Why is this non-ideal diamond .pretty?

[khinton]

Hi! This is my first post to the board. I''ve enjoyed reading and learning quite a bit during the past several months.

I purchased a stone several months ago, before I found this site. It is non-ideal, and actually quite pretty. Given the "faults" with its proportions, I am interested in learning why this stone has many positive attributes. To characterize it: Very good fire; Very good scintillation; Good brilliance. Overall it is extraordinarily sparkly.

Given the following details, what is positively affecting this diamond''s performance (e.g., possible crown/pavillion angles; other factors)? (By, the way, I''m not interested in replacing this gift from my husband, I''d just like to learn more.)

EGL Cert (purchased from a local jeweler we''ve dealt with in the past)
1.01 c (Round Brilliant)
F (color appears true)
VS1 (can''t locate the inclusions easily)
6.31-6.37 x 4.06
Depth: 64%
Table: 57%
Crown: 14%
Pavillion: 45%
Girdle: Medium (faceted)
Fluorescence: None
Culet: None
Polish: Good to very good
Symmetry: Good to very good

Thanks so much for your time and input.

 

[vBMechanic]

Why is it pretty?

Well, it is a diamond

I can't answer your question, but I'm sure the person who can answer it will want more information-- What are you comparing it to? Have you put it side by side with a more ideal cut to see if it is actually lacking anything?

>>Very good fire; Very good scintillation; Good brilliance

What test gave these results? If you have details on the test, posting it all would help.

 

[Dancing Fire]

----------------
On 4/14/2004 7:41:40 PM khinton wrote:

Hi! This is my first post to the board. I've enjoyed reading and learning quite a bit during the past several months.

I purchased a stone several months ago, before I found this site. It is non-ideal, and actually quite pretty. Given the 'faults' with its proportions, I am interested in learning why this stone has many positive attributes. To characterize it: Very good fire; Very good scintillation; Good brilliance. Overall it is extraordinarily sparkly.

Given the following details, what is positively affecting this diamond's performance (e.g., possible crown/pavillion angles; other factors)? (By, the way, I'm not interested in replacing this gift from my husband, I'd just like to learn more.)

EGL Cert (purchased from a local jeweler we've dealt with in the past)
1.01 c (Round Brilliant)
F (color appears true)
VS1 (can't locate the inclusions easily)
6.31-6.37 x 4.06
Depth: 64%
Table: 57%
Crown: 14%
Pavillion: 45%
Girdle: Medium (faceted)
Fluorescence: None
Culet: None
Polish: Good to very good
Symmetry: Good to very good

Thanks so much for your time and input.
----------------

Kelsey,
the stone looks pretty deep at 64% that's why it's only 6.3 mm diameter. should be more closer to 6.5 mm for a 1 ct. looks like the cutter made sure the stone was at that 1 ct magic range. the best thing to do is to go look at some top ideal cuts and compare. but as long as it's a pretty stone to you, who cares.

 

[CaptAubrey]

----------------
On 4/14/2004 7:41:40 PM khinton wrote:





EGL Cert (purchased from a local jeweler we've dealt with in the past)
1.01 c (Round Brilliant)
6.31-6.37 x 4.06
Depth: 64%
Table: 57%
Crown: 14%
Pavillion: 45%
Girdle: Medium (faceted)

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

i suspect its because those measurements don't add up.

14%+45%+negligible girdle = 59%, not 64%.

something on that cert is off.

 

[aljdewey]

Gee, this stone sounds horribly familiar......I'd guess it's either a mistake or something else.




Hey, by the way.......honeymoon planning at present. Does anyone know what the weather is like in July in Melbourne, Florida?????

 

[madmarlin]

Weather in July in Melbourne, FL?

One word.......HOT!!!

But, it's not too bad. There is always a nice breeze on the coast, so you don't roast like you do in Orlando where the air is stagnant. A lot to do from there as well. Orlando area is about an hour away. Space Coast is right there. Near some of the day cruise ships for some fun and gambling. Or just lounge all day on the beach.....

