Are there any photos documenting the negative aspects of a "Steep Deep"

[YoungPapa]

I checked around a bit today and found this photograph of a GIA "excellent" with some darkness under the table. It''s a 35/41.4 combo. I believe the darkness could easily be discerned in real life (especially when you tilt the diamond), but it''s surely not a "D" student.

I sell very few D-IF diamonds each year, so I assume that most people compromise a bit when they shop. They drop their "D" to "F" or "IF" to "VVS1". We know that for all practical purposes they actually soften their requirements far more. They do these things to save money, get a larger diamond, better cut etc. I don''t see any problem compromising a little bit on cut(like in this GIA steep/deep I''ve posted below) if it allows the customer to get something else that is equally important. It''s just a question of how do you define little, which is what I think is the point of the thread.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 11/11/2009 1:20:53 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 11/11/2009 12:19:13 PM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 11/10/2009 3:57:57 PM
Author: Rockdiamond


To again point out the obvious- there ARE a lot of badly cut diamonds out there.
I do not feel it''s accurate to categorize diamonds graded ''EX'' cut grade by GIA as badly cut.....even if a group of folks here dislikes their angles.

David, I don''t really think anyone HAS said GIA EX stones are ''badly cut''.

Hi Allison, please have a look here. This sort of thing is by no means uncommon on PS

David, I did read that thread, and I maintain that no one has said GIA EX diamonds are "badly cut", which is what you asserted above.

Date: 11/11/2009 1:20:53 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

A consumer who is looking at actual diamodns being told GIA''s EX cut grade ''is too liberal''- by other consumers who have not seen the stone, but using knowledge gained here. Kind of like the blind leading the blind.

David, whether or not something is ''too liberal'' or not depends on the values held by the person offering the opinion. At my university, only students with a 3.8 GPA or above are considered "the best" students. At your university, only students with a 3.5 GPA or above are considered "the best" students.

Both groups of "the best" students outperform most other students, but your range of ''best'' is broader than mine and I''d consider yours too liberal by my standards.

Similarly speaking, many participants on Pricescope value the narrow criteria required to earn an AGS0 cut grade, and stones that don''t fit that criteria may not qualify in their minds as ''the best'' cut. Good, yes; above average, yes. Best possible available? Maybe not.

Further, one doensn''t have to ''see the stone'' to make a cogent observation about the cut criteria for GIA''s EX grade; it''s a statement about the grading criteria, not the individual stone.

Lastly, it''s worth again noting that Pricescope is a consumer education site. That means readers should understand it''s predominantly populated by *consumers* sharing opinions. Those whose values don''t align with the values most commonly held here can certainly seek counsel from other groups whose values may better align with theirs.

 

[YoungPapa]

Date: 11/11/2009 1:52:45 PM
Author: Stone-cold11
David, try explaining this then. Prime example of steep deep.


http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/H-VS2-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1190758.asp


GIA Ex Cut grade,


T 58%, CA 36, PA 41.2. Dark under the table, similar to what James posted above.

Good catch, Stone. I added that to the comparison. It''s the 4th diamond. As much as I preach to my staff how important pavilion angle is for light return, the steeper crowns are what seem to be causing more of the darkness in the table than the steeper pavilions.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Good find Stone- the link you posted does show a photo of a stone that has a noticeable dark center.
I would never comment on another vendors diamond directly, but for the purposes of this conversation, the photo you linked to does look undesirable, IMO.
It could also be a bad photo, after all there''s only one, ad no video.
The stone might not actually look that way.
It''s important to point out that no matter how good GIA is, they will also make mistakes from time to time.

Kenny- and Jon- all due respect but I do not feel the video Kenny linked to shows "problems" with the stone on the left.
That is not to defend the cut of the stone.
If Jon dislikes it, I''d place a lot of weight on his opinion- but to my eye, the video does not document an obvious problem.


Lorelei,
You''re such a sweetheart.
As has been discussed more frequently here lately, the subject of taste comes into play.
Also discussed how we treat each other, as forum participants.
I feel bad about questioning advice you , and others , are giving out of a strong desire to help others.
My education in diamonds took an entirely different course from someone like John Pollard.
That means I bring something different to the table
So, even though it''s difficult to disagree with such a nice person as you- I feel it''s important in the quest to bring a more rounded viewpoint into these conversations.
Again, sorry if it ever seemed like I was questioning your motives- as I know for sure they are pure.

