60/60 diamond & HCA 1.6 - Why?

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Actually RD I do need to toughen up the 60:60 page because it has had the real reason for this taken out in the previous edits.

Simply that 60 60 is easier for a lot on tade people to remeber than complicated concepts like 56 61.5

 

[Rockdiamond]

Simply that 60 60 is easier for a lot on tade people to remeber than complicated concepts like 56 61.5

You can't be serious Garry.
Someone is intelligent enough to run a business- be a diamond cutter- be a diamond buyer- a successful salesperson- yet they can't remember any other numbers besides 60/60

This is a joke, right?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Simply that 60 60 is easier for a lot on tade people to remeber than complicated concepts like 56 61.5

You can't be serious Garry.
Someone is intelligent enough to run a business- be a diamond cutter- be a diamond buyer- a successful salesperson- yet they can't remember any other numbers besides 60/60

This is a joke, right?

Afraid I do not think it is a joke.

I have seen the buyers cut criteria for some companies that you put on a pedestal, and it is really sad.
And there are lots of diamond dealers and retailers who run sucessful businesses who know didly squat about diamonds.

How many know what % to take on or off the depth for different sized tables in order to maintain the crown and pavilion combinations that are well centered at 60 60?

but here is a joke based on some simple numbers 36 24 36 http://www.google.com.au/images?hl=...arch+Images&gbv=2&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

 

[Rockdiamond]

Garry- isn't there some middle ground between "putting people on a pedestal" and making broad generalizations that people in the trade are imbeciles- or senile?

I agree that many buyers for large chains stores may not have a good grasp on how to judge a diamond's cut.
But I also think that there are people in the trade- be they young or old- are intelligent enough to grasp different concepts.
If we're talking about folks that are well versed in selecting well made diamonds, I don't think it's necessary to memorize different angle combinations as these aspects are evident in physical examination.,

 

[iwannaprettyone]

I love my 60/60, its a firecracker.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Good for you iwannaprettyone!

As a fellow 60/60 lover- does the bashing of this type of stone bother you?
Not to put you on the spot- and I understand if you don't feel the need to answer.

I've always been motivated by the fact that people who own and love really well cut stones, see those stones downgraded based on things that are a matter of taste.
This also extends to sellers who may be dedicated to well cut stones getting put down because they don't use the same methods advocated here.

I know, I'm too sensitive..... but the "60/60 tutorial" is dead center in the middle of this.

 

[iwannaprettyone]

Honestly, I couldn't care less . It serves the purpose, it is a symbol of love and devotion. Why taint that with the goal for perfection? For me, to be as beautiful as it is as a 60/60 stone there's gotta be some magic and mystery involved. Call me a romantic, call me crazy for all I care....at the end of the day I have seen how it performs next to H&A's, Infinity, ACA and truthfully it holds up well. There are a few individuals from around this parts that can attest to that...Annnd it's not a cookie cutter, what a concept eh?

Have fun taking the fun out of carbon

Gotta love this friendly banter/ love fest

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thanks iwapo!!

Yes, it is an "interesting" conversation.
I'm still waiting for someone to respond to Garry's "joke"

I clicked on the page Garry linked to- lucklily there were no clients around who might think I was...well, at work and looking at that page on purpose....

 

[Fly Girl]

I own a 60/60 cut 1.5 ct F VS2 that was hand selected by my jeweler about 10 years ago now. I happened to drop by the shop after I had made the stone request and saw the diamond guy with his boxes of stones, and my jeweler going through them. They shooed me away, then called me at my office about 2 hours later to report success. My jeweler told me that he knows the cutter in New York who cut my diamond. My stone scores about 2.5 on the HCA, but I would guess that my jeweler did not do angle computations. My diamond has great white light return, but next to a top ideal cut, I can tell it has less fire. Owning this stone has taught me to keep it very, very clean, because it dulls quickly. By keeping it so clean, in real life it does out-sparkle most diamonds.

The knocks here on 60/60 diamonds did bother me when I first came on PS. I looked into trading my diamond in at the local Lazare Kaplan dealer. They would be more than happy to take it + I pay them $10,000 additional in exchange for a 1.5 ct ideal cut H SI1. I decided there were better things to do with my $10,000 than to trade down in color and clarity, and fell back in love with my 60/60.

