Why is this non-ideal diamond .pretty?

[diamondsbylauren]

----------------
On 4/15/2004 6:48:25 PM leonid wrote:

----------------
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.

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

We agree here too- I understand what it takes to achieve the type of perfection possible on round diamonds.
Excellent /Excellent, or 0 AGS Cut Grade never happens by accident- and it costs a lot of money to acheive these levels of perfection.
Add to this the fact that you need specific rough to make ideal cut stones and the slight lower yeild from the rough.
If you prefer the H&A then the diffenence in price should not deter anyone- there's a great selection of the these stones at some very reputable internet vendors at very good prices.

True too, that a stone with a H&A AGS 0 pedigree should perform well as far as desirability as time goes on- for eventual re-sale.
Then again- the same could be said of many other specific types of diamonds.
A well cut 60/60 2.50 D/VS1 RBC is always going to perform well too.
As well include many Natural Fancy Color Diamonds in stones which have performed extrmely well in the market over the years.

I have to admit that one amazing thing about Fancy Colored Diamonds for me, is that the cutter can use all kinds of different shaped facets on the bottom of the diamond.
It's all preference.

I'm sure nobody would want to make anyone feel bad because they bought a 60/60, or 62/61- or any diamond they truly love- no matter what anyone else thinks.

But I guess that it's a part of the cost of educating folks.


Here's a question for which I do not know the answer:
What's everyone's opinon - or does someone have stats?
What % of sales of RBC's over .50 are H&A or branded ideal cut diamonds?

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 4/15/2004 7:24:51 PM khinton wrote:



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 + Pavilion).

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

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

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

The percentages you see are calculated from a n average of a angles measures around the diamond. There is room for error (signifficant error in terms of HCA scores) in both the cut of the diamond and the measurements - all of which appear in the averages. Other considerations, such as the arrangement of facets dictating the girdle profile, can also add to the 'approximation'. Diamonds with "good" (as per GIA, and probably EGL is not more strict but less) symmetry could actually be uneven enough for the execution of the cut itself to make the real object depart seriously from the theoretical model assumed by the HCA.

Your Q about the 45% pav. and angles is the right one: the answer would depend on the girdle and culet size and the variation of the girdle profile. It would mean a bit more research among Sarin reports for me to get a decent approximation of the range...

However, there is a $30 shortcut from all this theoretical debate on diamond cut and philosophy of beauty (

) - how about the good ol' Ideal Scope? If brilliance is what you are after in your stone, you can get an idea of how this piece holds it's own against 'ideal cuts' (by PS tradition, forget philosophy). Otherwise, there are many other stones out there, I suppose.

About EGL numbers - they do not get the outmost respect around here, but without a decent sample to inspect, I would could not but sum up the pervasive skepticism. Not very valuable contribution

Hope this helps...

 

[valeria101]

----------------
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.

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

A rather obscure bunch of people make their money writing and teaching the "economics of fashion". Your post, Leonid, sounds so much like the opening page of the prospectus, I could no help posting/ pointing out the analogy...

Somewhere in the closing, the prospectus read... "our discipline explains why beauty has a price.".

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 4/16/2004 3:37:05 AM diamondsbylauren wrote:

----------------
On 4/15/2004 6:48:25 PM leonid wrote:

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.

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

Here's a question for which I do not know the answer:
What's everyone's opinion - or does someone have stats?
What % of sales of RBC's over .50 are H&A or branded ideal cut diamonds?

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

Couldn't miss this one either....

Let's start with the numbers I remember (please correct as needed):

#1: branded ideals make up about 1% of RBC sales (by number of purchases)
#2: non-branded H&A - not determined
So the statistical argument may not be 'yet' suitable...

But:
#3: the HCA and the rationale behind it enlarges the range of diamonds cut for light return.
#4: and buyers seem to choose more brilliant stones over less brilliant, when given a choice by direct comparison.

So? Just tell the public what should they be satisfied with, and they will go for it - assuming availability and price.

Please accept my apologies in advance if this does not sound right. I did not go the full length of critical number searching I would do to address such issues professionally. I am sure some of the posters here have done so and can correct my mistakes.

My post was inspired by some of Garry's explanations on the increase of Ideals' market share and the relation between the HCA and H&A range of proportions.

Also, #4 assumes that the range of preferred RBC cuts is wide enough to allow preference between mutually exclusive but desirable characteristics (such as brilliance and fire).

 

[pricescope]

It is said Tolkowski began his study by showing passers by in the streets of London a selection of diamonds. This way he learned the proportions of the diamonds that looked the best...