 

[coda72]

And here we go again ad infinitum.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/11/2009 2:15:23 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Good find Stone- the link you posted does show a photo of a stone that has a noticeable dark center.
I would never comment on another vendors diamond directly, but for the purposes of this conversation, the photo you linked to does look undesirable, IMO.
It could also be a bad photo, after all there''s only one, ad no video.
The stone might not actually look that way.
It''s important to point out that no matter how good GIA is, they will also make mistakes from time to time.

Kenny- and Jon- all due respect but I do not feel the video Kenny linked to shows ''problems'' with the stone on the left.
That is not to defend the cut of the stone.
If Jon dislikes it, I''d place a lot of weight on his opinion- but to my eye, the video does not document an obvious problem.


Lorelei,
You''re such a sweetheart.
As has been discussed more frequently here lately, the subject of taste comes into play.
Also discussed how we treat each other, as forum participants.
I feel bad about questioning advice you , and others , are giving out of a strong desire to help others.
My education in diamonds took an entirely different course from someone like John Pollard.
That means I bring something different to the table
So, even though it''s difficult to disagree with such a nice person as you- I feel it''s important in the quest to bring a more rounded viewpoint into these conversations.
Again, sorry if it ever seemed like I was questioning your motives- as I know for sure they are pure.

David, thank you! Like I said I do understand where you are coming from and it is good to bring this stuff up to make sure we are truly helping and it helps me think about what I am doing too. I suppose for me with steep deeps I tend to err on the side of caution having seen the effects for myself with some diamonds.

 

[FB.]

Date: 11/11/2009 1:52:45 PM
Author: Stone-cold11
David, try explaining this then. Prime example of steep deep.

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/H-VS2-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1190758.asp

GIA Ex Cut grade,

T 58%, CA 36, PA 41.2. Dark under the table, similar to what James posted above.

Curiously, if I wasn't aware of the steep/deep issue and the stigma attached to it, I might find the very white star facets (contrasted by a dark table) to be quite attractive - in their own unique way.
Maybe that's what people in the GIA study saw and liked.
But did the GIA study reveal all the the raw data?

Did something like the following happen:

40% liked Tolkowsky stones
20% liked steep deep stones
20% liked brilliant ideal stones
20% liked fiery ideal stones

So, therefore, "steep deep" might have had to be included - and the cutters saw their opportunity - so instead of cutting 20% of stones to steep/deep, they cut 80% of them that way, to retain weight and the market became flooded with an excess supply of steep/deep.

I have highlighted the interesting patterning that is kind of appealing, on JA's picture:

 

[stone-cold11]

And this is the 60/60, GIA ex cut grade.

T 60, CA 33.0, PA 41.8. Much much worse.

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/D-SI1-Premium-Cut-Round-Diamond-1260510.asp

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 11/11/2009 2:20:09 PM
Author: FB.

Curiously, if I wasn''t aware of the steep/deep issue and the stigma attached to it, I might find the very white star facets (contrasted by a dark table) to be quite attractive - in their own unique way.

Maybe that''s what people in the GIA study saw and liked.

But did the GIA study reveal all the the raw data?

Did something like the following happen:

40% liked Tolkowsky stones

20% liked steep deep stones

20% liked brilliant ideal stones

20% liked fiery ideal stones

So, therefore, ''steep deep'' might have had to be included - and the cutters saw their opportunity - so instead of cutting 20% of stones to steep/deep, they cut 80% of them that way, to retain weight and the market became flooded with an excess supply of steep/deep.

I have highlighted the interesting patterning that is kind of appealing, on JA''s picture:

have you read this?

http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/37/1/GIA-Excellent-Cut-Grade-Case-Study.aspx

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/11/2009 2:20:09 PM
Author: FB.

Date: 11/11/2009 1:52:45 PM

Author: Stone-cold11

David, try explaining this then. Prime example of steep deep.


http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/H-VS2-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1190758.asp


GIA Ex Cut grade,


T 58%, CA 36, PA 41.2. Dark under the table, similar to what James posted above.

Curiously, if I wasn''t aware of the steep/deep issue and the stigma attached to it, I might find the very white star facets (contrasted by a dark table) to be quite attractive - in their own unique way.

Maybe that''s what people in the GIA study saw and liked.

But did the GIA study reveal all the the raw data?


