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

[Ellen]

Date: 5/21/2009 2:13:22 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 5/21/2009 12:49:49 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Paul? He''s here selling his idea of what a diamond should look like.
Infinity Princess cuts, for example- many disagree with the choices made there- he''s here defending his turf.

David, this truly is news to me, can you elaborate on exactly who is saying what? Thank you!

Will you please answer this?

 

[Rockdiamond]

HI Ellen- and others who I may not have answered directly- It''s not that the point you may have made was not worthy of an answer- but I''m time limited.

I am also a bit unprepared to answer that one in detail. I have to study more about the Infinity Princess.
I do feel that Paul has been unyielding in his attitude- unfortunate, as I would like to discuss the issues in a civil manner.

I do know that Infinity cuts princess cut diamonds to a very high standard, AGS 0.
AGS is now grading princess cuts.

My point was that the depth of the stones would be considered high by many in the industry.
AS we know, the deeper the diamond, generally, the smaller the spread for the weight.
Now, I know that Paul can show us that even a deeper stone can have a larger surface area.
In fact, my informal demonstration shows the 60% table diamond as looking larger, even though it is fractionally smaller.

So, I''m not here to say anything negative about what Paul is cutting- rather to say that there is debate in the industry on the best way to cut a princess cut.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 5/21/2009 6:35:25 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
HI Ellen- and others who I may not have answered directly- It''s not that the point you may have made was not worthy of an answer- but I''m time limited.

I am also a bit unprepared to answer that one in detail. I have to study more about the Infinity Princess.
I do feel that Paul has been unyielding in his attitude- unfortunate, as I would like to discuss the issues in a civil manner.

I do know that Infinity cuts princess cut diamonds to a very high standard, AGS 0.
AGS is now grading princess cuts.

My point was that the depth of the stones would be considered high by many in the industry.
AS we know, the deeper the diamond, generally, the smaller the spread for the weight.
Now, I know that Paul can show us that even a deeper stone can have a larger surface area.
In fact, my informal demonstration shows the 60% table diamond as looking larger, even though it is fractionally smaller.

So, I''m not here to say anything negative about what Paul is cutting- rather to say that there is debate in the industry on the best way to cut a princess cut.

Well, what you''ve said here is a rather far cry from what you said here.

Date: 5/21/2009 12:49:49 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Paul? He''s here selling his idea of what a diamond should look like.
Infinity Princess cuts, for example- many disagree with the choices made there- he''s here defending his turf.

Let me give you some friendly advice David. When you make a rather disparaging remark about a vendor, or anyone else, you better have the info, on hand, to back it up. Saying, I''ll need to get back with you, I haven''ty really done all my homework and made that remark rather off the cuff, is not good enough. I personally think you owe him an apology.

 

[purrfectpear]

Date: 5/21/2009 5:34:23 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Thanks for your input Purrfect.
You''re not very good at describing my position- in fact really poor at it.

Please speak for yourself. I sincerely believe many of the people who participate here have their own way of looking at things, and discussing them that might be different than yours.
If you think 90% of diamond shoppers are only interested in cheap, sparkly and ''it''s a real diamond'', that''s certainly your right.
Our experience dealing with tens of thousands of shoppers does not bear that out.

I''m a LOT better at describing "your position" than you are, since you have YET to describe "your position" clearly or concisely yet. Not once. Care to give it another try? It only makes you look silly when you complain that no one states what you mean correctly when you make no attempt to do so yourself

What EXACTLY do you mean or intend to infer in this statement:

"What if a significant number of interested shoppers actually prefer a diamond that, using measurements- we can prove is less well cut?"

Yes indeedy, what if....what if what? What EXACTLY is the point? I asked you a few pages back what your POINT was, but of course you avoided answering.

While you''re about it, tell us more about your "tens of thousands" of shoppers.

 

[risingsun]

David~you are disparaging Paul Slegers work

He''s a top tier diamond cutter. Evidently, you cannot measure CA and PA for us and you are criticizing the work of a master diamond cutter. That is just foollishness.

 

[Rockdiamond]

The statements do not contradict each other.
Some people do feel differently than Paul about the best way to cut a Princess Cut diamond.
That''s a compliment, as breaking new ground is far more difficult than doing what everyone else is doing.

