trained at a company that produced extremely consistent , well cut 60% tabled diamonds, they looked ...different.
There''s no debate which type of cutting design does better using reflector technology.
My point is that, in some instances, something gets lost in this equation.

Is the diamond that does better on the reflector tests the better diamond?

I am not speaking with hardly any clinical experience at all, just the conceptual model, really. But, it seems to me the intention at least with reflector technology, is to do maybe 3 things:

a) provide a standardized lighting environment, so you can compare, without concern for a shop''s good or bad lighting scheme
b) it may discount for the observer''s head obscuring the light source

but...(c) is the thing...

c) it is designed to show leakage.

What is leakage. If you go into any kind of store that sells actual diamonds, they will know how to talk to you about the 4 Cs. What are they? Carat, color, clarity....and cut. What do they have the pictures of when they want to show you cut? They show you the sqat diamonds, and the long diamonds...and the arrows...showing you how the light a diamond is a machine to manage light for...fails when the diamond is not cut just right.

What is the IS with respect to this last (c). I understand it primarily shows you if it is cut right or wrong to waste the disposition of light coming at it.

This is consistent with what you are saying, David, and consistent with saying 8 stars are cut to get red all around. But...I think the theoretical point is just that it matches the target that jewelers have been talking about in the simplest ways forever. That, to the extent that a diamond can be a sparkly little gem, some simple principles mark whether it does this well, and I understand the IS is nothing more than a tool for assessing that in a simple way. It is not otherwise any kind of goal...to have a good score for it...in and of itself.

I hope I''ve mostly got this right.

Of course, now if I have gotten this right, the question raised is the alternative. If a diamond does in fact look not so good in an IS, but looks comparatively better than another diamond with a better IS...what are the implications of that? And, is that what you''re even seeking to find in this study? Before engaging the study, consider asking the question this way, and what such a result could mean.

Regular Guy, this was really well written and I would be really interested to know the answer myself to the question you raised here. Very exciting!!!!

 

[Serg]

re:Serg wrote a simple query recently, saying something like...what is reflector technology showing, vis-a-vis performance? Indeed.



first my 2 questions were about performance. What is performance?
Main reason of "religion " controversies on PS( and early on DT) emerge because participants have in minds quite different visions about what is diamond performance.
If you want turn such controversies in constructive direction you need start from performance definition ( description )( firstly you need be agree in performance definition )
if you have good performance definition than you can easy understand advantages and limitations any reflection technology

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Hi David,

I am really looking forward to the examples that you are going to produce.

However, reading your introduction, there are some inconsistencies that I would like to point out.

1. When you say that GIA does not use reflector technology, are you sure? After all, a big part of their studies over the years was their brilliance-study, which, although flawed, was based on reverse-ray-tracing and that is in essence the same basis as reflector-technology, I think.

2. When you started to work in diamonds, you say that a target of 60/60 was the result of a search for a balance of yield and beauty. I think that it has more to do with the fact that these two figures were the only ones mentioned on a GIA-report in those days. And possibly because judging if a table is 60% is very easy to teach to any new diamond-apprentice, while the difference between 54 an 57% is way more difficult to judge loupe-only.

3. You state as an automatism that a 60/60 is spreadier than a near-tolk. Let us have a look at your two examples. There is the AGS-stone, weighing 0.52 Cts and the 60/60 weighing 0.54 Cts, which is almost 4% more. Still the diameter of the AGS-0 measures 5.27x5.21, while the 60/60 measures 5.25x5.24. So, while weighing more, the 60/60 measures the same. I think that this is a clear contradiction of your claim that a 60/60 is spreadier.

4. You state that a larger table opens up the heart of the diamond, allowing a lot of light. I have heard similar statements from many industry-veterans before, but is this true? Do you mean that light is not allowed to enter a diamond through the crown? Is the crown one-direction-only so-to-speak? Or is this a myth so often repeated by the industry that most people believe it without re-thinking it?

