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

[Rhino]

Date: 11/11/2009 10:21:38 PM
Author: 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.

You would and you're welcome anytime Laila.

Garry ... I would *love* to perform such an experiment. I have all the lighting environments one would want to conduct such a survey including natural daylight. I also have a PS virgin audience in my store which is quite busy each day. I'd video tape the whole thing too and interview the consumers.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

A Pricescope Virgin?

RockDiamond?

 

[kenny]

We are all . . . uhm . . . the opposite of PS virgins.

 

[GoSharks]

I guess the stones are not the only things loose around here...

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 11/11/2009 2:56:38 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

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



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.

No, David, that''s not at all what it says. You''re getting hung up on numbers meaning better or worse; what I''m trying to explain is narrowness of class vs. a wider class.

But, since you seem to have a hang-up about numbers, I''m happy to try another way. In my fruit bowl, the most highly prized fruit is lemon. In your fruit bowl, the most highly prized fruits are a group that includes lemons, grapefruits, and oranges. There are fruits in your fruit bowl that would not meet the criteria I''ve outlined for inclusion in my fruit bowl. That doesn''t mean those fruits are bad; it means they don''t fit MY criteria as the most highly prized fruit.

Now, not ANY citrus fruit can produce a lemon pie; there is only one fruit that can do that, and it''s a lemon. Orange pies may taste good, but they don''t taste like lemon. If Jack wants the flavor that will match the lovely lemon pie he had during his vacation, he needs to understand that the orange won''t provide the same flavor. It would also be helpful for someone to explain to him that not all the fruits in your bowl will taste like lemon. That doesn''t mean they aren''t all the freshest possible specimens of fruit from the best groves available; it just means they don''t all taste like lemon.

Pointing this out to Jack, who''s shopping for fruit, is NOT telling him WHICH taste he should prefer. If he happens to like orange and grapefruit flavors too (or even prefers them to lemon), he''s going to be happy with anything from your fruit bowl. But, if he wants the same flavor pie that he tasted on vacation, some of your fruit will be suitable and some won''t. If what he wants is the really sharp, tart taste of lemon, though, it''s fair to explain why the candidates in my bowl stand a better chance of matching what he''s after.

Date: 11/11/2009 2:56:38 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

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


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.

Again, you''re (intentionally??) confusing the two separate concepts. If someone tells me that your fruit bowl is filled with lemons, grapefruits and oranges, they are conveying to me that the selection candidates in your fruit bowl are broader than mine, which has only lemons. Making that observation has nothing at all to do with speculating about what Jack will like/will PREFER/will find pleasing as a flavore. It''s MERELY and only an observation that there are a wider array of flavors in your fruit bowl than in mine.

Date: 11/11/2009 2:56:38 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

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



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.

Yes, you did read that wrong (which really makes me certain it''s by design). Rather, I''m pointing out what I think should be rather obvious.

No, I''m not inviting people with different viewpoints to go elsewhere. I''m saying that if they''re bright enough to find PS, they probably are bright enough to understand that Pricescope is about anecdotal experiences; it''s not the UL of diamonds.

Pricescope doesn''t claim to be the ultimate, factual, undisputed diamond information champ-eeen of the world. It (correctly) labels itself as a consumer education site populated MOSTLY by non-professionals. Being that I AM on the trade side now, I''m acutely aware that trade opinions are also welcome, but that doesn''t change the fact that the overwhelming number of participants here are non-tradespeople. If anecdotal stories about others'' experiences aren''t of value to someone landing here, he''s likely in the wrong place.

More directly put, David, Pricescope is the ''neighbor down the street'' reinvented. In the old days, my parents asked other residents on our street for their opinions when they were considering which roofing contractors to hire for repairs. They understood the opinions offered didn''t represent a warranty, nor did the neighbors claim to be expert roof condition assessors or contractor evalutators. The information sought was merely "hey, what was your experience with this roofing guy?" If what they wanted was an opinion from an accredited roofing instructor, going to the neighborhood block party probably wouldn''t be the right choice, would it?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Gee Allison,
Lemons are not what i would have picked for your analogy.
I hope your lemons are not the ones John West rejected, or the cars made on Mondays?

