Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

60:60 vs Ideal MRB proportions – Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Can one cut fit all?

I know America is bigger than Britain but remember AGS and GIA have an A in them standing for America. These names are not known over here. GIA is more heard of now but I have never seen AGS mentioned in anything here. IGI is known, maybe they could promote David's Top Proportion new diamond cut. They could educate people and carry out scientific experiments on scintillation and color etc. It is all marketing.
Even Tiffany does not associate its diamonds with GIA now.

GIA Excellent
AGS Ideal
IGI? or maybe David could found a lab Top Proportion or probably just Proportion as they all use only one word notice. It is all in the scheme of things, marketed an promoted. One word only needed!!!
 
No, it needs another word that spells out the best as Proportion doesn't, that needs knowledge about proportion and cost benefits and Proportion suits both Ideal and lesser cut more spread and more scintillation diamonds. The word needs to be Top,

so Excellent, Ideal and Top (or another word Best maybe would do)!
 
If Crafted By Infinity sold their beautiful diamonds with HRD lab certificates which is the lab in Antwerp, although don't know if they focus much on cut and they would not sell the same in America with that label I suppose. Well then their diamonds would not be AGS ideal reports but would be some other name.

So the lab owns the name, Ideal cut has been around a while the name in use by AGS and GIA use Excellent. Notice they are the same in a way. GIA triple excellent or XXX and AGS000, both use the three aspect after their name.
 
Thing is though ideal best cut diamonds are great and lesser cut too as someone wrote this week there is a buyer for them all. All Smoke Screens and Mirrors.
 
I can't seem to edit, but wanted to put this here.

I remember someone on here think it was Bagpuss who doesn't post now, years ago, had a 2 carat Old English Brilliant which is different from OEC. I remember Oldminer advised her a bit on them. They were cut in the early part of the century and were said to be a fine make, my words can't remember what he said, they took a lot of time to cut and fashion and therefore were expensive and not too many people bought then or could afford them and they died out as lesser cuts were seen as more profit and more economical. So if the Ideal Cut here is taking over from other diamond cuts does this mean that we are all richer or have hypnotised or been guided towards them and drawn to them because we are greedy for the best or easily led.

Maybe ideal cuts are giving us a bit of the elite diamonds but mixed in with lower priced diamonds. People cannot all afford ideal cut high color and clarity but they have resurrected the ideal cut from back in the days of the Old English Brilliant.
 
Ideal cut masks color so it has been found. That is why Ideal Cut is promoted. The minus side is that it takes sales away from all other cuts. So a lesser cut will give you a higher color for the same money maybe and more spread, oh and not forgetting scintillation. We consumers are only learning this scintillation bit now You won't need ideal cut as you don't need to mask ANYTHING. Promote that title.
 
Seriously though (tongue in cheek) we need to see those videos now and cut wars begin with the experts here:
 
Last post. I remember for a while we were told that ideal cut would mask feathers and inclusions more, that is never mentioned now, only that it masks color.

Maybe the reason for that is that they talk now about inclusions scattering light. I remember being told a SI1 diamond did not affect the light return even under magnification. There has been a change of believe in that one too.

So it is all evolving there is no ideal cut it is a work in progress all of it and marketing used for sales.
 
Ideal cuts (not superideal cuts) I found as long as they are Excellent label in GIA cut grading, do not demand that much of a premium over GIA X that are not recognised as ideal.

a relatively equal clarity, colour and carat sized 34.5/40.8 I have found to be pretty equal in price to a 36/41.2. Bumping up in colour/clarity seems to have a much more significant effect on price.

Superideals demand a premium. None superideal, ideal cuts, nowhere near as much.
 
What about the finishing and minor facets too. Remember Brian Gavin when at
Whiteflash had two different ideal cuts and some preferred one and others the other one. That was to do with indexing I believe.
Yet cut is about advancement and interesting to those who understand it like Garry but is it just about light, light return, different looks etc and not to do with the perfect diamond but to do with different perfects. Look at the Super models, new ones appear with different looks, even AGS changed its parameters. Over the centuries we have had different looks which it has been said was to achieve better sparkle, the brilliant cut was supposed to be their 'ideal' then. That has all changed with hearts and arrows. Maybe just stopping points along the way. GIA and AGS are trying to narrow it down but OEC cuts and round brilliants all were different. Is ideal cut just cookie cutter cut?