Did something like the following happen:


40% liked Tolkowsky stones

20% liked steep deep stones

20% liked brilliant ideal stones

20% liked fiery ideal stones


So, therefore, ''steep deep'' might have had to be included - and the cutters saw their opportunity - so instead of cutting 20% of stones to steep/deep, they cut 80% of them that way, to retain weight and the market became flooded with an excess supply of steep/deep.


I have highlighted the interesting patterning that is kind of appealing, on JA''s picture:

The main reason GIA included steep deeps in the Ex grade is they used a copy of a dealers desk lighting set up in the Diamond Dock lighting box that they used for surveying. Trouble is everyone, dealers included, do not use the color / clarity grading environment to check cut (well, one might) because it does not work - the light is too strong. If you did you would conclude that a princess cut was brighter than a well cut round. It is why I also believe GIA have gone very quiet on grading fancy shape cuts - because it would herald their error in the round system.

The photo shows some CZ''s and how when the DD lights are on the princess looks brighter than the rounds.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 11/11/2009 2:20:09 PM
Author: FB.

Date: 11/11/2009 1:52:45 PM
Author: Stone-cold11
David, try explaining this then. Prime example of steep deep.

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/H-VS2-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1190758.asp

GIA Ex Cut grade,

T 58%, CA 36, PA 41.2. Dark under the table, similar to what James posted above.

Curiously, if I wasn''t aware of the steep/deep issue and the stigma attached to it, I might find the very white star facets (contrasted by a dark table) to be quite attractive - in their own unique way.
Maybe that''s what people in the GIA study saw and liked.
But did the GIA study reveal all the the raw data?

Did something like the following happen:

40% liked Tolkowsky stones
20% liked steep deep stones
20% liked brilliant ideal stones
20% liked fiery ideal stones

So, therefore, ''steep deep'' might have had to be included - and the cutters saw their opportunity - so instead of cutting 20% of stones to steep/deep, they cut 80% of them that way, to retain weight and the market became flooded with an excess supply of steep/deep.

I have highlighted the interesting patterning that is kind of appealing, on JA''s picture:

Great supposition fb!

What I''ve noticed is a strong trend toward cutting stones that look "Ideal"- which certainly leads to more higher crown ( deeper) stones. Smaller tables frequently cause more depth in stones.
As a lover of "spready" 60/60 stones, this means it''s very hard to find such stones anymore.

Having a lot of diamond cutter friends that I respect and like, I''m more of the opinion that they are cutting this way because it''s popular now. Many of the cutters I deal with are just as concerned as you or I about make, and strive to produce a gorgeous finished product.
But your assumption that they are going for increased profits could seem to make sense as well.


Jim- Thanks for the great photos!

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 11/11/2009 2:29:49 PM
Author: Stone-cold11
And this is the 60/60, GIA ex cut grade.

T 60, CA 33.0, PA 41.8. Much much worse.

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/D-SI1-Premium-Cut-Round-Diamond-1260510.asp

OK, call me crazy, bit I LOVE the photo of that diamond,
No problem I can see there.
It''s a 1.02mm spreading 6.56mm!

If we showed this, and an "Ideal" cut ( near tolk not considered by PS to be "steep deep"), what you''re calling "much worse" would be selected by a large percentage of people given the choice in person.

Yet, many people ( consumers) posting here will knock such a stone for reasons I don''t feel are valid

 

[stone-cold11]

So at least now we finally nailed down what is your preference. But if you take it further down, reducing the pavilion depth to maybe 41.2 degrees, it will be a near tolk, it will probably shave off 1-2 points of the diamond, no time to do the calculation here, maybe even dropping below 1 carat mark, better value for the consumer, right?

 

[coda72]

Date: 11/11/2009 2:42:34 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 11/11/2009 2:29:49 PM
Author: Stone-cold11
And this is the 60/60, GIA ex cut grade.

T 60, CA 33.0, PA 41.8. Much much worse.

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/D-SI1-Premium-Cut-Round-Diamond-1260510.asp

OK, call me crazy, bit I LOVE the photo of that diamond,
No problem I can see there.
It''s a 1.02mm spreading 6.56mm!

If we showed this, and an ''Ideal'' cut ( near tolk not considered by PS to be ''steep deep''), what you''re calling ''much worse'' would be selected by a large percentage of people given the choice in person.