I hope your message sinks home though - although I think we know that it has not much chance

 

[outatouch0]

Date: 11/11/2009 11:54:28 PM
Author: GoSharks
I guess the stones are not the only things loose around here...

OMG I just burst out laughing at work - my co-workers are looking at me to see if i finally have gone nuts!!!

"Steep-deep"? Thing is, everything has to be called something or perhaps more correctly - there is a term for just about everything. We can play politically correct and come up with a less offensive term for our fellow diamonds so they wont feel singled out and denegrated if want to. How about starting a poll?

It seems to me the real crux of the matter is the PS slant towards purchasing diamonds online. Advice is generally geared toward this context. We consumers are choosing diamonds sight unseen!! I started out looking at online vendors with no intention of making that kind of purchase ONLINE!! The idea seemed rediculous...until PS.
The tools and advice here are geared towards maximizing your chances of getting the best price for the best diamond meeting your needs. Some value size, others prize color...... etc.

I don't recall anyone telling people NOT to go look at stones personally to get a feel for what they prefer. In fact, just the opposite is advised. If I come back and say help me find a FIC or OEM that is what I will get help finding. If I post, "opinions on this stone" that is what I will get. I still have to make up my own mind in the end. I am not going to spend that kind of money just because Soandso said it was good. If I say I want the best cut quality I can get for $X, like a lot of people do, I will get that type of advice. If I am looking for the best bargain to be had without too much sacrifice in quality the 62% depth range might be perfect for me (and I will be advised to go look at some in person).

I may be stepping out of my depth here but here goes. When it comes to RB the rarest and priciest are going to fall at or near TIC range (all other C's being eqaul). More common will be those just outside of this range and hence a bit better price. So our PS virgin finds X carat stones under $X price and excludes those >$X. PSV posts them for opinion and gee wizz guess what most are 62ers and we have a name for them.... dimensionally challened.
The advice that follows is usually to get IS/ASET images in order to screen for potential problems with the light performace of the stone(s) in question. This will beter help in determining the true nature of the bargain - a steal or no deal. Some sites do not supply these images in order for the consumer to evaluate the stone properly. Is PS to blame for some industrywide glut of 62ers? I doubt it. Are PSers more likely to get great deals on great stones they are exceedingly happy with? I know this one is and so is my beloved FI

The basic "4C's" can be explained in about a page. Cut grade/quality is a lot more to it - hence PS.

 

[outatouch0]

Date: 11/10/2009 12:51:34 PM
Author:Rockdiamond
HI everyone!
The topic of ''Steep Deep'' seems to come up often here.
Are there any photos showing what the negative effects of ''Steep Deep'' are?
I''ve looked at a few threads, like this one, but have yet to find photos of an actual diamond showing any problems related to this.

Do any such photos exist?

Oh yea also
I think challenging our basic assumptions in life is a good and healthy thing.
Obviously there is an interest in it in regaurds to cut or this thread wouldn''t have reached page 4 so fast.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 11/12/2009 1:24:37 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Gee Allison,
Lemons are not what i would have picked for your analogy.

I know, Garry, and I actually thought about the oddity of the inference up front (i.e. lemon = dud).

However, my role as the instigator of the Great Lemon Pie Caper has kind of linked me firmly to the lemon, and I couldn't bring myself to abandon the old friend that has served me well.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/12/2009 10:43:22 AM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 11/12/2009 1:24:37 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Gee Allison,
Lemons are not what i would have picked for your analogy.

I know, Garry, and I actually thought about the oddity of the inference up front (i.e. lemon = dud).

However, my role as the instigator of the Great Lemon Pie Caper has kind of linked me firmly to the lemon, and I couldn''t bring myself to abandon the old friend that has served me well.

LOL! I will never forget that thread, still makes me smile to think of it! Alj you were on top form!!!

 

[AprilBaby]

Thanks everyone for this informative post. Food for thought. AND fun to see ALL our vendors at once!

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 11/12/2009 12:44:28 AM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 11/11/2009 2:56:38 PM

Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 11/11/2009 2:11:31 PM

Author: Allison D.




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.


No, David, that''s not at all what it says. You''re getting hung up on numbers meaning better or worse; what I''m trying to explain is narrowness of class vs. a wider class.