Enjoy!

 

[sumi]

----------------
On 4/14/2004 8:57:31 PM aljdewey wrote:


Gee, this stone sounds horribly familiar......I'd guess it's either a mistake or something else.


Hey, by the way.......honeymoon planning at present. Does anyone know what the weather is like in July in Melbourne, Florida?????

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

AL: If you're saying what I think you're saying....then you are a bad, bad girl.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

HI Everyone!


There seems to be two questions here.


First of all: A diamond of 1.00 that is 64% depth would not spread 6.3mm in my experience- maybe there's a missed measurement on an EGL cert- it's happened before.


But you've said it's a trusted jeweler, so let's assume it's a mistake on EGL's part.






If the question is, how can a diamond that does not meet the parameters which are accepted as "ideal" can still be pretty?- There are many combinations of Table and depth which make a beautiful diamond.


If one is looking for the H&A type of diamond, then the light return machines are very herlpful- but in the case of a diamond like yours- it just needs to meet the eye test.


I'm going on the assumption that it was priced quite a bit less than a well cut stone ( hopefully )

 

[pqcollectibles]

Why worry about it now, after the purchase??!! If you like it, enjoy it!!

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 4/14/2004 9:23:29 PM sumi wrote:










AL: If you're saying what I think you're saying....then you are a bad, bad girl.

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

Who.......ME???

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 4/14/2004 11:00:44 PM diamondsbylauren wrote:







First of all: A diamond of 1.00 that is 64% depth would not spread 6.3mm in my experience- maybe there's a missed measurement on an EGL cert- it's happened before.


But ;you've said it's a trusted jeweler, so let's assume it's a mistake on EGL's part.
----------------

Oh my God......this is so hysterical, I'm literally having bladder control problems! Hooo hoo, haaa haha.

Et tu, Brutus?

Hey, David, maybe a few of the experts in your hood can explain it for you.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 4/14/2004 7:41:40 PM khinton wrote:



Given the following details, what is positively affecting this diamond's performance

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

Actually some test of light return (not number based) could answer this - same reationale applies as if those % would not be there at all.

For better or worse, the visual impression of a stone can be explained - wether one likes what one sees is not exactly quantifiable, but this is not the matter here. By now I am curious enough about the respective stone!

 

[Manks]

A couple of things.

Firstly, aljdewey, think about what you are saying from the perspective of the person who posted the question. All your in-talk and knowingness must make him or her feel pretty bad about their purchase. If you have something to say, say it, but do it in a respectful way.

Secondly, khinton, if your stone pleases you and performs well, that is ALL that matters. Its far too easy to read this board and believe that unless your stone scores sub-1.5 on the HCA that its rubbish and will perform badly. This is ABSOLUTE COBBLERS.

I went through the same process as you some months ago. I bought a stone before I had done enough research, or knew anything about gems. The stone I bought was, luckily, very good. However, it has a table % on the limit of acceptability. The stone is SO pretty, but for weeks and weeks I toyed with the idea of swapping it for one with a cut that fitted better with the demands of HCA. Fortunately, commonsense took over and I realised that what the stone is in reality is far more important than what it is on paper.

Since I bought my stone, I have seen dozens of others that have a better cut on paper. Few perform better than the one I bought. The experts on this board probably would not dream of having a stone with less than amazing cut. For the Joe on the street, however, a very good cut is every bit as good (better, probably due to the price). What is more, I am sure that the experts would tell you that sometimes a stone with a cut that should not be fantastic is actually a very beautiful stone.

If this were a perfect science, this board would probably not exist.

Enjoy your stone for what it is.

Manks

 

[valeria101]

Hm... that the hard-line interpretation of these standards (e.g. take HCA<2, Table <58 and depth <63 and you're done) are not exactly of my liking.