So, I've gotten past taking the negative bias against 60/60 cuts personally, but I'm sure given the information on this site, most new diamond purchasers would not buy a 60/60 cut. I know that I would have gone ideal cut if I had it to do over again. But, I love my pretty stone, and it is rather cool to have a well-cut diamond that looks a little bit different. I wonder if someday, they will become popular again. Who knows?

 

[stone-cold11]

Don't see what is the big hoohaa about anyway. Just some has reading comprehension problem and like to infer what is not written in the article.

 

[yssie]

This site, like most, is biased in a certain direction - I think it is safe to say newbies deserve more credit for being able to spot that bias than we generally give them.

In any case, a little digging will reveal that there's nothing wrong with a well-cut 60/60 (though they'll likely have to wade through some ranting along the way )

 

[Rockdiamond]

Yssie- I agree, it makes sense to give people credit for having enough intelligence to weed out personal bias, versus scientific data.
But judging the cut of a diamond presents some unique aspects
1) Diamonds are very expensive- creating a real need for shoppers to validate their purchase
2) Given that this is the internet, there's a predisposition for people to want to rely on science.
3) the case being made for the "scientific methodology" is backed up by some pretty impressive tools- which may work, if you are looking at the results with the proper perspective. Or, they may mislead, if read improperly ( talking about aset- HCA is another hill of beans entirely)

I've seen this first hand - intelligent folks trying to read aset when they have the actual diamond in hand. This can cause a situation where they no longer trust what their eyes are telling them
"Oh, look, there's a lot of green- do you have any without the green"

"Well, how does the diamond look to you?"

"It looks great, but I read green is bad....etc."

Flygirl- thanks for sharing your story. I'm so happy you decided to keep your $10k!!
Do you think that an LK stone will look better when it's dirty?

 

[Lula]

Why did I choose a super-ideal TIC over a 60-60 (which I used to own -- they were very common back in the 1970s and '80s)? Because I dislike table reflection and I like a balance of fire, white sparkle, and brightness. I remember my old 60-60 could not compete at all in the fire department with my grandmother's OEC (which was half the size).

So give me the smaller table and higher crown of a TIC, and the corresponding "balanced performance" anytime over the large table, flatter crown, and the white, bright look of a 60-60.

It's the difference between a symphony (TIC) and a solo (60-60), in my mind. Not that there's anything wrong with a solo...just not my preference.

And, RD, most people should not trust their eyes; their eyes have not been trained - how many threads have to be posted here about people buying the first piece of cra*p shown to them by a jeweler because they were caught up in the moment and didn't educate themselves until after the purchase?

 

[Fly Girl]

Flygirl- thanks for sharing your story. I'm so happy you decided to keep your $10k!!
Do you think that an LK stone will look better when it's dirty?

Yes, $10k was enough to make me pause and rethink things. The 60/60 had the huge advantage that I already owned it.

I'm positive that my very clean stone looks better than a dirty LK. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Agreed flygirl- I'm sticking to your story too

Lulu- to make a fair comparison we'd need to see the stats of the 60/60 you used to own. It's not only a 60% table and 60% depth that makes a really well cut 60/60 so nice.
In terms of what was common in the '70's and '80's- as a percentage, there were less really well cut stones if we compare the market to today's.
The fact a stone was from that period by no means assures that it was a 60/60- and even if we had the GIA report to look at, they had a lot less info back then-so CA/PA and lgf's won't be mentioned.
Part of the "problem" about the discussion of 60/60's is the introduction of anecdotal comments that are made without knowing what the person actually had. This is a frequent occurrence here on PS.

In terms of trusting one's eyes: why should we assume that the person in my anecdote had not looked at a lot of diamonds?
What if a person has looked at many different diamonds?
There's always good advice given here to look at as many diamonds as possible before purchasing. Of course I'd agree with that.
Buying the first diamond one sees could be a bad mistake- especially if there's no money back guarantee.
But at the end of the day, if one can't trust thier eyes, what should they trust?

 

[yssie]

Okay David I will give you the 'no green/blue/whatever' discussions and the like.

I just think there doesn't need to be any discussion at all - in fact, incessantly inform a child that there is nothing wrong with carrots and eventually he will start to wonder just how bad carrots really are, to need such defense! There is nothing wrong with a well cut tolk type, there is nothing wrong with a well cut 60/60 type, and I am of the firm opinion that people should learn how to - and how not to - use a tool before trying to interpret its yields or they do risk making fools of themselves.