But, since you seem to have a hang-up about numbers, I''m happy to try another way. In my fruit bowl, the most highly prized fruit is lemon. In your fruit bowl, the most highly prized fruits are a group that includes lemons, grapefruits, and oranges. There are fruits in your fruit bowl that would not meet the criteria I''ve outlined for inclusion in my fruit bowl. That doesn''t mean those fruits are bad; it means they don''t fit MY criteria as the most highly prized fruit.


Now, not ANY citrus fruit can produce a lemon pie; there is only one fruit that can do that, and it''s a lemon. Orange pies may taste good, but they don''t taste like lemon. If Jack wants the flavor that will match the lovely lemon pie he had during his vacation, he needs to understand that the orange won''t provide the same flavor. It would also be helpful for someone to explain to him that not all the fruits in your bowl will taste like lemon. That doesn''t mean they aren''t all the freshest possible specimens of fruit from the best groves available; it just means they don''t all taste like lemon.


Pointing this out to Jack, who''s shopping for fruit, is NOT telling him WHICH taste he should prefer. If he happens to like orange and grapefruit flavors too (or even prefers them to lemon), he''s going to be happy with anything from your fruit bowl. But, if he wants the same flavor pie that he tasted on vacation, some of your fruit will be suitable and some won''t. If what he wants is the really sharp, tart taste of lemon, though, it''s fair to explain why the candidates in my bowl stand a better chance of matching what he''s after.

Date: 11/11/2009 2:56:38 PM

Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 11/11/2009 2:11:31 PM

Author: Allison D.



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.


Again, you''re (intentionally??) confusing the two separate concepts. If someone tells me that your fruit bowl is filled with lemons, grapefruits and oranges, they are conveying to me that the selection candidates in your fruit bowl are broader than mine, which has only lemons. Making that observation has nothing at all to do with speculating about what Jack will like/will PREFER/will find pleasing as a flavore. It''s MERELY and only an observation that there are a wider array of flavors in your fruit bowl than in mine.

Date: 11/11/2009 2:56:38 PM

Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 11/11/2009 2:11:31 PM

Author: Allison D.




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.

Yes, you did read that wrong (which really makes me certain it''s by design). Rather, I''m pointing out what I think should be rather obvious.


No, I''m not inviting people with different viewpoints to go elsewhere. I''m saying that if they''re bright enough to find PS, they probably are bright enough to understand that Pricescope is about anecdotal experiences; it''s not the UL of diamonds.


Pricescope doesn''t claim to be the ultimate, factual, undisputed diamond information champ-eeen of the world. It (correctly) labels itself as a consumer education site populated MOSTLY by non-professionals. Being that I AM on the trade side now, I''m acutely aware that trade opinions are also welcome, but that doesn''t change the fact that the overwhelming number of participants here are non-tradespeople. If anecdotal stories about others'' experiences aren''t of value to someone landing here, he''s likely in the wrong place.


More directly put, David, Pricescope is the ''neighbor down the street'' reinvented. In the old days, my parents asked other residents on our street for their opinions when they were considering which roofing contractors to hire for repairs. They understood the opinions offered didn''t represent a warranty, nor did the neighbors claim to be expert roof condition assessors or contractor evalutators. The information sought was merely ''hey, what was your experience with this roofing guy?'' If what they wanted was an opinion from an accredited roofing instructor, going to the neighborhood block party probably wouldn''t be the right choice, would it?

Hi everyone!

Wow a lot to respond to today!

Allison- I honestly do not believe your analogies do anything at all to further this discussion- and quite frankly, I find them to be condescending.
It starts with you saying YOUR students have a 3.8GPA, while MINE have a 3.5
I''m not at all hung up on numbers, but isn''t a 3.8GPA better than a 3.5?
Why aren''t MY students 3.8, and yours 3.5?
Then there''s the fact you''re depicting something as "mine". I don''t have any "Steep Deep" diamonds - and have said repeatedly that I prefer diamonds that are not deep. I''m not defending "Steep Deep", I''m asking to see what it looks like with real stones graded EX by GIA.
Then we go to lemons, and all kinds of unrelated stuff including you "explaining" to me what Pricescope is. Thanks for that.
Bottom line, you don''t have any photos showing negative effects of Steep deep, do you?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 11/11/2009 9:05:54 PM
Author: 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,

Que Pasa Jefe?