When you spend a lot of time as a consumer like me thinking about it as I have done just now, it is a huge subject. Ideal cuts do look great but a well cut diamond of other makes looks great, they are all above some of those out there but maybe they have other traits too such as poor clarity or color so they were not cut better, the cutter did not know about ideal cut improving color or the rough is not worth putting that effort into. A HUGE SUBJECT. Bound to have different points of view, so why should an Ideal Cut diamond only have one set of measurements.
 
If you can pack scintillation into the ideal cut you can't pack spread so there can't be one cut for all. Does spread not count for an ideal cut is it not relevant. Do we just need to buy bigger ideal cut so spend more money maybe.
 
The four Cs all cost more money as you go up them, maybe that is why it is carat weight and not size that is a C. Does size not come into it, i.e. spread. Did GIA leave it out on purpose when naming the C's or is it just a way to maximise in the same way combining high Cut and low color is. Therefore it is not an ideal as high Cut is. Is GIA excellent cut another way of keeping those 4 Cs at the top and not letting people get larger diamonds unless they pay more for them. Or should we get high cut and high carat weight therefore size by using more money and lesser money gives lesser Cut. Is it all a sliding scale and can only be bent for lesser priced goods. Lesser cut gives more spread but less sparkle?? Off the peg dress is not couture.

Why could the fourth C not have been size instead of Carat weight, size can be measured but width would be different from length whereas as carat weight comes in all shapes and sizes but can weigh the same. Garry may know but is there something in the cubic system which makes it better to have diamond cut as a unit so it cannot change in the same way weight cannot. In the same line as stockpiling or as convincingly more beautiful. Is spread just something we can use to check if we got what we paid for or to get us more than we paid for, a shallower diamond and a bigger look. Does GIA not want to entertain spread above Cut and Clarity combined? Are those two stuck together. Are all the C's stuck together the ideal diamond, D, FL, Excellent Cut, 7 carat! Is it GIA or DeBeers or some other parent boss person over the diamond world, keeping spread out of the equation for beauty or what?
 
Last edited:
Kewl discussion. Pls keep in mind hey I'm not promoting "my" cut. Or any cut.
I'm not trying to sell more 60:60's ( which I only learned about as a youngster- I had no part whatsoever inventing it)
What I am promoting is a more balanced discussion about cut.
 
Last edited:
Think I have convinced myself. I am certainly not qualified to convince anyone else. Just a lowly diamond lover. I think it is contrived by someone at the top to keep Cut as a unit, maybe not the right word, in the same way Carat weight is not a measurement in millimetres. You can measure a diamond in millimetres but the Cut is being contrived to certain Super Ideal measurements so that carat weight is linear as the diamond gets more expensive (and not shallower and more spread). This lesser spreadier cut is therefore seen by them or put out there by them or education as a lesser cut. IS IT THOUGH? If taken separately they are different but together Carat weight as a quality specific cannot be detached from cut. There can be lesser in each but together they are the same, a unit. A cookie cutter best cut does not get affected by carat weight unless in one direction which is more money and a larger diamond. Spread can only make it shallower and so less carat weight so not allowed by GIA or some other lord.

Ha ha maybe I am talking a load of rubbish. Leave it all from now on to the real experts.
 
Last edited:
I feel we should have more than one "flavor".

I looked at some cushions at Bluenile. Without much thinking, I selected their signature ideal as a cut filter. The results were all H&A cushions. My instant reaction was "no no no" - I already have a H&A round, I don't want the same look with my cushions. I do understand that some may want that and that's totally fine. I probably would too if it were to be my only diamond. But it would indeed be sad if all the cushions were H&A. I know there are AVC etc. to add variety, but people do buy even rose cuts, so it's not just cut cut cut for everyone.

That said I greatly appreciate and enjoy the cut of the superideal rounds - the exact alignment of the arrows, the 3D look of it, the beautiful even white light return.
 
Round cuts bring in the most sales so topic has more concentration around them as more people buying them.
 
To me this topic needs to encompass all shapes.
60/60 ( in this context) represents to me a concept of how to assess cut differently. Any cut.
 
gm89uk said:
Ideal cuts (not superideal cuts) I found as long as they are Excellent label in GIA cut grading, do not demand that much of a premium over GIA X that are not recognised as ideal.

a relatively equal clarity, colour and carat sized 34.5/40.8 I have found to be pretty equal in price to a 36/41.2. Bumping up in colour/clarity seems to have a much more significant effect on price.