My friend has an RB that could double as a colander. She thinks it's "a cool effect" to be able to see her skin through the table... perfect illustration of having bigger things to worry about than why a well cut stone of one make is better than another or perhaps, rather, of 'to each his own', goodness knows I tried to dissuade her when she bought it!

Maybe the problem is calling them 60/60s, afterall we don't refer to 56/61.5s.. maybe giving it a different name that doesn't highlight only two aspects to the exclusion of all else is the best way to shed any reputation..

 

[Lula]

Agreed flygirl- I'm sticking to your story too

Lulu- to make a fair comparison we'd need to see the stats of the 60/60 you used to own. It's not only a 60% table and 60% depth that makes a really well cut 60/60 so nice.
In terms of what was common in the '70's and '80's- as a percentage, there were less really well cut stones if we compare the market to today's.
The fact a stone was from that period by no means assures that it was a 60/60- and even if we had the GIA report to look at, they had a lot less info back then-so CA/PA and lgf's won't be mentioned.
Part of the "problem" about the discussion of 60/60's is the introduction of anecdotal comments that are made without knowing what the person actually had. This is a frequent occurrence here on PS.

In terms of trusting one's eyes: why should we assume that the person in my anecdote had not looked at a lot of diamonds?
What if a person has looked at many different diamonds?
There's always good advice given here to look at as many diamonds as possible before purchasing. Of course I'd agree with that.
Buying the first diamond one sees could be a bad mistake- especially if there's no money back guarantee.
But at the end of the day, if one can't trust thier eyes, what should they trust?

Just to clarify, I have no problem with someone trusting their own eyes after they've educated themselves. Buying jewelry, especially diamonds is an emotional experience. Many retailers take advantage of that. A little education helps a consumer make an educated choice, including, as you say, avoiding buying a diamond that does not come with a return policy. But too many times I've been in a jewelry store where a salesperson is comparing their own in-house brand, or a Leo, or a HOF, etc., to a poorly cut stone, and saying to the customer, see how much better the $$$ looks than this "traditionally cut" stone. Their eyes are being fooled perhaps by a less-than-honest sales pitch?

There are well-cut 60-60s. I refer over and over to this article by John Pollard:
https://www.pricescope.com/journal/laboratory_cut_grades_what_report_doesn’t_show
that shows examples of well-cut and poorly cut 60-60s (and Tolkowsky ideal cut stones). And guess what, the well-cut 60-60s have great looking IS images! Wow, there's an example of technology demonstrating a difference between two 60-60 cut stones (#4 and #5). I still don't like the large tables on either stone, but if these were the only two stones I had to choose from, I'd choose #4 over #5 in a heartbeat because of the better symmetry and the lack of "leakage" in the center of the stone. Now, if another person looked at the two stones, saw the IS images, knew what they meant, and still chose #5 over #4 because it appealed more to their eyes, I'd say "go for it; glad you've found something you liked." But they are buying the stone using their eyes and their diamond education.

You know, I think I've typed a variation of this same post 500 times in answer to one of your posts. I'm not seeing what is so hard about this concept. Educate yourself, compare stones using your eyes and technology, select one, be happy.

But to say that the technology recommended here (IS, ASET, HCA) is not an asset to consumers and is keeping consumers from buying certain "fine makes" is just hogwash. There are plenty of educated consumers on this forum who know all about IS and ASET and how to read the images (or get advice on them here) who have chosen less than perfect H&A stones and 60-60 stones simply because they liked the looks of them. They used the technology available, educated their eyes, and decided not to go with a super-ideal. It happens all the time here.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Okay David I will give you the 'no green/blue/whatever' discussions and the like.

I just think there doesn't need to be any discussion at all - in fact, incessantly inform a child that there is nothing wrong with carrots and eventually he will start to wonder just how bad carrots really are, to need such defense! There is nothing wrong with a well cut tolk type, there is nothing wrong with a well cut 60/60 type, and I am of the firm opinion that people should learn how to - and how not to - use a tool before trying to interpret its yields or they do risk making fools of themselves.

My friend has an RB that could double as a colander. She thinks it's "a cool effect" to be able to see her skin through the table... perfect illustration of having bigger things to worry about than why a well cut stone of one make is better than another or perhaps, rather, of 'to each his own', goodness knows I tried to dissuade her when she bought it!

Maybe the problem is calling them 60/60s, afterall we don't refer to 56/61.5s.. maybe giving it a different name that doesn't highlight only two aspects to the exclusion of all else is the best way to shed any reputation..