Jon, I agree that many of the photos I see online do not give an accurate representation of what diamonds looks like in real life.
If I may, please allow me to compliment you on your site Jon.
It''s not just your photos that help give folks an idea- it''s all the other stuff including your excellent writing, and videos combined with the photos that allow perspective IMO.

I have ZERO doubt that you can also effectively demonstrate, in person, what you like better about one stone, versus another. But in regards to this specific issue, I have not seen photos or video that accurately depict a problem.

I also believe you can get real life opinions by showing stones to people who come into your store.
To really get an unbiased reading, we''d need to take personality out of it. When you show stones your preference comes into play- which is a very good thing- people want to know the preferences of a trusted seller.
To get an unbiased sample, we''d need folks who never heard the term "Steep Deep" or have any awareness of this debate.
Clearly, this is a "dream" scenario.
I can''t think of a way to make it happen.
But what we DO have is GIA''s study.

And- although we agree that photos alone don''t tell the entire story, a photo can give us a lot of info.
Jim posted one stone so far that seems to have a detrimental dark area in the table ( to my eye) and it was NOT a stone GIA graded EX cut grade.

We''ve also looked at a 60/60 ( approximately) that was knocked as being steep deep.
Yet it measured 6.4+mm and did not show what I''d consider to be "clear evidence" of bad looking darkness under the table.

If what I''m asking for is possible it would assist a lot of folks reading this- and shoppers in general.

Rather than just use the name "Steep Deep"- let''s show what to look for so folks know what to avoid.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 11/12/2009 2:41:38 PM
Author: Rockdiamond


Allison- I honestly do not believe your analogies do anything at all to further this discussion- and quite frankly, I find them to be condescending.
It starts with you saying YOUR students have a 3.8GPA, while MINE have a 3.5
I'm not at all hung up on numbers, but isn't a 3.8GPA better than a 3.5?
Why aren't MY students 3.8, and yours 3.5?
Then there's the fact you're depicting something as 'mine'. I don't have any 'Steep Deep' diamonds - and have said repeatedly that I prefer diamonds that are not deep. I'm not defending 'Steep Deep', I'm asking to see what it looks like with real stones graded EX by GIA.
Then we go to lemons, and all kinds of unrelated stuff including you 'explaining' to me what Pricescope is. Thanks for that.
Bottom line, you don't have any photos showing negative effects of Steep deep, do you?

David, I'm sorry you don't find value in trying to find multiple ways to have a meaningful conversation.

If the best you can do is get ruffled over whose students have the 3.8 GPA, I can see we'll get nowhere here fast. I'm most happy to say that your students have the 3.8 GPA if you like....that wasn't really the point of the exercise.

Really, though, this offense is a red herring because I was happy to move off a numerical based comparison and did so. The fact that you're going back to that instead of addressing the abstract concept feels like a diversionary tactic to avoid discussing the concept, but it's ok.

I had no idea you were so sensitive and easily offended (nay, even feeling condescended to) by illustrative analogies. In this thread, you use a joke about a cheating husband, and that's ok, but somehow citrus fruits are offensive?? I admire the effort to redirect, but it's not working.

Re: explaining what Pricescope is....you're welcome. It's distressful to me to see participants denigrate the efforts of consumers by putting down their input as "blind leading the blind". Is that your way of calling them stupid? Lemmings? Why - because they don't agree with your point of view? Seeing that consumers are the ones BUYING the stones and they have followed the exact same path when they themselves bought stones, their input is extremely relevant to other consumers in my estimation.

As for photos, I don't personally work with the photos so I'm afraid I can't supply them. Beyond that, they aren't really needed; there are other great examples in this thread, and for each, you can't seem to see what most of the other participants do. More of the same isn't really going to get us to consensus.

Maybe we should just agree to disagree.

You don't see any photos that you feel adequately depict 'negative effects' of steep deep. Fair enough.

I don't see anyone 'knocking' 60/60 stones either.

 

[Allison D.]

Oh, and tip o''the cap to Mr. Holloway.

I knew you''d be right, kind sir, but I still felt the urge to try. It may resonate beyond the intended mark, so I''m still happy to have made the effort and contribution.

