- Joined
- Jul 27, 2009
- Messages
- 4,004
bmfang,
Super ideal cuts are not yet a commodity here in the States. Not by a long shot! Cutting has gotten much better over the last several years, but true precision cut diamonds are still quite rare relative to the broader market.
Though I do agree that Octavias are even rarer![]()
That may be true. And you also may get that sense monitoring this forum. People with a keen interest in cut quality tend to find their way here as a result of their research. You won't find this much diamond knowledge concentrated in any other space on the internet. And people are going to the internet for in-depth information because most brick and mortar retailers are not providing it.I stand corrected @Texas Leaguer. Though from my perspective, the US market has a much greater awareness of superideals than the Australian market does IMHO.
Oh god..., what will happen if the world was filled with super ideal Cut Diamonds?
Anyone thinks it will become the next generic? Or is it already?![]()
The technology is already available to permit widespread cutting of super-ideal diamonds. Yes it takes more skill and the best equipment, but those upgrades are very doable. It's more a philosophical/strategic/economic issue. Manufacturers still must be competitive and concerned with their bottom line. So long as the market is rewarding cutting for weight over cutting for beauty, they will be following suit. It is changing, but rather slowly. Status quo has historically been very strong in the diamond business.Maybe this is off-topic, but do you think there will come a time when technological advances will permit the automation of cutting of super-ideal diamonds, which could make them "generic", in a sense? Will the diamond connoisseurs then begin to prefer some type of more exclusive, non-ideal cut?
Just thinking out loud, feel free to ignore...
I don't believe manufacturers are deliberately cutting for weight, they have a (GIA) range they must adhere to for a safe and comfortable landing. I call it the cutters "comfortable numbness zone". Manufacturers truly believe they are manufacturing cut for beauty Diamonds. Before GIA cut grade you could say weight retention was the main objective but now their cutting range has significantly narrowed so they are not really cutting for weight anymore. On the other hand, cutting for high precision optical symmetry (you for some reason chose the word beauty) is a whole different ballgame. Cutters need to know what to aim for in this case. Most cutters have no clue about ray tracing technology or its purpose. They are really clueless on the subject and worse off, they are not even willing to learn, it actually scares them.The technology is already available to permit widespread cutting of super-ideal diamonds. Yes it takes more skill and the best equipment, but those upgrades are very doable. It's more a philosophical/strategic/economic issue. Manufacturers still must be competitive and concerned with their bottom line. So long as the market is rewarding cutting for weight over cutting for beauty, they will be following suit. It is changing, but rather slowly. Status quo has historically been very strong in the diamond business.
My pleasure and it's absolutely amazing to revive this topic after all these years- it's a new and different discussion than it was before.Nice discussion, thanks Texas Leaguer and Rockdiamond.
@Rockdiamond, you did not agree that AGS0 would be the type you love, what range are the proportions of the 60:60s you like? What's your 60:60 'cheat sheet'?
I don't believe manufacturers are deliberately cutting for weight, they have a (GIA) range they must adhere to for a safe and comfortable landing. I call it the cutters "comfortable numbness zone". Manufacturers truly believe they are manufacturing cut for beauty Diamonds. Before GIA cut grade you could say weight retention was the main objective but now their cutting range has significantly narrowed so they are not really cutting for weight anymore. On the other hand, cutting for high precision optical symmetry (you for some reason chose the word beauty) is a whole different ballgame. Cutters need to know what to aim for in this case. Most cutters have no clue about ray tracing technology or its purpose. They are really clueless on the subject and worse off, they are not even willing to learn, it actually scares them.