Here's one example (WWW) of a stone with like numbers. It sounds like the missing % could be burried into the variable girdle thickness.

The online version of the HCA assumes 1.2% girdle - this stone has it at leat twice this big. It makes a great example for why one is better off using angles, no % with the HCA.

Among the stones I ever plugd in by both % and angles, most would get scores below 1 unit apart (so the cut at 2 is justified, since it leaves room for such variations), but a few got scores 3-4 points apart (from 1 to, say, 5). This could be one.

No, I don't believe that the 'sparkle' of the respective stone is impossible to model. It just seem impractical to through a serious amount of time andd technology at the poor diamond. Given that the cut does not fit the 'standard' for which the HCA was designed to work, one would have to get this stone into cyberspace with it's own set of measures. Not really worth it once you have stone in hand to contemplate.

Besides, why HCA? There are other ways to get an explanation in terms of light return, fire and scintillation, if you so wish

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 4/15/2004 4:15:57 AM Manks wrote:





Firstly, aljdewey, think about what you are saying from the perspective of the person who posted the question. All your in-talk and knowingness must make him or her feel pretty bad about their purchase. If you have something to say, say it, but do it in a respectful way.----------------

Manks, you don't know what you're talking about. This isn't a legitimate post....it's an ongoing mud-sling about a situation that arose well over a year ago. I know you probably don't know the back-story, and it's not worth going into.

Having said that.....on the off-chance that the post was legitimate, there is NOTHING I've said that can be construed as offensive. Thank you, but I thought QUITE carefully before I posted, and it's very tongue-in-cheek. If that's not *your* style, so be it, but save the sanctimony for someone else.

 

[oldminer]

Remember that before there even were Ideal Cut diamonds people thought diamonds were very pretty. A diamond does not need to be cut perfectly or to any specific parameters where beauty begins. It takes a personal choice to make a decision of what makes a diamond pretty, just like it is pretty hard to define what makes someone think another person is attractive...

If you do choose to look at parameters of cut to make some initial choices about how to shop you can avoid being fooled by a pretty stone that has potential problems that you might be unaware of. That makes common sense, but many people don't want to hear about it.... I work on those who do.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

----------------
On 4/14/2004 11:47:01 PM aljdewey wrote:

----------------
On 4/14/2004 11:00:44 PM diamondsbylauren wrote:







First of all: A diamond of 1.00 that is 64% depth would not spread 6.3mm in my experience- maybe there's a missed measurement on an EGL cert- it's happened before.


But ;you've said it's a trusted jeweler, so let's assume it's a mistake on EGL's part.
----------------

Oh my God......this is so hysterical, I'm literally having bladder control problems! Hooo hoo, haaa haha.

Et tu, Brutus?

Hey, David, maybe a few of the experts in your hood can explain it for you.

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

Maybe I'm missing something here- what is so funny?

 

[Manks]

Having said that.....on the off-chance that the post was legitimate, there is NOTHING I've said that can be construed as offensive. Thank you, but I thought QUITE carefully before I posted, and it's very tongue-in-cheek. If that's not *your* style, so be it, but save the sanctimony for someone else.

You are right, its not my style. I prefer to say something or not say something, not just hint at it in a way that seems like there is a clique going on here. If you think someone is making a bogus post, ask them - or say so.

All I am saying is that to the occasional observer (like me) it didn't appear very friendly. I'm sure you had good reason for it, but perception of the site is not enhanced by it.

Regards

 

[Nicrez]

People, Ignore the negative, concentrate on the positive.

David Atlas (Old Miner) is right that people determined diamonds to be lovely BEFORE Talkowski set the wheels of precision in motion.

As a matter of fact, in the olden days, diamonds were literally shapped as pointed structures like pyramids, and that sure didn't make is sparkle like today! People have even mounted diamond macles on rings...