Superideals demand a premium. None superideal, ideal cuts, nowhere near as much.
Click to expand...
Let me just say that I very much respect your diligence, and dedication to educate yourself on this complex subject gm89uk. I'll admit that I have not spent the time to correlate all the PA/CA combinations- because the way I buy diamonds, it's not necessary.
Without a doubt, you could indeed pick winners and losers using your knowledge.
 
gm89uk said:
Ideal cuts (not superideal cuts) I found as long as they are Excellent label in GIA cut grading, do not demand that much of a premium over GIA X that are not recognised as ideal.

a relatively equal clarity, colour and carat sized 34.5/40.8 I have found to be pretty equal in price to a 36/41.2. Bumping up in colour/clarity seems to have a much more significant effect on price.

Superideals demand a premium. None superideal, ideal cuts, nowhere near as much.
Click to expand...
This is an excellent observation and an important aspect of the value that newcomers get by coming to pricescope. The GIA EX category is very broad with some truly excellent performers and many not so good ones. The trade tends not to slice and dice the category very much in terms of price. That is, as long as the diamond has the top cut grade, prices generally tend to be based largely on the other 3 Cs. That leaves the opportunity for savvy shoppers to learn the information and tools that enable them to cherry pick the best performers and maximize the value to their purchase. Forum members provide the education and advice that can result in significant added value for shoppers who find their way here.
 
Hey all, I bin busy on the road. But just one small observation - the term "ideal" when applied to diamond cut is sort of owned by AGS.
Since AGS accept many cut proportions that include 60:60 and even further afield, we should be referring to Pricescope Prosumer Ideal. Even HCA likes good crown and pavilion combination larger table stones.
 
Rockdiamond said:
Karl- I never said conspiracy.
I do feel that when I first started here, years ago, I created a stir- that people on the other side of this discussion did not like.
Have a look at the 60/60 tutorial here on PS- it's basically a heavy handed response to my presence, many years back.
Click to expand...
Hi David,
A point of history.
The 60:60 tutorial was here and written by me many years before you surfaced.
At your insistence it was 'softened' a little. But has always been there to point out to cinsumers that depth and table size is no way to select a well cut diamond (nor is it by itself a good way to reject).
Check in the wayback machine if you doubt me. My best guess is I wrote the first 60:60 in 1999-2001.
 
Hi Garry,
S'up mate?
On the first point...
I believe LK had the name, Ideal Cut trademarked first.
Does anyone know if the term is "protected" by AGS (or anyone) now?

To the second- here's the Wayback page for the tutorial- I never used that site till this evening- interesting.....but unless I'm reading it wrong, inconclusive. Not that I question your memory, so maybe it was that tutorial that drew me to the forum somehow.....
https://web.archive.org/web/2004070....com/wiki/diamonds/60-60-proportioned-diamond

We're in total agreement that the table depth numbers are meaningless unto themselves.
( I've still never seen a stone cut like the extreme examples posted on the 60/60 page, but whatever)
 
flyingpig said:
60/60 is not really ignored. There are seasoned PSers who buy 60/60s. Some reputable vendors offer well cut 60/60s at a great price with flexible upgrade policy. But people just don't recommend it over TIC, just like I don't recommend 35.5/40.6. This is because TIC (57/34.5/40.7) is perceived as the best by many. It is like when you go to a watch forum, many recommend Rolex. I love and own Omega, but I tell people to buy Rolex. It is just more logical advice when all things are considered.
60/60 is a very broad category. I will gladly take balanced 60/60/34/40.6, but not bottom heavy and flat 60/60/32.5/41.2, and there are really bad cut 60/60s
Click to expand...

I pulled up my specs and was happy to find that my angles were 34/40.6... I don't consider my diamond to be a "flat top" but I could be wrong?? Either way, I LOVE the super bright white flashes my 60/60 emits... but honestly, the spread is the best part! LOL
Diamond Specs.jpg
 
msop04 said:
I pulled up my specs and was happy to find that my angles were 34/40.6... I don't consider my diamond to be a "flat top" but I could be wrong?? Either way, I LOVE the super bright white flashes my 60/60 emits... but honestly, the spread is the best part! LOL
Diamond Specs.jpg
Click to expand...
Yeap. When I said balanced 60/60/34/40.6 and "seasoned PSers", I had this particular stone and msop04 in mind. lovely proportions and serious spread.:love:
 
flyingpig said:
Yeap. When I said balanced 60/60/34/40.6 and "seasoned PSers", I had this particular stone and msop04 in mind. lovely proportions and serious spread.:love:
Click to expand...