GIA Nears Release of Diamond Cut Grading System:

---------
The Institute collected 70,000 human observations of more than 2,000 diamonds from 350 observers.
---------

C'mon folks

don't miss the cluetrain.

 

[valeria101]

Thanks Leonid!

Good read

" GIA's new system represents 10 years of research that has now proven conclusively there's no one Ideal cut. The research reveals there are many different and sometimes surprising cut proportions that yield beautiful diamonds or cuts that have high optical performance, [...] main question after the presentation was how GIA will communicate the new system to consumers, many of whom have been taught the "Ideal cut" parameters "

funny how this one gets in right on the right thread...

 

[pricescope]

----------------
...The research reveals there are many different and sometimes surprising cut proportions that yield beautiful diamonds or cuts that have high optical performance...
----------------

That what Garry and MSU and many cutters knew for a long time. It will be interesting to compare all this stuff when GIA grading system will be published (probably rather soon).

 

[Manks]

That is what I said. I am not a cutter, or a dealer, in fact I am a newbie. However I have seen stones with lower grading on paper out-perform ones with a "better cut", I have also read on this site reports by experts to the same effect.

 

[khinton]

Thanks for all your comments. I particularly appreciate Valeria's attempts to answer my specific questions. Manks and David were helpful too. Again, I am not sure why some would consider this a "fake" thread. I have seen many helpful comments from Aljdewey in other threads, and I'm sure that she could have provided some excellent insight here, too. I was puzzled by the response.

Again, I appreciate your comments (very educational). I may look for an ideal cut someday--I'm sure they are exceptional.

Thanks

 

[Nicrez]

Kelsey, I know my opinion will be incongruent here, but I have to say that everyone talks about the ideal and the visually perfect.

Yes, Talkowski found a cut with more brilliance than before, and such proof is the recutting of old Indian diamonds by the Ascher Brothers for the queen who liked her diamonds to sparkle more. We are constantly pushing the limits to find a way to get "the most out of a stone", however, I still adhere to beauty being in the eye of the beholder. Everyone has taste and it can many times coincide, but not always...

Round stones are known to be the most brilliant and fiery. They are the closest to mechanically perfect diamonds. I however, don't truly swoon over a round stone. Ask anyone on this forum, and MOST will agree round stones are lovely. They ARE, no doubt, but my tastes dictate a lack in the perfection for a shape that is more pleasing to me. I also am not a fan of the chunky sparkles the round stone emits. The only round stone I TRULY liked was one with 100 facets that had smaller sparkles. That was MY taste.

David had a preference for 60/60 stones. I don't begrudge him that, as I don't begrudge people who like round stones that have a larger table, lower depth and like the whiteness and sparkle. Or vice versa. In the end you can know the difference between a "perfectly cut" stone and what you like. If they don't coincide, you are NOT wrong, you may just be in the minority. So accept it.

I have had diamond ignorant people call my stone a princess, percisely because cut is the MOST elusive and least easy to explain and qualitfy in quality terms. So it's left out, and said to only be "SHAPE" that rules cut. I don't even bother to explain my stone has excellent proportions and is a 2B cut, but I KNOW it, and love it. That's what makes my stone lovely, not the average viewer... good luck and enjoy your stone!

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 4/16/2004 8:58:50 AM khinton wrote:

Again, I am not sure why some would consider this a 'fake' thread. I have seen many helpful comments from Aljdewey in other threads, and I'm sure that she could have provided some excellent insight here, too. I was puzzled by the response.

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

Khinton, you want my insights on this? Here they are.

Asking if a diamond is "pretty" is too ambiguous a question. There could possibly be a subjective answer based on opinion (beauty being in the eye of the beholder) and a more objective answer based on facts (how does this diamond measureably return light?).

It may not be pretty in the objective sense (meaning it may leak light), but your eye may still find it pleasing (beauty in the eye of the beholder).

Also keep in mind that the subjective part....beauty in the eye of the beholder...is directly relative to the beholder's base of comparison. Before I learned much about diamonds or saw many ideally cut diamonds, I thought diamonds I saw in Zales were beautiful. Having seen well-cut stones, though, now those Zales diamonds look dead to me.

Also, keep in mind that for every rule there are exceptions.....instances that seem to defy the "expected outcome". The bumble bee is a great example. Viewed from an engineering standpoint, the thin papery wings shouldn't be able to support it's body girth/weight.....but it does, and it works.