5. The same can be asked about your statement that a larger table makes the diamond look larger. Is this really so?

6. Then you state that a smaller table does better than a 60/60 when one uses reflector technology? It has already been mentioned to you that a 60/60 has the potential of doing just as well in reflector technology. Just like a 60/60 can also obtain an AGS-0-grade. Since this idea of yours immediately leads to your conclusion "My point is that, in some instances, something gets lost in the equation", it might well turn out that nothing gets lost in the equation. We will see.

Live long,

 

[Ellen]

Nice post Paul.



David, I think some of your comments here, well, in fact this very thread, shows that you are so busy trying to make your point(s), that you don't really "hear" any of us. If I am understanding you correctly, one of your "points" is that near Tolks do better with an IS than a 60/60, while in reality a 60/60 could be just as beautiful. As Paul and others have pointed out, but you have failed to hear, is that no, a 60/60 can indeed have a great IS. That's it, there really is no disagreement/argument. We never said it couldn't. What we have said, is that it is cut towards brilliance, a bit less fire. And you have been all over the map with this one. You finally agreed with me on that very statement not too long ago, after much discussion (though I've searched and can't find it, if you'd like to go through your old posts, it's in there).

And then, we had this discussion.

Date: 5/7/2009 4:28:04 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 5/7/2009 4:13:54 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 5/7/2009 3:56:18 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 5/7/2009 3:42:37 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 5/7/2009 3:21:25 PM
Author: Ellen

Can you give me a for instance?


Now, one thing I did think of. If you are referring to the fact that we pick stones that are well balanced, and not 60/60 like you prefer, I get it. But as others have said, and even some 60/60 owners, those stones fall in the 'definite personal preference' range. They do need to be seen, as the majority would most likely not pick them as opposed to a near Tolk. That's why we don't recommend them. (I'm not saying they can't be nice though!)

HI Ellen,
There's your examle.
You are stating , as a 'fact' that stones of 60 depth/60 table are not well balanced. That is by no means a fact. Many of the finest diamond cutters in the world prefer 60/60 over a smaller tabled 'Near tolk'- THAT is a fact

You are talking about 'preference' in this statement. It may be a fact that some cutters prefer this type of stone, but it doesn't make it a fact that they are as well balanced in fire and brilliance as a near Tolk.

What is a fact, is that 60/60's are cut towards brilliance. They do not display a more equal amount of brilliance and fire. You absolutely agreed with me on this very point not too long ago. If you'd like me to pull it up, I'll be glad to.

Ellen-isn't this all about preference?
When you label a 60/60 as 'not well balanced' it really sounds like you are stating as a 'fact' that a near tolk is 'better'.
The difference is personal preference.

No, you're just reading it that way (you seem to take it personally, again, I've said 60/60 can be beautiful). And now we're talking about both facts and preference, because you've brought us around to both.

All I'm saying is that 60/60 is geared for brilliance, and near Tolk is a balance of fire and brilliance. And that when we are trying to help a poster find a diamond, we go for what the majority of people like (yes, based on preference). We play it safe. That doesn't mean they wouldn't like one, but we don't know. We play it safe. Can't stress that enough.

If you want to recommend 60's to all your customers, have at it! You have a shop, and a forum to promote them.

Over and out!

Then you made this statement. I didn't respond, because at this point, I realized you were never going to hear what I was saying. I really realized it before this, but I love a challenge!

The highlighted part actually floored me though. You DID know what I meant, you had previously agreed with me!

Date: 5/7/2009 5:01:57 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Ellen- we hardly sell round diamonds- that's not why I participate in such a discussion
As Stephan identified in others, I have a very real love for diamonds. My life's work ( along with Music). In large part, that's why I'm here.