 

[Rockdiamond]

So true that we disagree on a lot of issues Allison. Citrus fruits are not offensive, but they are completely off topic.
I admire YOUR effort to redirect, but are accusations of degenerating consumers are also way off topic here.
Variety is the space of life, and differences of opinion do enrich the content for all- as long as no one is being personally attacked, which you seem to be doing.

If we can demonstrate these Steep Deep issues visually, it will help consumers. If they can not be demonstrated visually, that would be illustrative in itself.



You mention that there''s been photos showing the negative effect of a steep deep on a GIA EX cut grade stone.
Which photos were you referring to?

 

[kenny]

Date: 11/12/2009 5:24:00 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

I admire YOUR effort to redirect, but are accusations of degenerating consumers are also way off topic here.

David, you referred to me as the blind leading the blind.
That''s why I posted this pic.

 

[Allison D.]

So true that we disagree on a lot of issues Allison. Citrus fruits are not offensive, but they are completely off topic.

Hmmm.....I guess I'm just dense then and missed precisely how the cheating husband analogy was somehow more appropriately 'on topic'.

I admire YOUR effort to redirect, but are accusations of degenerating consumers are also way off topic here.

I'm not making accusations at all; I'm telling you that I think it's derogatory to call consumers 'blind'. I certainly don't think it's complimentary, and it wasn't complimentary in the context you offered it either.

Variety is the space of life, and differences of opinion do enrich the content for all- as long as no one is being personally attacked, which you seem to be doing.

David, the fact that I don't agree with your assertions and/or interpretations and am comfortable expressing a different opinion doesn't mean I'm attacking you personally. I'm disagreeing with your opinion, nothing more and nothing less.

I'm all for debate and exchange of ideas when both parties are coming from a positive end to try to help reach common ground, but I don't sense that's the goal here, so investing much more effort forward is just a wasted exercise.

It would be a better use of the time to make some nice lemonade with the leftover lemons.

 

[coda72]

Allison, I have to give you kudos for your continuous attempts to explain things. You have way more patience than I do. I had already decided to stop responding to this thread, but I wanted to tell you I appreciate your efforts. (And by the way, I love my ACA!)

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 11/12/2009 4:09:16 PM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 11/12/2009 2:41:38 PM
Author: Rockdiamond


Allison- I honestly do not believe your analogies do anything at all to further this discussion- and quite frankly, I find them to be condescending.
It starts with you saying YOUR students have a 3.8GPA, while MINE have a 3.5
I''m not at all hung up on numbers, but isn''t a 3.8GPA better than a 3.5?
Why aren''t MY students 3.8, and yours 3.5?
Then there''s the fact you''re depicting something as ''mine''. I don''t have any ''Steep Deep'' diamonds - and have said repeatedly that I prefer diamonds that are not deep. I''m not defending ''Steep Deep'', I''m asking to see what it looks like with real stones graded EX by GIA.
Then we go to lemons, and all kinds of unrelated stuff including you ''explaining'' to me what Pricescope is. Thanks for that.
Bottom line, you don''t have any photos showing negative effects of Steep deep, do you?

David, I''m sorry you don''t find value in trying to find multiple ways to have a meaningful conversation.

If the best you can do is get ruffled over whose students have the 3.8 GPA, I can see we''ll get nowhere here fast. I''m most happy to say that your students have the 3.8 GPA if you like....that wasn''t really the point of the exercise.

Really, though, this offense is a red herring because I was happy to move off a numerical based comparison and did so. The fact that you''re going back to that instead of addressing the abstract concept feels like a diversionary tactic to avoid discussing the concept, but it''s ok.

I had no idea you were so sensitive and easily offended (nay, even feeling condescended to) by illustrative analogies. In this thread, you use a joke about a cheating husband, and that''s ok, but somehow citrus fruits are offensive?? I admire the effort to redirect, but it''s not working.

Re: explaining what Pricescope is....you''re welcome. It''s distressful to me to see participants denigrate the efforts of consumers by putting down their input as ''blind leading the blind''. Is that your way of calling them stupid? Lemmings? Why - because they don''t agree with your point of view? Seeing that consumers are the ones BUYING the stones and they have followed the exact same path when they themselves bought stones, their input is extremely relevant to other consumers in my estimation.