A diamond is a symbol and we all tend to concetrate on details rather than the object. Plus standards of beauty change, just like the 60/60 stones have gone, so have super-skinny women with Pam Anderson looks...in the 50's we liked voluptious, in the 80's and 90's we wanted exaggerated barbies, now it's about natural.

Beauty IS in the eye of the beholder, and David (Diamonds by Lauren) is also right in thinking that certain stones that don't fit the usualy PS parameters of beauty are lovely too. Just perhaps for another customer with different taste. I don't always agree with him, but I agree he has the right to post his views!

But if you want prevailing beauty of stones right now, this forum can help, and there is a set a parameters that most people here are willing to help you find, and I doubt any way the stones are cut, you most likely WON'T be disapponted. Good luck!!!

 

[diamondsbylauren]

----------------
On 4/15/2004 1:26:48 PM Nicrez wrote:





, just like the 60/60 stones have gone, so have super-skinny women with Pam Anderson looks...in the 50's we liked voluptious, in the 80's and 90's we wanted exaggerated barbies, now it's about natural.

Beauty IS in the eye of the beholder, and David (Diamonds by Lauren) is also right in thinking that certain stones that don't fit the usualy PS parameters of beauty are lovely too. Just perhaps for another customer with different taste. I don't always agree with him, but I agree he has the right to post his views!

But if you want prevailing beauty of stones right now, this forum can help, and there is a set a parameters that most people here are willing to help you find, and I doubt any way the stones are cut, you most likely WON'T be disapponted. Good luck!!!
----------------

Where have all the 60/60's gone? As a matter of fact, MANY cutters currently use this as the standard of beauty.

I don't believe that beauty can be standardized- I have ALWAYS found Marilyn Monroe to be one the most desirable women ever- regardless of Kate Moss

I appreciate the ability ot express a different point of veiw- thank you all!

 

[pricescope]

----------------
I don't believe that beauty can be standardized
----------------

Yes it can simply using statistics.

 

[Manks]

Leonid

Whilst I must respect your experience, I disagree completely

Just like people, sometimes diamonds are attractive despite not having the right dimensions on paper.

Take for example Gerrard Depardieu (Spelling?), by most people's standards an ugly swine, but thousands, no millions, of women swoon over him. As I have said, I have seen diamonds with "excellent" certs look less attractive than one with a "so-so" cert - and I have not been doing this for very long, so I am sure that you must have seen the same many times over.

Manks

 

[Nicrez]

oooh, sorry but I would not have used him for your example Manks... (albeit a good one)

I would have even agreed to Ewan McGregor, Adam Sandler, but Mr. Depardieu...ADIEU!

That said, everyone has their opinions. Not a Marilyn Fan, sorry, but Sophia Loren... I also don't go nuts over 60/60 stones, but you do, and maybe others do, so they will be the people to buy them... Every shoe has a foot.

 

[Rhino]

Slight email probs today ... being fixed.

In response...

All diamonds have some degree of brilliance/fire/scintillation.

The question to ask here is pretty compared to what?

 

[mdx]

Hi aljdewey
Weather in July in Melbourne, FL?

One word.......HOT!!!
...........................

Why not try Melbourne Australia
Weather cool but what lovely people.

Johan

 

[diamondsbylauren]

----------------
On 4/15/2004 3:43:56 PM leonid wrote:

----------------
I don't believe that beauty can be standardized
----------------

Yes it can simply using statistics.

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

Leonid, here's where we see things differently- I do not believe beauty is quantifiable.

Take H&A diamonds for example- by their very nature, this cut guarantees ( if you get a great one) that you'll have an identifiable pattern- Hearts and Arrows- yes?

Well, suppose I do not like this pattern? Am I "wrong"?

Yes, it can be established that a round brilliant stone cut to Hearts & Arrows propotions will have less "light leakage"- and this is quantifyable by a machine.

OK- is the machine going to be looking at the diamond, or will my eyes?