If you believe that 60/60, as a design for the cutting of diamonds, is every bit as good as a near Tolk, you can simply say that.
You've said that a 60/60 ' is not balanced'- I'm not exactly sure what that means, but it sounds like a knock.
You've also said ' 60/60 is geared for brilliance, and near Tolk is a balance of fire and brilliance'
To me that sounds as though you're saying near tolk is better than 60/60. I mean, fire and brilliance must be better than plain old brilliance.
If you're not saying that 60/60 is somehow a faulted design, it's easy to clarify.

And then came this exchange. Do you now understand why you don't seem to be getting anywhere? It made my head spin trying to round it all up, and point it all out. Honestly, imho, you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing. And I am done, I have worn myself out trying to "discuss" things with you. And none of this was meant as an "attack".

Date: 5/12/2009 4:11:47 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 5/12/2009 3:42:08 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

My point has been that the smaller table, and greater depth of these near tolks is a compromise- just like a 60/60 is a compromise. Personally, I prefer the things a 60/60 brings to the table- mainly a larger spread- and what appears to my eye to be more brilliance.

That is not to say anyone is wrong for loving the smaller tables of near tolks.

I keep on pointing out to you that I can use the same tools that I use to optimize other cuts to design high performance beautiful 60/60s.
If the ones that you love are as nice as you remember they will do very well on these tests also.
Which is why the frustration level gets high is because we keep having the same conversation over and over again to the point I could copy and paste my replies because you haven't found one yet to prove to yourself that it is true.

As to what I bolded above you recently took a consumer to task for saying that a 60/60 moves the compromise towards brilliance.
Your own observation above confirms that.
Think about it....

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi all!
Thank you to everyone for participating.
I''ll start at the top and work down:
Stone Cold- I used Blue Nile as an example as they are the largest seller- and the bulk of what they sell has no IS/ASET- or even a photo!!
Does BN want such technology? I doubt it, but we can''t answer that one.

Dancing Fire- Another good, difficult to answer question- unless I can find a Winston stone frmo the ''70s. ( unlikely)
The second part of your question is at the heart of this whole conversation.

Purrfect- what BN has to do with the discussion is that they have more satisfied buyers than any other Internet seller. Yes, there have been BN buyers who came here and discussed a problem- but by and large it appears most of their buyers never look at any diamond forum.
If they had, it''s doubtful they''d move ahead purchasing based on the lack of information BN provides.
I agree- drop shipping is good for low cost- but there''s a lot of potential pitfalls for the customer.
I have already agreed that reflector technology works for picking near tolk ( you call them "Ideal") stones.

Time limited- I''ll post more later......

 

[purrfectpear]

David,

I don''t get the correlation then? As far as satisfied buyers, so do Zales, Robbins Bros., Sears, Macys, and Costco. Just because the majority of diamond purchasers know nothing more than it''s sparkly and they can finance it, what does that have to do with the integrity of cut?

 

[risingsun]

I have a feeling we''ll be needing this:

 

[denverappraiser]

Blue Nile and other retailers could, if they wanted to, include more information about their stones although this would not come without a certain amount of costs as well as other problem. They’re a well run company and they don’t make this sort of decision lightly so this begs the question why they’ve chosen not to do it even though that seems to be the direction of the majority of their competition and it seems to be a successful strategy. I’ll summarily dismiss the explanation that it’s because they’re stupid or that they aren’t paying attention, they most definitely are not so the question remains. It is correct that we will never really know the answers here because how and why they do things is a trade secret of great importance but we can speculate.

Maybe they don’t think providing more data (ASET, IS, photomicrographs, Sarin scans, etc.) would be useful in assisting their clients in evaluating stones.

Maybe they think the costs would be prohibitive to them and/or their suppliers.