Yet, many people ( consumers) posting here will knock such a stone for reasons I don''t feel are valid

How do you know this is the case? Have you done such an experiment yourself? Again, you are stating what is merely your opinion, but our opinions are not as valid as yours because you sell diamonds and we do not. (At least that is what I gather from you every time you post.)

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 11/11/2009 2:11:31 PM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 11/11/2009 1:20:53 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 11/11/2009 12:19:13 PM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 11/10/2009 3:57:57 PM
Author: Rockdiamond


To again point out the obvious- there ARE a lot of badly cut diamonds out there.
I do not feel it's accurate to categorize diamonds graded 'EX' cut grade by GIA as badly cut.....even if a group of folks here dislikes their angles.

David, I don't really think anyone HAS said GIA EX stones are 'badly cut'.

Hi Allison, please have a look here. This sort of thing is by no means uncommon on PS

David, I did read that thread, and I maintain that no one has said GIA EX diamonds are 'badly cut', which is what you asserted above.

Date: 11/11/2009 1:20:53 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

A consumer who is looking at actual diamodns being told GIA's EX cut grade 'is too liberal'- by other consumers who have not seen the stone, but using knowledge gained here. Kind of like the blind leading the blind.

David, whether or not something is 'too liberal' or not depends on the values held by the person offering the opinion. At my university, only students with a 3.8 GPA or above are considered 'the best' students. At your university, only students with a 3.5 GPA or above are considered 'the best' students.
Allison- this is, again, using a numerical system to say what one person likes better is somehow superior to what another loves better. How about changing this analogy to say we both have 3.8 GPA's but from different schools? You may feel Yale is a "better" 3.8, I like Harvard.

Both groups of 'the best' students outperform most other students, but your range of 'best' is broader than mine and I'd consider yours too liberal by my standards.

Similarly speaking, many participants on Pricescope value the narrow criteria required to earn an AGS0 cut grade, and stones that don't fit that criteria may not qualify in their minds as 'the best' cut. Good, yes; above average, yes. Best possible available? Maybe not.

Further, one doensn't have to 'see the stone' to make a cogent observation about the cut criteria for GIA's EX grade; it's a statement about the grading criteria, not the individual stone.
Here we simply disagree. It's necessary to evaluate each and every stone in person to really get an accurate idea of if it pleases our eyes. If a statement critical of GIA's grading criteria is used to knock a stone, there should be visual proof.

Lastly, it's worth again noting that Pricescope is a consumer education site. That means readers should understand it's predominantly populated by *consumers* sharing opinions. Those whose values don't align with the values most commonly held here can certainly seek counsel from other groups whose values may better align with theirs.

It's also worth noting that the powers that be here also allow professionals to add input.
It kind of sounds like you are inviting people with different viewpoints to go elsewhere to discuss them. Maybe I read that wrong,but I feel that allowing tradespeople to discuss these issues enriches the conversation for the same consumers you're talking about.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/11/2009 2:42:34 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 11/11/2009 2:29:49 PM

Author: Stone-cold11

And this is the 60/60, GIA ex cut grade.


T 60, CA 33.0, PA 41.8. Much much worse.


http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/D-SI1-Premium-Cut-Round-Diamond-1260510.asp

OK, call me crazy, bit I LOVE the photo of that diamond,

No problem I can see there.

It''s a 1.02mm spreading 6.56mm!


If we showed this, and an ''Ideal'' cut ( near tolk not considered by PS to be ''steep deep''), what you''re calling ''much worse'' would be selected by a large percentage of people given the choice in person.


Yet, many people ( consumers) posting here will knock such a stone for reasons I don''t feel are valid

This stone will appear smaller than well cut diamonds of weights in the mid .90''s and will have reduced fire.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 11/11/2009 2:56:59 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 11/11/2009 2:42:34 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 11/11/2009 2:29:49 PM

Author: Stone-cold11

And this is the 60/60, GIA ex cut grade.


T 60, CA 33.0, PA 41.8. Much much worse.


http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/D-SI1-Premium-Cut-Round-Diamond-1260510.asp

OK, call me crazy, bit I LOVE the photo of that diamond,

No problem I can see there.

It''s a 1.02mm spreading 6.56mm!


If we showed this, and an ''Ideal'' cut ( near tolk not considered by PS to be ''steep deep''), what you''re calling ''much worse'' would be selected by a large percentage of people given the choice in person.