Yssie, i just checked and we are wrong - the correct mid point for a 56% table based on 60 60 being the trend setter is actually 56% 61.4%.
An error of 0.1% from you is totally unbecoming!

RockDiamond I am going to ask Andrey to close this thread (or move it) and if you wish to re-start it in the Research Forum, then I am happy to join you.

You can then point out anywhere at any time that I have bashed 60 60 in posts or in the tutorial.

 

[yssie]

Okay David I will give you the 'no green/blue/whatever' discussions and the like.

I just think there doesn't need to be any discussion at all - in fact, incessantly inform a child that there is nothing wrong with carrots and eventually he will start to wonder just how bad carrots really are, to need such defense! There is nothing wrong with a well cut tolk type, there is nothing wrong with a well cut 60/60 type, and I am of the firm opinion that people should learn how to - and how not to - use a tool before trying to interpret its yields or they do risk making fools of themselves.

My friend has an RB that could double as a colander. She thinks it's "a cool effect" to be able to see her skin through the table... perfect illustration of having bigger things to worry about than why a well cut stone of one make is better than another or perhaps, rather, of 'to each his own', goodness knows I tried to dissuade her when she bought it!

Maybe the problem is calling them 60/60s, afterall we don't refer to 56/61.5s.. maybe giving it a different name that doesn't highlight only two aspects to the exclusion of all else is the best way to shed any reputation..

Yssie, i just checked and we are wrong - the correct mid point for a 56% table based on 60 60 being the trend setter is actually 56% 61.4%.
An error of 0.1% from you is totally unbecoming!

RockDiamond I am going to ask Andrey to close this thread (or move it) and if you wish to re-start it in the Research Forum, then I am happy to join you.

You can then point out anywhere at any time that I have bashed 60 60 in posts or in the tutorial.

Ugh.

And that's my demotion slip!

 

[Rockdiamond]

Okay David I will give you the 'no green/blue/whatever' discussions and the like.

I just think there doesn't need to be any discussion at all - in fact, incessantly inform a child that there is nothing wrong with carrots and eventually he will start to wonder just how bad carrots really are, to need such defense! There is nothing wrong with a well cut tolk type, there is nothing wrong with a well cut 60/60 type, and I am of the firm opinion that people should learn how to - and how not to - use a tool before trying to interpret its yields or they do risk making fools of themselves.

My friend has an RB that could double as a colander. She thinks it's "a cool effect" to be able to see her skin through the table... perfect illustration of having bigger things to worry about than why a well cut stone of one make is better than another or perhaps, rather, of 'to each his own', goodness knows I tried to dissuade her when she bought it!

Maybe the problem is calling them 60/60s, afterall we don't refer to 56/61.5s.. maybe giving it a different name that doesn't highlight only two aspects to the exclusion of all else is the best way to shed any reputation..

Yssie- I agree- discussing this is very good. if Garry wants it moved, by all means move it.
But I am not one who believes the discussion should be stopped.
I wholeheartedly agree that it's true that simplifying this to 60/60 is a broad generalization that does not inform at all- kind of like saying older people in the trade can't comprehend different combinations in diamonds.
Or like the posts that say- I used to have a 60/60 and it sucked. Clearly it goes on here.

One of the reasons these discussions are so good is precisely that they can highlight the aspects of what makes different makes look different- and assist buyers in deciding what they like.
This as opposed to simplifying it to "green is bad in an aset"- which seems to be another commonly repeated myth.

Garry- you wrote the tutorial- I'm sorry if you don't like it being discussed- I have pointed out parts - such as the age-ist tone, and the distorted diacalc profile images that I feel take value out of the educational value of the tutorial.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Ugh.

And that's my demotion slip!

 

[CaprineSun]

Bumping!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Bumping!

Why the bump Twinkle?

 

[LGK]

I actually own a later-cut OEC (I'd guess late 20s probably) that's a 60/60. It looks like most well cut OECs- short LGFs, large open culet, and thus nice chunky faceting and a high crown... but with a larger, 60% table. And obviously the 60% depth. So it has nice spread for an old cut. And killer fire. It's hardly what most people would picture when a 60/60 is mentioned but it's a good example that only knowing the depth and table % tells you *nothing* about what a stone looks like. (Except that the table is 60%, obviously .)

ETA: Well, hello, ancient thread. Oh well, totally missed that this was oooooollllld, lol.