How wide a shopper should cast his net in a search for a diamond is really dependent on his tolerance/patience for the process. It is indeed possible that I could spend enough time and find the diamond or two that defies probability predictions. For me, personally, though, my goal wasn't to find the "exception to the rule".....it was to find a beautiful diamond that gave off the intense flashes of colored light and to focus my attention on diamonds that had a HIGH probability of meeting that criteria. Hence, the diamond you describe is one I wouldn't have taken the time to consider.

 

[skibum]

Very well said aljdewey.

Cheers,
David

 

[Mara]

khinton...don't let it bother you...there have been some posts recently that were trolls just attempting to cause trouble by getting some feathers riled re: planting false ideal vs. non-ideal discussions and false B&M kudos and internet complaints, and unfortunately your post originally may have sounded similar....most likely just bad timing.

 

[elmo]

----------------
On 4/16/2004 11:24:59 AM aljdewey wrote:

How wide a shopper should cast his net in a search for a diamond is really dependent on his tolerance/patience for the process. It is indeed possible that I could spend enough time and find the diamond or two that defies probability predictions.
----------------

A real benefit of finding a good-looking non-ideal stone is that you can potentially pay considerably less than for AGS0 ex/ex stone, I'm thinking on the order of up to 40 back instead of 10-20 back for a very rough number. But like you say, it won't happen in a reasonable timeframe unless a trusted jeweler is seeking out these kinds of stones. Buying sight-unseen over the net from someone I've never done business with, I'll look for what gives a higher probability of being a nice stone.

A good counter example however where the numbers and super symmetry don't apply is with something like OECs. They can be as beautiful or more than a superideal in their own way but I don't think they'll be near HCA 2 or h&a.

 

[mhtv]

"No worries. However, if say 99% of people prefer a certain type of diamond....."

such a "statistic" refers to popularity, NOT beauty.
sad how the difference is so often not understood in this forum, and in the pricescope site.

 

[Mara]

----------------
On 4/16/2004 4:09:07 PM mhtv wrote:





'No worries. However, if say 99% of people prefer a certain type of diamond.....'

such a 'statistic' refers to popularity, NOT beauty.
sad how the difference is so often not understood in this forum, and in the pricescope site.
----------------

Seems to me that statement actually is speaking about 99% of people preferring a certain type of diamond BECAUSE of its beauty. Why else would anyone prefer a diamond? Beauty is the quality marker. So if 99% of people like the way something looks, the popularity is tied to beauty.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 4/16/2004 4:22:02 PM Mara wrote:
[...] the popularity is tied to beauty.
----------------

The following is not even 0.2 worth... but this is my favorite topic

so here goes...

Remember that old diamond buyer's guide posted some time back ? Besides, no need for literature, it is quite widely known that the top selling shape of e-ring diamonds went from one to another (marq to round in the last five decades). Things tend to look 'beautiful' when there is some consensus about what looks good.

From a broader perspective, just anything goes. Diamonds are not immune to fashion, blessed be. If some unmovable notion of beauty would determine popularity for all these 'useless' marks of well-being, marketing would have never been invented in the first place.

As far as I know, the current argument is that the cut of diamonds progressed towards better brilliance. But this is said from the perspective of the rather new notion of 'ideal cuts'. If one chooses to consider that it was a step cut (square EC) that gained most popularity next to the round ideals lately - the 'evolution towards brilliance' is not as clear anymore.

Oh well...

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 4/16/2004 4:22:02 PM Mara wrote:









So if 99% of people like the way something looks, the popularity is tied to beauty.

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

I'd suggest the statement would be complete if added to as follows: "popularity is tied to beauty contingent upon 1) what's available, 2) buyers' awareness of what's available, and 3) buyers' budgets.

Some buyers don't realize at all that there is a difference in makes of diamonds.....so they aren't aware. Some are aware of the makes available, but there are none conveniently available at the time they are making their selection. Some are aware of the existence of better makes and have access to them as well, but they don't have the budget to choose them.

In all of these cases, buyers would purchase less than ideal diamonds, but if you removed those barriers....if money was no object and people knew about ideal diamonds and had access to them.....the buying trends might then be a more accurate reflection of preference/beauty.

 

[Bagpuss]

----------------
On 4/16/2004 5:09:04 PM aljdewey wrote:

----------------
On 4/16/2004 4:22:02 PM Mara wrote:





So if 99% of people like the way something looks, the popularity is tied to beauty.

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

I'd suggest the statement would be complete if added to as follows: 'popularity is tied to beauty contingent upon 1) what's available, 2) buyers' awareness of what's available, and 3) buyers' budgets.

Some buyers don't realize at all that there is a difference in makes of diamonds.....so they aren't aware. Some are aware of the makes available, but there are none conveniently available at the time they are making their selection. Some are aware of the existence of better makes and have access to them as well, but they don't have the budget to choose them.