Frankly, these both seem unlikely. My theory is that it would reduce their ability to sell stones that might sell poorly given more information. I also think it would reduce their ability to upsell buyers to their own branded ‘signature’ line where they DO provide a little more in the form of the GCAL report. Providing free information that makes their stones easier to compare to offerings elsewhere is NOT necessarily in their best interest.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[Rhapsody]

Date: 5/15/2009 11:47:28 AM
Author: Rockdiamond
Purrfect- what BN has to do with the discussion is that they have more satisfied buyers than any other Internet seller. Yes, there have been BN buyers who came here and discussed a problem- but by and large it appears most of their buyers never look at any diamond forum.

If they had, it''s doubtful they''d move ahead purchasing based on the lack of information BN provides.

I agree- drop shipping is good for low cost- but there''s a lot of potential pitfalls for the customer.

I have already agreed that reflector technology works for picking near tolk ( you call them ''Ideal'') stones.


Time limited- I''ll post more later......

Are we up on our logical fallacies? Argumentum ad populum, because thousands of people who buy from blue nile with very little info are happy (and you even admit they probably wouldnt buy from them if they had done more research) means that its sufficient to buy a diamond without any images. That''s just a poor arguement. Just because blue nile is happy to utilize the ignorance of the majority of shoppers does not mean we should all jump on board.

As to why they dont provide any images, either they''ve done the cost/benefit analysis and decided the market share they would gain isn''t worth the investment in their infrastructure or (more cynically) they know their goods wont pass muster.

 

[purrfectpear]

I agree. I strongly suspect it''s simply a case of "we don''t have to, the majority of diamond consumers are not educated and will go strictly by terms of ''excellent'', ''good'', etc. They''ll never be the wiser as long as their neighbor or coworker squeels it''s so sparkly."

IMO the fact that they''ve chosen not to provide technical reports has little to do with whether technical reports are a good tool for chosing cut, but more to do with capitalizing on uneducated consumers for as long as this model works.

 

[hearts-arrows_girl]

Date: 5/15/2009 2:21:50 AM
Author: Regular Guy
Junebug,

I thought all the extra technology was to sort of help people weed out the crappy stones, but that the final decision must be made with your eyes, because how light reflects for one person's taste may not be the same for another. And the wearer of the diamond's opinion, is the only one that counts, because they are the one who will be staring at it all day. Others are just casual passing observers.

This is the money question. How much is science, and how much is individual difference. Really...I think that there is science enough for us to say that big hair Suzy versus crew cut Dave as lookers is the minor part of the puzzle, and ditto for those who are near & far sighted. I think the more objective reality is in the stone, such that most will have a shared happy or less happy experience with a given stone. And, of course, the answer really does beg the question. To the extent individual differences are important, what good to you is almost any vendor anyway? If you're on your own, no vendor is going to have any good special knowledge to help you out, particularly. Not for their expertise, that's for sure. Carrying a big selection will be your only help, so you can shop at will.

But, I'm betting that what is viewed as attractive, particularly for rounds, is more the same than different. And, for this reason, both technology, and expertise, can correspondingly, successfully, lend a hand.

Ira, I agree! Thanks for getting back to me!

 

[Rockdiamond]

My point about BN: The relevancy is that the discussion often focuses specifically on online purchases.
I agree with Neil- BN is not unaware of the realities of this situation.
I am pointing out that the use of ASET IS is limited in the market overall- and specifically, online. Most online purchases are not made using reflector technology.
I''m not drawing any conclusions based on it- other than it seems that many buyers are not utilizing this technology.

I did say that lack of IS ASET use, in itself, does not indicate a lack of dedication to selling really well cut diamonds.
I am not including or excluding BN in that statement.

It''s possible that many, if not most of BN buyers would prefer having ASET IS, but the market does not bear that out.
That might be the most pressing reason they don''t offer it.

Ira- Thank you for that well thought response.
You are correct- the title is not accurate- AGS0 currently includes some 60/60 stones in the top cut grade. The agreed upon way of describing what might be called "Ideal" cut stones- is "Near Tolk"- basically clarifying the smaller table present.


Also excellent points about standardization. To me, that seems one of the strongest aspects of reflector technology.