Yet, many people ( consumers) posting here will knock such a stone for reasons I don''t feel are valid

This stone will appear smaller than well cut diamonds of weights in the mid .90''s and will have reduced fire.

Have you seen a lot of .90s spreading 6.5mm Garry?
This stone wil NOT appear as a .90ct.

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 11/11/2009 2:59:22 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 11/11/2009 2:56:59 PM

Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

This stone will appear smaller than well cut diamonds of weights in the mid .90''s and will have reduced fire.

Have you seen a lot of .90s spreading 6.5mm Garry?

This stone wil NOT appear as a .90ct.

He said mid 0.90''s. Basically a TIC of the same table and crown but a shallower pavilion will only weight in that much is what Garry is saying.

 

[Laila619]

Date: 11/11/2009 2:29:49 PM
Author: Stone-cold11
And this is the 60/60, GIA ex cut grade.

T 60, CA 33.0, PA 41.8. Much much worse.

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/D-SI1-Premium-Cut-Round-Diamond-1260510.asp

Eeeeek!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/11/2009 2:59:22 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 11/11/2009 2:56:59 PM

Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 11/11/2009 2:42:34 PM

Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 11/11/2009 2:29:49 PM


Author: Stone-cold11


And this is the 60/60, GIA ex cut grade.



T 60, CA 33.0, PA 41.8. Much much worse.



http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/D-SI1-Premium-Cut-Round-Diamond-1260510.asp

OK, call me crazy, bit I LOVE the photo of that diamond,


No problem I can see there.


It's a 1.02mm spreading 6.56mm!



If we showed this, and an 'Ideal' cut ( near tolk not considered by PS to be 'steep deep'), what you're calling 'much worse' would be selected by a large percentage of people given the choice in person.



Yet, many people ( consumers) posting here will knock such a stone for reasons I don't feel are valid

This stone will appear smaller than well cut diamonds of weights in the mid .90's and will have reduced fire.

Have you seen a lot of .90s spreading 6.5mm Garry?

This stone wil NOT appear as a .90ct.

At this Poll David 5% of people voted for a very similar looking diamond.
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/beauty-and-choice.128518/

 

[coda72]

Thank you, Garry, for real evidence of what people''s preferences are. David has yet to respond to my question, and I doubt if he''ll bother.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 11/11/2009 2:51:11 PM
Author: coda72

Date: 11/11/2009 2:42:34 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 11/11/2009 2:29:49 PM
Author: Stone-cold11
And this is the 60/60, GIA ex cut grade.

T 60, CA 33.0, PA 41.8. Much much worse.

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/D-SI1-Premium-Cut-Round-Diamond-1260510.asp

OK, call me crazy, bit I LOVE the photo of that diamond,
No problem I can see there.
It''s a 1.02mm spreading 6.56mm!

If we showed this, and an ''Ideal'' cut ( near tolk not considered by PS to be ''steep deep''), what you''re calling ''much worse'' would be selected by a large percentage of people given the choice in person.

Yet, many people ( consumers) posting here will knock such a stone for reasons I don''t feel are valid

How do you know this is the case? Have you done such an experiment yourself? Again, you are stating what is merely your opinion, but our opinions are not as valid as yours because you sell diamonds and we do not. (At least that is what I gather from you every time you post.)

Hi Coda,
As a matter of fact, I have shown stones of different makes to buyers for them to compare literally hundreds of times...possibly thousands ( I''ve been selling diamonds since the mid ''80''s.).
A more widely accepted study would be GIA''s.

But your point is well taken.
If I made it seem like my opinion is "right" and others "wrong", I aplogize.
I''m making the point that opinions are ALL valid.
But let''s make sure opinions and "facts" are not getting mixed up.

In my experience, the H/VS2 60/60 stone posted by Stone-cold off Jim''s site would be atractive to many people, if the photo is indicative of how it looks.
Stone says this is a "prime example" of Steep deep- which is used in a derogiotory manner.
GIA graded the diamond EX cut grade.
Who is stating opinion?
Maybe I am- but it''s backed up by GIA''s opinion.

 

[stone-cold11]

Is it not a prime example of GIA Ex that is steep/deep? It shows darkness under the table, image is the same set up as the other JA stones, not visible tilt so you can't blame it on image taking. It can be cut shallower, giving more value to the consumer. So who is selling what, and to who's benefit again?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 11/11/2009 3:48:53 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 11/11/2009 2:59:22 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 11/11/2009 2:56:59 PM

Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 11/11/2009 2:42:34 PM

Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 11/11/2009 2:29:49 PM


Author: Stone-cold11


And this is the 60/60, GIA ex cut grade.