 

[CaprineSun]

Bumping!

Why the bump Twinkle?

The thread abut "gaming" mentioned 60/60. I was interested that some prefer it given the tutorial I had read here. I searched PS and found this thread. I found it to be interesting & wanted to learn more about the well-cut ones. Could have a different look that I might love.

I didn't think it was too old (i.e. yrs) so I bumped it. Did I do something wrong?

ETA: I'm a newbie when it comes to posting here. So if it's an issue, I can start my own thread. And I do apologize.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Did you understand that the tutorial is warning of blindly (pun intended) following that advice Twinkle?

At the same time this passage:

"GIA is the largest most prolific lab and there are 40 crown and pavilion angle combinations for 60% table sized diamonds that receive its top cut grade of Excellent (although Pricescope addicts would only recommend about 20 of these). AGS list 26 angle combinations that potentially should achieve AGS 0 or Ideal (compared with 32 for a 56% table size)."

- This indicates that there are many potentiall very nice proportion combinations within the depth and table combo of 60:60.

HCA was one of the first proportion grading systems that was kind to 60:60's.

 

[CaprineSun]

Did you understand that the tutorial is warning of blindly (pun intended) following that advice Twinkle?

At the same time this passage:

"GIA is the largest most prolific lab and there are 40 crown and pavilion angle combinations for 60% table sized diamonds that receive its top cut grade of Excellent (although Pricescope addicts would only recommend about 20 of these). AGS list 26 angle combinations that potentially should achieve AGS 0 or Ideal (compared with 32 for a 56% table size)."

- This indicates that there are many potentiall very nice proportion combinations within the depth and table combo of 60:60.

HCA was one of the first proportion grading systems that was kind to 60:60's.

Oh really? I didn't know the bolded. That's really good to know. I was worried because it about 1/2 would be rejected by PSers, which is a fairly large amount---- especially considering they are 'excellent" grade. So using the HCA tool can help me weed out the bad (or PS rejected) 60/60's I presume? That's great! Thanks Garry.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi twinkle,
From my perspective, the attributes which I personally love about a well cut 60/60 may not necessarily be those favored by HCA.
Is it possible for you to see the diamonds in person?

I have no reason to doubt Garry's statement that HCA was the first system that was "kind" to HCA- however, prior to HCA,the larger table, and (arguably) more even scintillation were favored by many "mavens"
Lazarre Kaplan made the "Ideal Cut" famous- and indeed, the smaller tables can be beautiful- but in the 70's and '80's, "ideal" was more of a "boutique" type of cut.
Many of the prestige sellers still prefer "non ideal" style EX cut stones- such as 60/60.

It's an interesting discussion.
For example- since I can select diamonds in person- should I use HCA, or trust what my eyes tell me?
There's good arguments on both sides.

 

[CaprineSun]

Hi twinkle,
From my perspective, the attributes which I personally love about a well cut 60/60 may not necessarily be those favored by HCA.
Is it possible for you to see the diamonds in person?

I have no reason to doubt Garry's statement that HCA was the first system that was "kind" to HCA- however, prior to HCA,the larger table, and (arguably) more even scintillation were favored by many "mavens"
Lazarre Kaplan made the "Ideal Cut" famous- and indeed, the smaller tables can be beautiful- but in the 70's and '80's, "ideal" was more of a "boutique" type of cut.
Many of the prestige sellers still prefer "non ideal" style EX cut stones- such as 60/60.

It's an interesting discussion.
For example- since I can select diamonds in person- should I use HCA, or trust what my eyes tell me?
There's good arguments on both sides.

Yes, this is my concern. I realized while looking on PS, I was more drawn to the stones with larger tables. They just seem to pull me in for some reason. I definitely want to look at the diamonds in person before choosing one. What I'm hoping to learn is how I can narrow down a selection of stones with the 60/60 that will have that look. Then go see them. I imagine it may be cumbersome (& expensive) to have jewelers ship multiple stones for me to see.

Do you (or anyone else who can help) by any chance know the stats needed for a 60/60 that is well cut to your personal liking? (as I am thinking it's likely similar to what I'm drawn to as well). What should I look for? What should I avoid?

 

[Dancing Fire]

Do you (or anyone else who can help) by any chance know the stats needed for a 60/60 that is well cut to your personal liking? (as I am thinking it's likely similar to what I'm drawn to as well). What should I look for? What should I avoid?

[/quote]
the flat top no crown height type of stone...