As for photos, I don''t personally work with the photos so I''m afraid I can''t supply them. Beyond that, they aren''t really needed; there are other great examples in this thread, and for each, you can''t seem to see what most of the other participants do. More of the same isn''t really going to get us to consensus.

Maybe we should just agree to disagree.

You don''t see any photos that you feel adequately depict ''negative effects'' of steep deep. Fair enough.

I don''t see anyone ''knocking'' 60/60 stones either.

I applaud your efforts and patience Allison as a representative of one of the vendors who I respect you continue to earn that respect.

Astute observers will notice already that RD''s primary purpose of this thread was to try once again to knock ideal cut diamonds and to promote diamonds with leakage as their equals. This is yet again another attempt to garner support and to knock another criteria that we use here to seperate the strongest performers from those that are less so.

This time its steep deep and leakage doesn''t matter. Last time it was anything over Good Polish/Symmetry could not be seen by eye. Everytime its "show me proof and if you can''t my theory holds that all consumers should be confused and just trust the dealer". The sad reality is the patience of the other vendors and posters, and that fact that these issues remain without a consensus gives misleading information to those who haven''t read between the lines. If even one poster agrees with some or all of his unsupported opinions than he has acually achieved his goal and maybe a small fraction of consumers might consider his "niche" diamonds by clicking on his tagline.

There may be a more effective and formal way of dealing with him but clearly responding to his posts in a polite politically correct manner hasn''t done anything in the five months I''ve been here. I do wish there was an ignore button on these forums like they have in many chat rooms.

RD doesn''t accept the mountain of evidence in this thread or anywherelse and it appears this will not change because he doesn''t differentiate between good cut and light return and exceptional cut quality and light return.
Whether it be proven by photographs, Idealscope Images, ASET, numerical models nothing will change what he thinks is pretty by his 60/60 eyes. Unfortunately for him and his customers his opinion and his vision doesn''t make a distinction between slight darkness under the table and negligible darkness, and consumers who have read enough threads here know to steer clear from him, as dealing with RD you may just get a "pretty" diamond in his eyes but far from "the most pretty" in its class.

CCL

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 11/12/2009 5:44:26 PM
Author: Allison D.
So true that we disagree on a lot of issues Allison. Citrus fruits are not offensive, but they are completely off topic.

Hmmm.....I guess I''m just dense then and missed precisely how the cheating husband analogy was somehow more appropriately ''on topic''.

I admire YOUR effort to redirect, but are accusations of degenerating consumers are also way off topic here.
Allison if you''d like to discuss my comment, or light hearted joke made yesterday, woundn''t the thread such comments and jokes were made in be the correct place to do so? That would give the context of the remarks.


I''m not making accusations at all; I''m telling you that I think it''s derogatory to call consumers ''blind''. I certainly don''t think it''s complimentary, and it wasn''t complimentary in the context you offered it either.

Again Allison, if you want to join forces with ccl and Kenny to attack me personally, please do so either in a thread about that, or the thread you are questioning.

Variety is the space of life, and differences of opinion do enrich the content for all- as long as no one is being personally attacked, which you seem to be doing.

David, the fact that I don''t agree with your assertions and/or interpretations and am comfortable expressing a different opinion doesn''t mean I''m attacking you personally. I''m disagreeing with your opinion, nothing more and nothing less.

Is that your way of calling them stupid?

Attempting to correlate a conversation about cut into accusations of calling people "stupid" seems very much like a personal attack- and it''s also competely off topic here.
I''m all for debate and exchange of ideas when both parties are coming from a positive end to try to help reach common ground, but I don''t sense that''s the goal here, so investing much more effort forward is just a wasted exercise.

It would be a better use of the time to make some nice lemonade with the leftover lemons.

And yet still no photos. clearly demonstrating a GIA EX cut grade showing clear negative effect becuase it was deemed "Steep Deep"

 

[Rockdiamond]

If we can get back to the topic at hand:
ccl, I don''t see any "mountain of evidence"
Jim posted one photo that clearly showed a dark center on a diamond, but it was not a GIA EX cut grade.
Stone posted one that did show a bit of darkness in a GIA EX- although it was not nearly as dramatic as the stone Jim posted.

Considering how many stones get knocked for being "steep deep" shouldn''t we be able to find a lot of examples?

 

[kenny]

Mountain?