As I mentioned, when you asked for clarification, I gave you what I know of this issue.
I have not really studied Paul''s work- and have not seen one of his princess cuts.
The fact that the design is not universally accepted is in no way a negative comment.
I would like to see some in person, as I''m sure they are consistently beautiful.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Something just struck me- a really important point.
We're having an academic conversation- well trying to anyway.
But there are people shopping for diamonds in the internet that may be reading this.

Here's what I would take away from it:
It's possible to buy a really well cut diamond on the internet, of course also in a store- using reflector technology. In fact, this is the most foolproof method, especially if we're talking about an internet purchase. If a shopper wants IS/ASET images and a vendor can not provide them, find a vendor that will.

My perspective is slightly different- and possibly valuable for someone shopping.
I feel that for a reasonable percentage of shoppers- maybe even people who read PS, internet buying can be just as foolproof without using reflectors. The reason being that the reflector is geared toward one type of look in a diamond.

There are other ways that a diamond can look- scoring poorly on the reflector, yet doing very well IRL.
Good photos and videos are one way. It's worked very well for us. Regardless of any discussion of photos, IMO no one is showing us anything more representative in a photo than mine.
There may be others they prefer- but those have limitations as well.
The point is, if you like Excels photos ( for example), and you like the way their diamonds look- and you like the ASET/IS- and the other tools they use, you're good as gold!
But, if Judah mentioned another diamond they had which was less costly, because it's a VG cut grade instead of an EX- and said that by eye, the stone looked great to them- possibly as good as an EX, that might very well be the far better choice.
Put simply, if a trusted vendor can vouch for a less costly non ideal cut stone- it might be a great choice.

Sorry if anyone feels that I repeated something obvious- but I honestly feel that some of the people buying diamonds loose something by choosing the costlier diamonds EX or AGS0 cut grade diamonds - and that is just sad.
If the person never saw this conversation, and picked the VG over the EX cut grade- they'd never feel like they sacrificed anything.
Of course some people are more interested in the details such as CA, facet alignment- which is great for them.
Education is fantastic. Essential in a good diamond website IMO
But everyone does not see these issues the same way.

 

[purrfectpear]

David, you DID just state the obvious. There has NEVER been a discussion on PriceScope that I can remember whereby a PS expert or regular poster has EVER stated that reflector technology was the only method to be used TO THE EXCLUSION OF EVERYTHING ELSE.

Over and over, and over again PS posters have ended with "when in doubt have it sent to see it with your own eyes". Many, many times PS posters have suggested that if budget was a factor, it was valid to consider less than "ideal" cut diamonds. In other words, who ever said it wasn't???

Why would you go through pages of posts only to earn the title of Captain Obvious? If I didn't know better I'd think maybe you just wanted to boost your hits on Google. Nah, that wouldn't be right.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/21/2009 12:49:49 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

1) First of all, we sell diamonds on the Internet. Participating in such a conversation is integral to our business. Pricescope generously allows my signature to link to our site. Keep trashing us using baseless accusations, and malicious insults Storm and others- people will look at our site and decide for themselves.

If we''re talking about Garry- he is pushing a clear agenda. He wants to sell IS/ASET- or promote HCA.

Garry has many agenda''s. Ideal-scope accounts for less than 1% of my earnings - if it doubled overnight it would be still pathetic.
HCA makes zippo.

You better look harder David

Date: 5/21/2009 12:49:49 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Neil- you mentioned how AGS changed their standards in 2005. Was that because 60/60 all of a sudden became a better cut, or was the old AGS grading system flawed by being to exclusionary?
Speaking of that- let''s look at Garry''s motivation again: Have you seen this horrendous ''tutorial''? I really don''t understand the motivation to try and trash a set of diamond proportions. http://diamonds.pricescope.com/60.asp you mean the 60:60 tutorial - this is part of the text that also shows some very nice stones - and it is balanced - if you wish to suggest a re-write please go ahead David:
GIA’s Excellent cut grades include a small number of stones with 60% table sizes and depths around 60%. AGS 0 and the new AGS Ideal also has the possibility of diamonds with tables of 60%, but they are few and far between because there is less possible ‘proportion targets’ for cutters to plan for. To achieve both labs top grades table sizes centered around 55% to 58% offer many more proportion combinations and hence many more beautiful available diamonds.