T 60, CA 33.0, PA 41.8. Much much worse.



http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/D-SI1-Premium-Cut-Round-Diamond-1260510.asp

OK, call me crazy, bit I LOVE the photo of that diamond,


No problem I can see there.


It''s a 1.02mm spreading 6.56mm!



If we showed this, and an ''Ideal'' cut ( near tolk not considered by PS to be ''steep deep''), what you''re calling ''much worse'' would be selected by a large percentage of people given the choice in person.



Yet, many people ( consumers) posting here will knock such a stone for reasons I don''t feel are valid

This stone will appear smaller than well cut diamonds of weights in the mid .90''s and will have reduced fire.

Have you seen a lot of .90s spreading 6.5mm Garry?

This stone wil NOT appear as a .90ct.

At this Poll David 5% of people voted for a very similar looking diamond.
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/beauty-and-choice.128518/

First and foremost, I truly welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you Garry.
Of course we may not see things exactly the same.

For example- the poll you refer to is not a valid tool for assessing the question at hand.
To do so we''d need to show a GIA EX cut grade "Steep Deep", and a stone that you would say is it''s antithesis- that being the stone you deem best cut getting a GIA EX cut grade- and have people compare those two, side by side.


I would LOVE to see the results of such a study.
The participants would really need to be people who have never heard the term "Steep Deep". We need PS "virgins". People who are really interested in buying a well cut diamond, but never read PS.
There should be ample opportunity to look at the stones in different lighting situations-
There should also be an example of each, set into a 4 prong tiffany style setting to complete the comparison. That would really do the trick.

And to make it really fun, in my little dream survey- let''s throw in my choice of a really well cut 60/60 of my choosing.

If you had to guess at results, what does everyone think they''d be?

 

[Rhino]

Hi Laila

Date: 11/11/2009 10:13:26 AM
Author: Laila619

Date: 11/11/2009 12:14:10 AM
Author: Rhino
Hi Laila619,

3 VH''s on the Bscope and a steep/deep?

What exactly are the proportions of your diamond if you don''t mind me asking? I''ve yet to see a steep deep get 3 VH''s.

Kind regards,

Hi Rhino,

It''s a Leo diamond (IGI cert, I can hear the snickers now!), so there are no crown or pavilion angles on my IGI cert.

No snickers and no prob. You selected what was most beautiful to you based on the available choices. That you are happy is what''s important. It stinks that there are no angles on the cert but there is the possibility (and perhaps a likely one) your diamond is not steep/deep.

However, from seeing other Leos get appraised, they are almost always steep deeps. I think the Leo is deliberately cut with a very high crown. Here is what I do know: my stone has a 63% depth (cringe!

) and a 55% table.

While 63% is a little on the deep side it doesn''t by necessity dictate steep/deep angles. I agree in the sense that many of the Leo''s are cut a little on the heavy side but it is my experience with brands that you can get a mixed lot when it comes to proportion sets. Even among the brands we feature there are some that are cut to steep/deep angles and those whose angles that are IMPO just fine. If you''re ever in my neck of the woods and can be of help assessing these things for you, my time is your time.

Warm regards,''
Jonathan

 

[Rhino]

Date: 11/11/2009 11:53:30 AM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 11/11/2009 10:32:34 AM
Author: siamese3
I don''t have any photos that necessarily document the ''negative'' aspects of steep deep stones, I do have some experience owning one. Long story short, I previously owned an ags graded 000 stone which was purchased from a local jeweler. This is not necessarily the type of stone this jeweler regularly stocks, however when I inquired about his ability to find me one, he quickly brought in some for me to look at. This was seven years ago, before I was aware of pricescope/internet diamond buying. I had, from a long ago (20 some years..yikes!!) previous enegagement, had the fortune to deal with a different jeweler located in another city who carried ''ideally'' cut stones, and I was intially very drawn to cutters who would choose to maximize the beauty of a stone rather than size and ended up witha a lovely stone that is long gone now and I don''t have any of the info on that stone. Anyhow, back to the present....I found a stone one I liked (prior to pricescope) and it was purchased by my now DH, with the intention to upgrade on our 5 year anniversary. (house building , all sorts of intial expenses..blah, blah blah

That stone was .80 points, F, si1 34.5, 40.7 54% table.