In all of these cases, buyers would purchase less than ideal diamonds, but if you removed those barriers....if money was no object and people knew about ideal diamonds and had access to them.....the buying trends might then be a more accurate reflection of preference/beauty.
----------------

You'd still be stuck with odd man out types like me though who had the knowledge, the access, the budget and still chose an old cut stone because I don't like the facet pattern of modern cut rb diamonds (H&A or otherwise) while I did like the pattern I saw with my old cut stone and I prefered the predominance of fire that I got with my OEC over the brilliance of a modern cut stone.

Shame how some people will always b*gger up the best arguments!

 

[pricescope]

popularity / beauty / desirability... everyone can pick what suites them best.

GIA study was based on some scientific models then they surveyed many observers to see how their calculations correspond to what observers prefer.

I don't know how well and accurate it was done but this is a step in a right direction. Once GIA will publish their new cut grades, industry and prices will adjust to it.

Cutters will cut stones to get the bester cut grades, dealers will sell these stones for higher price, and consumers will pay more for them. Old stones will be resubmitted to GIA or maybe re-cut to get a better grade. Some other labs will adopt the system, others will try to develop their own.

And of course those who disagree will be arguing about it.

It's all good. Everybody will be busy and we'll all have even more fun.

Sorry, I feel cynical tonight

 

[khinton]

Thanks for weighing in, Aldjewey. I wish I had your perseverance, or as you put it, the "tolerance and patience" for the search.

One thing I realize that I enjoy about my diamond is viewing it close-up. I am very near-sighted, and my glasses and poor vision make looking at the stone from afar less striking. It might be that the nature of the cut, which doesn't seem to maximize brilliance (because of the pavillion depth and %??), may be a positive from that perspective.

I will just enjoy what I have, and appreciate the thought behind the purchase.

Thanks, again!

P.S. Mara and Nicrez, I've also enjoyed reading your posts over time.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 4/16/2004 6:01:50 PM Bagpuss wrote:





You'd still be stuck with odd man out types like me though who had the knowledge, the access, the budget and still chose an old cut stone because I don't like the facet pattern of modern cut rb diamonds (H&A or otherwise) while I did like the pattern I saw with my old cut stone and I prefered the predominance of fire that I got with my OEC over the brilliance of a modern cut stone.

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

Oh, sure, Bagpuss, and that's exactly my point. If people could choose whatever they wanted to (because they knew about all options, all options were readily available, and all were affordable), THEN and only then would purchase data be a true and accurately reflection of preference.

If you were to put one of every possible kind of diamond on a table and asked people to select one....price not being an issue.....it's likely you'd still select the OEC because you find it beautiful. In this way, your choice (and others' choices) would more accurately reflect true preference, and not just what one could access/afford.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

----------------
On 4/16/2004 6:12:41 AM valeria101 wrote:

----------------
On 4/16/2004 3:37:05 AM diamondsbylauren wrote:

----------------
On 4/15/2004 6:48:25 PM leonid wrote:

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.

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

Here's a question for which I do not know the answer:
What's everyone's opinion - or does someone have stats?
What % of sales of RBC's over .50 are H&A or branded ideal cut diamonds?

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

Couldn't miss this one either....

Let's start with the numbers I remember (please correct as needed):

#1: branded ideals make up about 1% of RBC sales (by number of purchases)
#2: non-branded H&A - not determined
So the statistical argument may not be 'yet' suitable...

Thank you Valeria- this kind of reenforces my point of view- we're talking about 1% of buyers- and actually, less. We're talking about 1% of buyers of rounds. What does this tell us?

Currently there is a balance between getting a perfect cut, and retaining weight. It's true that many "off cut" diamonds are produced- but by and large the state of the art in cutting factories around the world has steadily goetten better over the years.

Used to be, every 1.00 stone cut in India was horribly off made- today, there's gem makes coming out of Mumbai.

But clearly, many people like a little more "flash for the cash"-

If cutters were forced to cut all diamonds for the 1% AGS0 crowd the yeild of diamonds cut would drop 10% across the board. This is not the exact ratio- but it works for the purposes of discussion.

SO, if every cutter was forced to subscribe to light return characteristics, it would raise the price of all carat stones considerably.

It's a question of preference.

But:
#3: the HCA and the rationale behind it enlarges the range of diamonds cut for light return.
#4: and buyers seem to choose more brilliant stones over less brilliant, when given a choice by direct comparison.

Personally, I feel like I am the crusader for good cuts. I don't need a machine, nor do I think you do. That's my crusade. Look at the diamond. That's my point.