Love and Peace to all.

love and peace is not the vibe I am getting from you david?

BTW I have the .ern''s from Dave - when I get to it will see what data is there

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Here is the very bad Scan from Dave Atlas of Davids 60 61
trying to make the other reports from DiamCalc small enough to upload

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

And here is the gem file for the AGS 0

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I cant make the word doc small enough - so i compressed to more important info on this image - remeber there is one facet set screwed up

 

[Dancing Fire]

after reading 100''s of David''s post...

i guess the best way for consumers to purchase a diamond would be for them to call David up and give him their CC# so he can use his "diamond eyes" to pick the best diamond. who needs them high tech low tech gadgets !!

David, 60/60 means you are 60 yrs old and your jewelry knowledge is stuck in the 60''s.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I'll be glad to have a new sarin run next week Garry.

In terms of motivation: If you wanted to say why you're involved with diamonds, pricescope and IS/ASET, I'd really be interested to know. I ask this with no malice.
If it's written someplace else, please post a link, and I'll read it there.

My strong hunch is that your motivation is totally in the interest of forwarding the technology of cut science- if that's a good way to describe it.
I believe we share a love for diamonds. A fascination that is renewed every time the opportunity to examine a new one comes up.

That we look at them in a different manner, and a different way, is less important- or at least is can be.
I love the more "irregular" diamonds anyway. Fancy Shapes in general, are far more varied within each category- as opposed to RBC where consistency is more achievable.

As far as the tutorial, I have never heard anyone besides me suggest that 60/60 was a good proportion. On Pricescope that is.
I might be incorrect about that......

In any event, it seemed to me that it was my insistence that 60% was a great number for a table that had us crossing swords those years ago.
I am truly interested in burying all hatchets, and moving forward.
That we see things differently should not be taken to mean I don't respect your work.

I've really thought about hopping on a plane to las Vegas to say hi.
Well, I can't but- I would love to meet you if you ever are in New York City, and are unarmed.

 

[strmrdr]

Here is the 60/61s pavilion on the ags0's top.
The reverse wouldn't work because of the bad scan but it does show that the difference is in the pavilion. (the 60/61s crown scan is totally messed up)

 

[strmrdr]

Here is the AGS0 in the same virtual lighting...

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thanks Storm!

Can we see the AGS 0 now?
I did try snapping some shots in the black box.
It''s far more difficult to get a shot that shows the diamonds well

 

[Rockdiamond]

Here''s one shot- but I''m not really happy with it.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Cool Storm!
Can you please explain what we''re seeing...why are there colors on the AGS 0 stone in the virtual model?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/22/2009 12:50:04 AM
Author: Rockdiamond
Cool Storm!

Can you please explain what we're seeing...why are there colors on the AGS 0 stone in the virtual model?

dispersion, I can turn them off and normally do but they were on for the other.

Here is what I did, I exported the facet angles and placement for both diamonds into 2 files.
Then I took the pavilion data for the 60/61 and used it to replace the pavilion data for the ags0.
Then I imported it back into diamcalc.
That gives me the ags0s top on the 60/61s bottom.

It wont work for the crown data of the 60/61 and the pavilion data of the ags0 because I would have to remove and add data to make it line up.
I cant achieve what I would consider acceptable accuracy in doing so because I don't know what numbers would be correct and would have to guess.

 

[Serg]

Karl, David
if you reduce pavilion height you can receive:
1) Exactly 60/60
2) better result from Karl point of view

See example , I prefer HDR lighting

But current 3D model has to big girdle artifact for correct comparison

Other advice, to write 2 movies and open its simultaneously in DC( in one DC)

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/22/2009 2:35:02 AM
Author: Serg
Karl, David
if you reduce pavilion height you can receive:
1) Exactly 60/60
2) better result from Karl point of view

See example , I prefer HDR lighting

But current 3D model has to big girdle artifact for correct comparison

Other advice, to write 2 movies and open its simultaneously in DC( in one DC)

Sorry for the quick thread-jack, but which is HDR lighting on DC and how do I reach it please?