Then you touch upon what is, for me, a bit of a "flash point"- Light Leakage
We''re all agreed that reflector technology can identify light leakage consistently.
As far as if light leakage, in itself, means a diamond is not as well cut as another diamond showing less leakage..... that one is open to interpretation IMO.
The last part of your post:

I hope I''ve mostly got this right.
Of course, now if I have gotten this right, the question raised is the alternative. If a diamond does in fact look not so good in an IS, but looks comparatively better than another diamond with a better IS...what are the implications of that? And, is that what you''re even seeking to find in this study? Before engaging the study, consider asking the question this way, and what such a result could mean.


BINGO! Thank you Ira- that my biggest reservation about IS/ASET

 

[Regular Guy]

Two thoughts:

Date: 5/15/2009 1:45:25 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Then you touch upon what is, for me, a bit of a ''flash point''- Light Leakage
We''re all agreed that reflector technology can identify light leakage consistently.
As far as if light leakage, in itself, means a diamond is not as well cut as another diamond showing less leakage..... that one is open to interpretation IMO.

a) Maybe there is an x factor, something more significant than what jewelers as a pattern drill you into pointing to what makes a well performing diamond or not. Maybe following Serg''s model, we can get at it. Or, at least, what it is for you.

b) Before going there...

The last part of your post:

I hope I''ve mostly got this right.

Of course, now if I have gotten this right, the question raised is the alternative. If a diamond does in fact look not so good in an IS, but looks comparatively better than another diamond with a better IS...what are the implications of that? And, is that what you''re even seeking to find in this study? Before engaging the study, consider asking the question this way, and what such a result could mean.


BINGO! Thank you Ira- that my biggest reservation about IS/ASET

How far away are you from having data.

At this point, we don''t know (and might even hope?!) that each and every one of the 60/60s you love, comports to the 9 crown & pavilion sets that IS would seem to like, too.

MY mother said...let''s not create a Jack story...meaning....create something out of nothing. If there''s in fact no differential, that certainly has the opportunity to take us in a different direction than if we get this proposed result you''ve put in red above....

 

[risingsun]

We are beginning to confuse the issues. Why are we discussing the use of reflector technology in regard to BN? A large number of diamond buyers are not interested in the nuances of diamonds that we see on PS. You are speaking with a subset of consumers, vendors, and cutters who are committed to going beyond the norm in analyzing and choosing their diamonds. If you are trying to prove that a well cut 60/60 can be a beautiful stone, I don't think anyone is in disagreement. If you are trying to convince us that the near Tolks many of us prefer are somehow lacking, I don't think that will happen. Those of us seeking the balance between brilliance and dispersion will choose the near Tolk. Someone more interested in brilliance, may want a 60/60. If you are so taken with the 60/60, why don't you stock and sell them to your clients? Honestly, I don't know what the purpose of this exercise is anymore. Now you are postulating that light leakage may not be relevant to the beauty of a diamond? I'm sending you a membership to the Flat Earth Society

 

[jet2ks]

Date: 5/15/2009 2:54:37 PM
Author: risingsun
We are beginning to confuse the issues. Why are we discussing the use of reflector technology in regard to BN? A large number of diamond buyers are not interested in the nuances of diamonds that we see on PS. You are speaking with a subset of consumers, vendors, and cutters who are committed to going beyond the norm in analyzing and choosing their diamonds. If you are trying to prove that a well cut 60/60 can be a beautiful stone, I don''t think anyone is in disagreement. If you are trying to convince us that the near Tolks many of us prefer are somehow lacking, I don''t think that will happen. Those of us seeking the balance between brilliance and dispersion will choose the near Tolk. Someone more interested in brilliance, may want a 60/60. If you are so taken with the 60/60, why don''t you stock and sell them to your clients? Honestly, I don''t know what the purpose of this exercise is anymore.

You''re thinking about this already, aren''t you?