I have formed this opinion based on my experience honed over many years and hundreds of thousands of stones.

I find an instrument like the HCA is not useful for one reason- it does not have a diamond to make it's calculations- and every diamond is unique. Grading it properly is, and always will be, a one of a kind decision.

That said, I would like to say that the work involved in the HCA, and the reasearch being done all over the world is impressive.

I realize Garry put has put something quite unique together- I just question the use of it in the real world. You need to get the result promised by the HCA- a brilliant diamond- on that, we all agree- the question is, how?

I trust my eyes when it's my money on the line.

So? Just tell the public what should they be satisfied with, and they will go for it - assuming availability and price.

Please accept my apologies in advance if this does not sound right. I did not go the full length of critical number searching I would do to address such issues professionally. I am sure some of the posters here have done so and can correct my mistakes.

My post was inspired by some of Garry's explanations on the increase of Ideals' market share and the relation between the HCA and H&A range of proportions.

Also, #4 assumes that the range of preferred RBC cuts is wide enough to allow preference between mutually exclusive but desirable characteristics (such as brilliance and fire).



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

I appreciate everyone's POV and thank for hearing mine.

 

[aljdewey]

Forget it.....it's just too late in the day to go over this yet again.

 

[Nicrez]

Wow David...you left Al speachless!

 

[Mara]

Stare lovingly at the voodoo doll, Al....

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 4/16/2004 6:59:26 PM Nicrez wrote:





Wow David...you left Al speachless!

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

No, Nic, not speechless......I'm in the midst of looking for sanskrin translations or some other language that David might possibly understand.

How many ways can one say in English...."the HCA doesn't guarantee diamond performance. It doesn't promise a brilliant diamond. It eliminates diamonds with a high probability of poor performance, and the FINAL DETERMINATION should be made with your own eyes."

I'm stumped.....I haven't figured out David's native language yet to get this across.

 

[aljdewey]

Actually, the truth is.......I'm apathetic about it at this point. I'm so sick of the discussion, it's not even funny.




I just don't care if he gets it or not. I don't care if he finds value in the HCA or not. If he doesn't see the benefit of it, fine. Don't use it.




I'll continue to hold my opinion that it does have value......and until I see someone post a DOG stone on here that the HCA didn't eliminate, I'll continue to hold that view. All I know is what I see.......picture after picture after picture of rings here that SCREAM with fire......all of which scored well on the HCA. Marry that with the many testimonials of folks who can't believe how their diamonds sparkle......and note all of those scored well on the HCA too. My diamond scored well on the HCA, and I've had local jewelers DROOL all over it and ask where I was able to find it.




Until someone can pony up, there's nothing left to say, really.

 

[Nicrez]

Funny, I suddenly feel a sharp pain in my shoulder...

Al: I don't think that view will ever be agreed upon. I think you have expressed it before, and expressed it well. People will have to agree to disagree....

David seems dead-set against ACA as a useful tool. Perhaps that will never change, hopefully it will...

I know that when shopping on-line you can't trust vendors in general (until they prove it, but that's tough), so to narrow your search of EVERY stone, you use such tools as the ACA and I-scopes, etc to narrow your field to include more stones with higher light return,especially if you are not lucky enough to SEE all of them.

That's why people use color, and clarity and AGA charts the same way, to narrow your search to limit your time to the stones you would most likely be interested in.

Do you miss those "abnormally outlying" but lovely stones yes, but you are also NOT seeing 100 stones or more to find a good one versus, looking through 10 to find a good one. And even those 10 tend to be almost all "sparklers!

 

[Manks]

If I am not very much mistaken the original thread said something like "My stone is not an ideal cut on paper, but still performs well"

Al said a few posts ago "Also, keep in mind that for every rule there are exceptions.....instances that seem to defy the "expected outcome". The bumble bee is a great example. Viewed from an engineering standpoint, the thin papery wings shouldn't be able to support it's body girth/weight.....but it does, and it works"

So, as I see it, it seems that Al agrees that some stones do perform better than they should given their paper-based cut dimensions.

Whether the original poster has one of these stones, or lacks the experience to know that his / her stome does not have as much fire / brilliance / light return as a stone scoring well on HCA, we may never know. Fact remains though that HCA is a guide, not a definitive tool.

As I said before, there does seem to be a certain "diamond elitism" on this board, which is positive because we hopefully have some of the world's keenest diamond buffs here. However, it can make people with stones that might score 2-3 on the HCA feel like they have bought a complete dog, which is not correct. I suspect that if you took all retail jewellery diamonds and put them through HCA, 99% would get the thumbs down!.