I suggest that a perfectly cut H&A is GORGEOUS - as is a properly cut 60/60.

I also contend that in a blind test- that is to say- folks that have no idea about H&A or 60/60- in such a test, if shown the best H&A versus a wonderfully cut 60/60- that about half would choose the 60/60

Beauty can NOT be quantified

 

[Hest88]

I actually think it's a lot different comparing the beauty of a person to a diamond. As someone who loves older cuts and certain fancy shapes, I still recognize that it would be facetious to claim that you can't standarize the beauty of a modern RB. Most--maybe not all, but most--people think the prettiest diamond is the one that's whitest and most sparkly.

The experience level of the consumer also has a great amount of bearing on this. If I showed someone who had never seen a diamond before a mid-level diamond, they would probably be blown away and think that that was a gorgeous diamond. As I showed him better cut diamonds, though, most likely his perception would change.

 

[pricescope]

----------------
I do not believe beauty is quantifiable
----------------

No worries. However, if say 99% of people prefer a certain type of diamond, its price would be probably higher and easier to re-sell than another one which can only satisfy 1% of the public. It is exaggeration but that is how it can work, assuming equal availability and price.

 

[khinton]

I want to thank everyone who took the time to comment. I'm sorry I took so long to reply, but I've been at work all day. It seems I have stumbled onto some inside joke (I'm afraid I have no idea what it is).

You have raised some interesting points. I do not have any "high tech" test results to report. As I said, I purchased my diamond before I found this site. I simply thought it would be interesting and educational to talk about non-ideal stone performance.

I characterized the fire/brilliance/etc. based on other diamonds I have seen (both at the jewelers, and those owned by friends). It was purely a subjective assessment, meant to convey the relative performance of the various aspects.

This site, as I understand it, focuses on ideal-cut stones, and it might be interesting for consumers to look at the ramifications of going with a lower-quality cut to maintain higher-level color/clarity combinations. It does seem that when someone asks me about my new diamond, they are interested in the (1) size (weight not measurements), (2) color, and (3) clarity. Cut hasn't come up at all.

I thought I had done quite a bit of research before I bought the diamond (like Manks), and knew that I would have to make some sort of trade-off to stay within my price range. I decided to go with what I understood to be a "Good Cut" according to most internet jewelers (and a "Very Good Cut" according to Blue Nile). I really wanted to stay in the colorless - VS range. I felt the price was reasonable based on what I saw on the internet.

All this said. I am interested in exploring the possible ramifications of some of the measurements. I also wondered about the 64% depth v. the 59% (Crown + Pavillion).

Questions:
Are the crown and pavillion percentages actually measured, or are they calculated? Are they rounded up/down?

Given a pavillion depth of 45%, what is the range of possible pavillion angles?

Re: EGL certifications. I've read several negative comments about the EGL certifications. Have most of you actually had an experience with a "faulty" EGL cert? Do the problems with EGL certs seem to be more "common knowledge"?

Thanks again for your insight and comments. I really do appreciate the time you've taken to provide thoughtful replies. It is a bit daunting to push the "submit" button the first time. I appreciate your understanding if I am a bit wordy. Thanks.

 

[wallace]

Have you ever gone on a date with someone who "looked great on paper" but was really unpleasant to be with? Maybe the opposite!

The overall impression is what you make the ultimate decision with after all the claculating is done.

I think the real question here about your non-ideal is not whether it is pretty in a quantifiable way - surely it is, and it has lovely colour and clarity to help compensate for cut - is did you pay appropriatley for what you got?

Are you asking to explore whether there is a market for non-ideal cuts? I think Leonid and Hest made very good points to that effect. The point of this site is to educate people so that if they choose to buy a non-ideal they will be aware of it, its implications, and its price adjustments.

I don't care if this is a "fake" thread - I am unaware of it. In the spirit of PS, I assume it to be a legitimate question. I hope the answers here may help someone even if this is a joke.