Now it must be a mountain?

David did you take debating class in college?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 11/12/2009 5:53:10 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover
RD doesn''t accept the mountain of evidence in this thread....

CCL

No Kenny, I don''t need a mountain, just more photos.

No I was not on the debating team at college.

I really dislike personal attacks- but a spirited conversation can be a lot of fun.

 

[kenny]

You see, someone with debating skills would say, "I don't like personal attacks" when he wasn't personally attacked.
It is called twisting things to your advantage during a conversation.

Perhaps you're just a natural.
Dealing with your requires great caution.

 

[FB.]

As Rockdiamond says; show facts, not opinions - and keep the personal attacks out of it.

While I appreciate that there a risks in buying a steep/deep "triple excellent", I would like to see pictures showing some that are as bad as people make them out to be.
So far, the pictures have mostly shown non-Excellent-cut stones as examples of steep/deep.

Pricescopers are very fond of insisting that stone''s can''t be judged by numbers, so why should people believe that just because the stone has 36.0/41.4, it will be a bad performer. Going by the usual PS logic, even "steep/deep" stones should have an IS/ASET requested because *apparently* numbers count for nothing.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 11/12/2009 6:59:40 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
If we can get back to the topic at hand:
ccl, I don't see any 'mountain of evidence'
Jim posted one photo that clearly showed a dark center on a diamond, but it was not a GIA EX cut grade.
Stone posted one that did show a bit of darkness in a GIA EX- although it was not nearly as dramatic as the stone Jim posted.

Considering how many stones get knocked for being 'steep deep' shouldn't we be able to find a lot of examples?

RD,

If you read Jon at GOG's NUMEROUS posts I think I can find 6 seperate occasions where he has repeated the same thing in these forums I will paraphrase:

"Photographs are only good for determining facet structure and inclusions and are not conclusive for light performance"

A) Your argument that you need to see darkness in a picture to label a diamond with leakage as undesireable or inferior is incorrect.
Photographs can show darker areas for many reasons but the most common is diamonds with head body obstruction not leakage.

B) Your Argument that a diamond with noticeable leakage in an Idealscope has no negative effects simply because it does not show significant darkness under the table in a photograph is also incorrect.

C) If you want to see leakage under the table in an Idealscope image there are many many examples of steep deep with Idealscope images here. The fact that they have leakage is not in dispute.

D) Your entire premise that photographs can be used to illustrate light performance is incorrect.

D) Steep Deep diamonds rarely show a ring of obstruction(blue in ASET) under the table which is a darker area in real life and may be dark to the camera lense as head obstruction is. Steep Deep Diamonds show leakage and that leakage is often a lighter area not a darker area in a photograph.

E) The fact that we are showing examples of James Allen photographs with on average twice as much head shadow and contrast is an artifact of their camera setup.
I would much rather see a video of a diamond with a window or an idealscope with large white or light pink areas as evidence of steep deep diamonds with leakage.

F) I think most tradespeople here have decided not to bother replying to you anymore or to reply summarily if they had they could have posted this thread https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/gia-ex-the-consumers-perspective-and-the-technologies.41629/ is another.

Maybe you should spend about 5 minutes using pricescope search? (Hint: Enter Steep Deep and Leakage into the search bar).

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 11/12/2009 7:00:24 PM
Author: kenny

David did you take debating class in college?

i don''t know the answer to that Q...
but David gave Alj a good whipping a few yrs ago

he had Alj down on her knee yelling "uncle" and every PSer was in shock!!

nobody gets the best of Alj in a debate, i mean nobody

welll....except David.

 

[Allison D.]

DF, there''s a key difference between discussion for the sake of progress or discussion that has positively no chance at progress.

It takes a smart person to identify and acknowledge the latter and get off the crazy train.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 11/13/2009 12:59:52 AM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 11/12/2009 7:00:24 PM
Author: kenny

David did you take debating class in college?

i don''t know the answer to that Q...
but David gave Alj a good whipping a few yrs ago

he had Alj down on her knee yelling ''uncle'' and every PSer was in shock!!

nobody gets the best of Alj in a debate, i mean nobody

welll....except David.

Please post me this thread, I can''t see Rockdiamond winning any technical argument about diamonds anywhere, maybe I haven''t been around long enough please post...