 

[risingsun]

Date: 5/15/2009 3:01:25 PM
Author: jet2ks

Date: 5/15/2009 2:54:37 PM
Author: risingsun
We are beginning to confuse the issues. Why are we discussing the use of reflector technology in regard to BN? A large number of diamond buyers are not interested in the nuances of diamonds that we see on PS. You are speaking with a subset of consumers, vendors, and cutters who are committed to going beyond the norm in analyzing and choosing their diamonds. If you are trying to prove that a well cut 60/60 can be a beautiful stone, I don''t think anyone is in disagreement. If you are trying to convince us that the near Tolks many of us prefer are somehow lacking, I don''t think that will happen. Those of us seeking the balance between brilliance and dispersion will choose the near Tolk. Someone more interested in brilliance, may want a 60/60. If you are so taken with the 60/60, why don''t you stock and sell them to your clients? Honestly, I don''t know what the purpose of this exercise is anymore.

You''re thinking about this already, aren''t you?

I thought I would provide this emotie as a public service

 

[Rockdiamond]

Answering posts in the order they were placed

Date: 5/15/2009 2:01:55 AM
Author: hearts-arrows_girl

Date: 5/15/2009 1:21:20 AM
Author: Regular Guy
David,

I think what you''re doing is reasonable, but I''ll share some sidebars. When you said...let''s compare a 60/60 and an AGS0, this seemed like it could be problematic from the start, because I do believe that the requirements for AGS0 leave 60/60 as an option for earning that 0...so you certainly at least, if I''m right...could have a GIA 60/60 that is somewhat different from the AGS0, but could have earned an AGS0 if it was sent there instead...in which case...what would we end up knowing?

Just curious, can a 60% table stone be an AGSO? I thought the table cut off was 57.5%. Or did they change the table size requirements?

I thought all the extra technology was to sort of help people weed out the crappy stones, but that the final decision must be made with your eyes, because how light reflects for one person''s taste may not be the same for another. And the wearer of the diamond''s opinion, is the only one that counts, because they are the one who will be staring at it all day. Others are just casual passing observers.

Yes, as mentioned 60/60 can fall into AGS 0 cut grade.

Yes, many people have made the case that some of the technology ( like the HCA) is mainly to weed out the bad stones.
But you''ve also hit upon part of the reason reflector technology is as controversial as it is.
Who''s opinion counts most?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 5/15/2009 3:47:00 AM
Author: Serg
re:Serg wrote a simple query recently, saying something like...what is reflector technology showing, vis-a-vis performance? Indeed.



first my 2 questions were about performance. What is performance?
Main reason of ''religion '' controversies on PS( and early on DT) emerge because participants have in minds quite different visions about what is diamond performance.
If you want turn such controversies in constructive direction you need start from performance definition ( description )( firstly you need be agree in performance definition )
if you have good performance definition than you can easy understand advantages and limitations any reflection technology

Serg, there''s no question you''ve hit upon a large part of the controversy. Who defines performance?
I was really hoping you''d enter the conversation.
Thank you very much for participating.

 

[Regular Guy]

OK, David, second request...we''re using lots of words now...at least possibly without a very good purpose.

What is your ETA (estimated time of arrival) for the data for which this thread was created.

Otherwise...

Date: 5/15/2009 4:03:15 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Yes, as mentioned 60/60 can fall into AGS 0 cut grade.

Yes, many people have made the case that some of the technology ( like the HCA) is mainly to weed out the bad stones.
But you''ve also hit upon part of the reason reflector technology is as controversial as it is.
Who''s opinion counts most?

Ideally...no one''s opinion counts particularly...and we are just measuring mother nature...using trig, and such, understanding the properties of light, and measuring them.

Coincidentally, HCA and IS, along with DiamondCalc were all created in concert with each other, based on such principles. But, we''d like to not have to depend on these particularly. Garry himself I think was happy to defer to the imprimatur of AGS''s separate work in this area, and he will concede that the 3 D principles used for measuring AGS 0 would trump calculations (readily) from HCA.