As we approached the impending upgrade anniversary, I stopped in just look at stones in different carat weights to see ultimately where I wanted to be. They bought out a variety, none ''ideal'' cut stones..however there was a stone in the bunch which was 1.32 carats that My DH and I really liked. It seemed very nice, we looked at it in a variety of lighting and were suprised to find it was a gia graded ''very good'' cut. We came home and I checked out the numbers here at Pricescope (my first encounter) and learned it was the ''dreaded'' steep-deep stone. Yikes!! Classic 35.5, 41.2 62.7 deep and with a 59% table. I was advised here to pass on the stone but I decided to ''try out'' the size and stone thinking that it was no problem to trade it in if I was not happy (trade up policy at b&m) Well, after a week of living with the stone I decided I just had some issues with it. It didn''t seem as crisp around the edges, seemed a bit dark under the table and although very bright, lacked the fire of my old stone. My jeweler thought I was ''nuts'' and was succumbing to ''the numbers'' and not just with what my eyes could see. I ended up keeping the stone for almost 2 years and then decided to inquire about having the stone re-cut by Brian Gavin. The stone itself turned out to be a little more difficult than Brian initially thought, however I think it turned out beautifully in the end. It is now 1.2, same color, clarity, 33.7 crown, 41.0 pavillion, 53.3 table, 61.9 deep. It scored 000 with a platinum light performance quality document. The stone is no longer dark under the table, lots of fire and I don''t have to keep it sparkling clean (although I still do

)!! By the way, even my por DH noticed the difference.

Bottom line....Was it a nice diamond before? Yes. Was I swayed by the steep-deep concensus. A bit. BUT I do know that in my individual case, there was a visual difference. Not being a diamond expert, it took me a while to identify what I didn''t like about my stone. I believe that my eyes more a reason for recutting thatn my silly brain!! My preference is for the newly cut stone. I have also learned I prefer the pattern and ''crispness'' to a hearts & arrow stone, but that''s a whole other project.

I know my 1.32 was only a very good cut, not excellent but I thought I should comment as the subject greatly interests me.

These are the things that most resonate for me in this post.

I was thinking the same Alj.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 11/11/2009 1:30:26 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
For me, the issue is not if I like deeper diamonds.
Personally I do not.
I consider 61% to be too deep for a round brilliant.
If asked my opinion, I''d give that as my opinion.

That''s a different thing as compared to the type of thing Jim mentioned- people knocking stones sight unseen, based on numbers, which does happen here frequently.
A consumers asks about a stone, and people who may not prefer such a set of proportions come on and make it sound like the stone in question is a piece of junk.
Just because it''s not what they would pick.

That''s why I''m asking to see actual photos.
So far, only Jim has posted a stone that really does show a problem to my eyes.
And that stone was NOT a GIA EX cut grade.

Jon- good to see ya man!!!

Given that we can''t post our videos here, can you come up with photos?


The term ''leakage'' is a problem for me as well.
Stones may have dark areas, and that seems to be something we can see and identify.
Leakage? It may be a phrase that arbitrarily ''disses'' stones for aspects others may find extremely attractive.

What''s happenin senor. I''m sure I have pix around somewhere.

Bottom line ... consumers need to see what it is they are considering and make an educated choice before they drop the bucks. Many of the pix I see published do not accurately reflect what a consumer sees in real life and in common lighting. Internet photography, in my professional opinion is good for only one thing ... facet structure/design. It does not capture the dynamics of light performance and interplay of light that communicates the essence and personality of the diamond one is considering. I think you would agree.

I personally do not like the effects of leakage under the table in a round and can demonstrate why I don''t *but* some may, for some reason prefer it and I will also say that leakage in certain shapes can provide positive contrast when it is properly distributed.

All the best,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 11/11/2009 1:39:26 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 11/11/2009 1:30:26 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
For me, the issue is not if I like deeper diamonds.
Personally I do not.
I consider 61% to be too deep for a round brilliant.
If asked my opinion, I''d give that as my opinion.

That''s a different thing as compared to the type of thing Jim mentioned- people knocking stones sight unseen, based on numbers, which does happen here frequently.
A consumers asks about a stone, and people who may not prefer such a set of proportions come on and make it sound like the stone in question is a piece of junk.
Just because it''s not what they would pick.