 

[Serg]

Date: 5/22/2009 5:50:11 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 5/22/2009 2:35:02 AM

Author: Serg

Karl, David

if you reduce pavilion height you can receive:

1) Exactly 60/60

2) better result from Karl point of view


See example , I prefer HDR lighting



But current 3D model has to big girdle artifact for correct comparison


Other advice, to write 2 movies and open its simultaneously in DC( in one DC)

Sorry for the quick thread-jack, but which is HDR lighting on DC and how do I reach it please?

"bulb button" /HDR Default lighting
If you have not DC3.2 take it

here

 

[Ellen]

Date: 5/21/2009 7:52:23 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
The statements do not contradict each other.
Some people do feel differently than Paul about the best way to cut a Princess Cut diamond.
That''s a compliment, as breaking new ground is far more difficult than doing what everyone else is doing.

As I mentioned, when you asked for clarification, I gave you what I know of this issue.
I have not really studied Paul''s work- and have not seen one of his princess cuts.
The fact that the design is not universally accepted is in no way a negative comment.
I would like to see some in person, as I''m sure they are consistently beautiful.

David, your first comment made it sound like many (specifically) disagreed with how Paul cuts a Princess, as if it was a bad/inferior product, and he was here trying to make people believe it was a great cut anyway. You didn''t elaborate, as you did in the second post. There was a difference, and it sounded far from a "compliment".

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/22/2009 5:58:42 AM
Author: Serg

Date: 5/22/2009 5:50:11 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 5/22/2009 2:35:02 AM

Author: Serg

Karl, David

if you reduce pavilion height you can receive:

1) Exactly 60/60

2) better result from Karl point of view


See example , I prefer HDR lighting



But current 3D model has to big girdle artifact for correct comparison


Other advice, to write 2 movies and open its simultaneously in DC( in one DC)

Sorry for the quick thread-jack, but which is HDR lighting on DC and how do I reach it please?

''bulb button'' /HDR Default lighting
If you have not DC3.2 take it

here

I downloaded 3.2..., opened DC, and still cant find the HDR in the bulb button....

 

[Serg]

Date: 5/22/2009 8:00:52 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 5/22/2009 5:58:42 AM

Author: Serg

Date: 5/22/2009 5:50:11 AM

Author: DiaGem

Date: 5/22/2009 2:35:02 AM


Author: Serg


Karl, David


if you reduce pavilion height you can receive:


1) Exactly 60/60


2) better result from Karl point of view



See example , I prefer HDR lighting





But current 3D model has to big girdle artifact for correct comparison



Other advice, to write 2 movies and open its simultaneously in DC( in one DC)

Sorry for the quick thread-jack, but which is HDR lighting on DC and how do I reach it please?

''bulb button'' /HDR Default lighting

If you have not DC3.2 take it


here

I downloaded 3.2..., opened DC, and still cant find the HDR in the bulb button....

 

[denverappraiser]

Serg,

I have the long hasp and version 3.0.0 (build 442) Is there a different install I should be looking at for the upgrade?

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

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/22/2009 11:57:38 AM
Author: denverappraiser
Serg,

I have the long hasp and version 3.0.0 (build 442) Is there a different install I should be looking at for the upgrade?

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

same with the short (I think)?

 

[denverappraiser]

Date: 5/22/2009 12:54:52 PM
Author: DiaGem

same with the short (I think)?

The instruction page on the download says that's for the short hasp only.

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

 

[Serg]

Date: 5/22/2009 11:57:38 AM
Author: denverappraiser
Serg,


I have the long hasp and version 3.0.0 (build 442) Is there a different install I should be looking at for the upgrade?


Neil Beaty

GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA

Professional Appraisals in Denver

Neil,
DC 3.0 is last version for long keys. Long key has not enough level protection more.

You can change long key to short key for 65 euro + delivery.
Sorry for additional expenses

BTW. DC3.0 supports HDR images too/
See http://www.octonus.com/oct/products/3dcalc/standard/