The idea is to trust in physical principles, and well established rules for recognizing them, when it makes sense to apply these. It seems to make sense here.

 

[Rockdiamond]

BTW- I missed Sharon's post...Hi Sharon

I agree that Ira raised an interesting aspect to this.
I was also very pleased to see Paul join in the conversation- thank you Paul.

Date: 5/15/2009 9:34:00 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Hi David,

I am really looking forward to the examples that you are going to produce.

However, reading your introduction, there are some inconsistencies that I would like to point out.

1. When you say that GIA does not use reflector technology, are you sure? After all, a big part of their studies over the years was their brilliance-study, which, although flawed, was based on reverse-ray-tracing and that is in essence the same basis as reflector-technology, I think.
Great question Paul. In terms of the development of the "Cut Grade" GIA is rather tight lipped. It's "proprietary info". AS you've mentioned, if they used reflector technology ( or it's equivalent) in designing the cut grade, we can extrapolate that such info is integral to their cut grade. However this question won;t be answered by GIA.
In terms of day to day operations, yes, I'm sure- GIA does not use reflector technology

2. When you started to work in diamonds, you say that a target of 60/60 was the result of a search for a balance of yield and beauty. I think that it has more to do with the fact that these two figures were the only ones mentioned on a GIA-report in those days. And possibly because judging if a table is 60% is very easy to teach to any new diamond-apprentice, while the difference between 54 an 57% is way more difficult to judge loupe-only.
Paul, I am not a diamond cutter, I believe you are, so I cant personally answer that one.
I did call on old (literally) diamond cutter friend. He was cutting diamonds in the 1940's '50's and '60's.
He said that there was no problem cutting smaller tables back then- but the demand was for "spredier" stones- and 60/60 was thought to be the perfect combo.

3. You state as an automatism that a 60/60 is spreadier than a near-tolk. Let us have a look at your two examples. There is the AGS-stone, weighing 0.52 Cts and the 60/60 weighing 0.54 Cts, which is almost 4% more. Still the diameter of the AGS-0 measures 5.27x5.21, while the 60/60 measures 5.25x5.24. So, while weighing more, the 60/60 measures the same. I think that this is a clear contradiction of your claim that a 60/60 is spreadier.
My error Paul, I should have used the phrase "can look spreadier" as opposed to a black and white statement.
The stones I chose show something pretty remarkable to my eyes. Although the AGS stone is physically larger, it actually appears smaller to the eye.

4. You state that a larger table opens up the heart of the diamond, allowing a lot of light. I have heard similar statements from many industry-veterans before, but is this true? Do you mean that light is not allowed to enter a diamond through the crown? Is the crown one-direction-only so-to-speak? Or is this a myth so often repeated by the industry that most people believe it without re-thinking it?
Good point- it sounded as though I was making a "technical" statement. If I may re-phrase: to my eye, the larger table "performs better"

5. The same can be asked about your statement that a larger table makes the diamond look larger. Is this really so?
See above

6. Then you state that a smaller table does better than a 60/60 when one uses reflector technology? It has already been mentioned to you that a 60/60 has the potential of doing just as well in reflector technology. Just like a 60/60 can also obtain an AGS-0-grade. Since this idea of yours immediately leads to your conclusion 'My point is that, in some instances, something gets lost in the equation', it might well turn out that nothing gets lost in the equation. We will see.
Apologies again, my terminology was not correct. I chose two stones for this discussion. Of the two, the AGS stone clearly has better reflector images.
A question from me to you Paul- in general don't smaller tabled diamonds do better on reflector tests?

Live long,

 

[Rockdiamond]

Aset of .52 AGS0

 

[Rockdiamond]

IS of .52 AGS

 

[Rockdiamond]

ASET of .54ct GIA