Thank you @flyingpig! That means a lot to me!
 
Some older members of the diamond industry share a strange fallacy that if a diamond has proportions of 60% depth and 60% table, then it will be beautiful. It’s a great idea, but it does not always work.

These two extreme examples have bad proportion combinations. Both are 60:60, both are ugly diamonds.
Above are the first two paragraphs of the infamous 60/60 page.

This got me to thinking....
First of all, the "older members" of the diamond industry that taught me how to grade diamonds, at Harry Winston absolutely understood make.
The school at Winston that taught diamond grading was there for the purpose of having us be able to fill orders. At the time Winston was the largest loose diamond seller in America. In addition to cutting stones for the Salon on Fifth Avenue, we also would fill wholesale orders for companies like JC Penny.
We were taught to grade make along with color/clarity.
So, when I first learned of IS/ASET,etc, I was beyond skeptical- I mean, the point of the cut is that it's got to appeal to the human eye.
Unlike clarity, the grades of which are based on microscopic differences, make ( cut) was something we'd been taught to inspect with a loupe- but judge by eye. In fact, making sure stones were matched for cut could ONLY be done by eye.
Until this day, that's is the only sure way.

So maybe an integral part of this discussion is "how does one grade cut in diamonds?"

Also- the concept that table depth are not nearly enough to grade cut is agreed upon by all.
So why not use 57/62 as the proportions that don;t tell the whole story- why pick on 60/60?


 
Rockdiamond said:
Hi Garry,
S'up mate?
On the first point...
I believe LK had the name, Ideal Cut trademarked first.
Does anyone know if the term is "protected" by AGS (or anyone) now?

To the second- here's the Wayback page for the tutorial- I never used that site till this evening- interesting.....but unless I'm reading it wrong, inconclusive. Not that I question your memory, so maybe it was that tutorial that drew me to the forum somehow.....
https://web.archive.org/web/2004070....com/wiki/diamonds/60-60-proportioned-diamond

We're in total agreement that the table depth numbers are meaningless unto themselves.
( I've still never seen a stone cut like the extreme examples posted on the 60/60 page, but whatever)
Click to expand...
This is from 2001. Not as accurate as I would do today, but David, it was not aimed at you, just all them other dinosaurs ;-)
upload_2017-7-22_8-40-3.png
 
Amazing find!!
Well, then I need to be grateful for the page as it ultimately drew us together
 
Just read through this thread and tried to get my brain round it - thanks for all who are contributing, I like an interesting, civilised discussion :)

I was just wondering - if 60/60 gives more spread (within reason, ref: Garry's post above) but less fire, is it simply the case that the cut needs to be modified to give larger/shorter/fatter pavilion mains? which would increase dispersion and help balance any reduction in fire from the 60/60 proportions?

I may well have got hold of the wrong end of the stick (it's late in the day and my caffeine intake is wearing off... lol) so apologies if that is the case :)
 
OoohShiny said:
Just read through this thread and tried to get my brain round it - thanks for all who are contributing, I like an interesting, civilised discussion :)

I was just wondering - if 60/60 gives more spread (within reason, ref: Garry's post above) but less fire, is it simply the case that the cut needs to be modified to give larger/shorter/fatter pavilion mains? which would increase dispersion and help balance any reduction in fire from the 60/60 proportions?

I may well have got hold of the wrong end of the stick (it's late in the day and my caffeine intake is wearing off... lol) so apologies if that is the case :)
Click to expand...

Great post shiny

Personal question......if I may.....have you seen fire in a diamond? If so, can you please describe your experience?
I ask because the point about actual facet size seems to get buried.
Plus, what we're speaking of is balance.
So if one does not have personal experience with fire, it could be easily given too much preference in the balance.
Put another way, the 60/60 80LGF "scintillatioin" stone might have less fire....but
1) what if fire is not the primary goal?
2) what if the additional spead and scintillation are more attractive as properties, as compared to fire.
Who says fire is better than scintillation and spread?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top