I'll go with that explanation. It's not that they don't think they are making beautiful diamonds by cutting to GIA EX. I'm sure they do. By having a cut quality target today that rewards them financially, whereas before GIA cut grading they really had few qualitative constraints, cutting of rounds in general has improved dramatically. I'm sure most manufactures think it is plenty good enough. But they are definitely cutting to the margins of the EX range to retain weight where possible. Especially around magic carat marks, which are in and of themselves the rather arbitrary and traditional motivators for leaving stones as heavy as possible. A manufacturer cannot be expected to take even a few points off to improve a stone if they will be penalized by the market for doing so.I don't believe manufacturers are deliberately cutting for weight, they have a (GIA) range they must adhere to for a safe and comfortable landing. I call it the cutters "comfortable numbness zone". Manufacturers truly believe they are manufacturing cut for beauty Diamonds. Before GIA cut grade you could say weight retention was the main objective but now their cutting range has significantly narrowed so they are not really cutting for weight anymore. On the other hand, cutting for high precision optical symmetry (you for some reason chose the word beauty) is a whole different ballgame. Cutters need to know what to aim for in this case. Most cutters have no clue about ray tracing technology or its purpose. They are really clueless on the subject and worse off, they are not even willing to learn, it actually scares them.
Nonsense Bryan and Yoram.I'll go with that explanation. It's not that they don't think they are making beautiful diamonds by cutting to GIA EX. I'm sure they do. By having a cut quality target today that rewards them financially, whereas before GIA cut grading they really had few qualitative constraints, cutting of rounds in general has improved dramatically. I'm sure most manufactures think it is plenty good enough. But they are definitely cutting to the margins of the EX range to retain weight where possible. Especially around magic carat marks, which are in and of themselves the rather arbitrary and traditional motivators for leaving stones as heavy as possible. A manufacturer cannot be expected to take even a few points off to improve a stone if they will be penalized by the market for doing so.
Interesting position Garry- to be clear- are you saying GIA's cut grade had no positive impact on overall cut quality?The smallest of those GIA XXXs is the correct diameter of a 0.93ct stone.
AND
We all know the 0.93ct stone would look 10% larger than the badly cut GIA XXX
So, well, maybe things are better than the bad'ol days. But please do not give GIA credit as the great salvation G-d.
OK, but 57% table is rarer hahahahaha - and your logic is flawed anyway because 60% is rounded from 59.51 to 60.49% so your depths would have been badly matchedGarry Garry Garry....hey buddy
If we're looking at a given style of cutting, then ok, round it off. Back in the day, before we actually knew who the other guy was, this whole thing crystallized into 60/60 vs whatever....and 60/60 became, here on PS, a certain type of cutting style that includes a narrow range of numbers near 60%.
But if I want a 60/60, I want 60/60.
What if a cutter does what it takes to get to the exact 60'60 number?
Kind of like it's own "super ideal"
Who's trying to get to an exact number of 57% table 61% depth?
Not to re-open any arguments of the old days, it's a moot point nowadays.
60/60 lost
Even less as the table get smaller?David David David.
Stats, lies and DAMM lies.
Search for a spread of depth 1ct any any 59.5 to 60.5 and there are 532 GIA X, X to VG
Same crieteria 57% table 61% depth = 7 stones.
Even less as the table get smaller?
Nonsense Garry? Am I really making "no sense" to you?Nonsense Bryan and Yoram.
Cutters clearly chase the highest yields within each of GIA's grades.
For e.g. I just ran 1ct G VS2 XXX on RapNet. 140 stones with diameters smaller than 6.4mm (they ranged from -4% to -9% smaller diameters than the optimum 6.47mm), 45 in the sweet range of 6.41 to 6.5mm and 8 stones with larger than 6.5mm spreads.
Cutters use very sophisticated systems to ensure they squeeze out the best number of magic weights and top GIA grades. Always!
If i relaxed the GIA XVX then the results would have been worse!
I agree Karl. And nobody should have a problem with that. It greatly improved the overall pool of diamonds for the consumer, while at the same time allowing manufacturers who want to serve that segment looking for the 'best of the best' to do so.For many(most/all) cutters the best diamond is one that combines high saleability with profitable yields.
GIA EX has raised the bar on the proportion sets for high salability just not to the level that makes many cut nuts happy.