That''s why I''m asking to see actual photos.
So far, only Jim has posted a stone that really does show a problem to my eyes.
And that stone was NOT a GIA EX cut grade.

Jon- good to see ya man!!!

Given that we can''t post our videos here, can you come up with photos?


The term ''leakage'' is a problem for me as well.
Stones may have dark areas, and that seems to be something we can see and identify.
Leakage? It may be a phrase that arbitrarily ''disses'' stones for aspects others may find extremely attractive.

David, my concern is this. As steep deep diamonds are known to have issues and many come here looking for the best cut stone they can find, what is the consumer advisor to do? Tell them that a diamond with steep deep angle combos might be fine and not show leakage? Its a fine line for us to walk, personally I don''t want to mislead anyone into buying a diamond which might show leakage especially if there aren''t images available to check the diamond out properly, I just don''t want to take that risk....I know if it were my money at stake I would rather be given as much info as possible so I could make an informed decision. It is especially difficult when dealing with buyers who prefer to buy from brick and mortar stores where we don''t have images. I can tell them how to look for leakage according to my personal methods and observations etc but it can be very difficult if you don''t know what to look for....

I do see what you are saying, just trying to give the consumer advisor point of view.

This is the crux of the issue right here Lorelei. Making an educated decision. Ie. You know as a consumer that AGS penalizes diamonds for light leakage which it reaches a certain extent. There are tools for properly assessing this. It is also my personal experience when showing consumers the effects of light leakage that most do not prefer it. It makes perfect sense, for you as a consumer who is advising newbies to err on the side of caution. Were I in your shoes would follow the same course. Can a consumer prefer leakage under the table in a round? Anything is possible but nobody knows their own tolerance until they''ve seen it for themselves. Someone may see a 36/41.4 combo (and whatever HCA score that translates to) and be perfectly fine with that tolerance. Good post.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/11/2009 7:04:24 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 11/11/2009 3:48:53 PM

Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 11/11/2009 2:59:22 PM

Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 11/11/2009 2:56:59 PM


Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 11/11/2009 2:42:34 PM


Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 11/11/2009 2:29:49 PM



Author: Stone-cold11



And this is the 60/60, GIA ex cut grade.




T 60, CA 33.0, PA 41.8. Much much worse.




http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/D-SI1-Premium-Cut-Round-Diamond-1260510.asp

OK, call me crazy, bit I LOVE the photo of that diamond,



No problem I can see there.



It's a 1.02mm spreading 6.56mm!




If we showed this, and an 'Ideal' cut ( near tolk not considered by PS to be 'steep deep'), what you're calling 'much worse' would be selected by a large percentage of people given the choice in person.




Yet, many people ( consumers) posting here will knock such a stone for reasons I don't feel are valid

This stone will appear smaller than well cut diamonds of weights in the mid .90's and will have reduced fire.

Have you seen a lot of .90s spreading 6.5mm Garry?


This stone wil NOT appear as a .90ct.

At this Poll David 5% of people voted for a very similar looking diamond.

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/beauty-and-choice.128518/

First and foremost, I truly welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you Garry.

Of course we may not see things exactly the same.


For example- the poll you refer to is not a valid tool for assessing the question at hand.

To do so we'd need to show a GIA EX cut grade 'Steep Deep', and a stone that you would say is it's antithesis- that being the stone you deem best cut getting a GIA EX cut grade- and have people compare those two, side by side.



I would LOVE to see the results of such a study.

The participants would really need to be people who have never heard the term 'Steep Deep'. We need PS 'virgins'. People who are really interested in buying a well cut diamond, but never read PS.

There should be ample opportunity to look at the stones in different lighting situations-

There should also be an example of each, set into a 4 prong tiffany style setting to complete the comparison. That would really do the trick.


And to make it really fun, in my little dream survey- let's throw in my choice of a really well cut 60/60 of my choosing.


If you had to guess at results, what does everyone think they'd be?

OK David, What if we use Jim's stone, or one like it, and or stone 5 or 6 here MSS master samples
When, where, and conducted by who with what rules?

 

[Laila619]

Date: 11/11/2009 8:53:41 PM
Author: Rhino
If you''re ever in my neck of the woods and can be of help assessing these things for you, my time is your time.

Thanks Rhino, that''s very kind of you.

I''d know I''d have a blast playing with all the goodies at GOG.