shape
carat
color
clarity

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

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Date: 11/14/2009 7:06:42 AM
Author: FB.

Flat crown and flat pavilion = lots of leakage out the bottom. The stone can't help but be dull, although may still be attractive.

Large crown and large pavilion = lots of leakage out the sides. Again, the stone may be dull (especially under the table), but may be attractive to some people, like a GIA steep deep.
Sorry that is not correct when it comes to fancies and somewhat to rounds.
While there are angles you don't want to go under is true what your not taking into account is not all faceting styles act the same way.
For example an excellent oec is steep deep compared to an ideal cut RB.
Start here:

http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/68/1/Do-the-pavilion-mains-drive-light-return-in-the-modern-round-brilliant.aspx

shallow/shallow RB's are some of the brightest (bic), while the brightest princess cuts (ags0) and asschers (Octavia) are on the deep side.
Check out the 10-10-10
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/the-perfect-100-the-10-10-10-nightmare-from-storms-computer-2.79900/
and the 2 of hearts:
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/introducing-the-2-of-hearts.81451/

485.jpg


Dull? Hardly......
 
Date: 11/14/2009 8:00:28 AM
Author: FB.





Date: 11/14/2009 7:12:48 AM
Author: Stone-cold11
But geometry is different, angles cannot be the same throughout as the measurement and placement of each facet is different. So what is defined as steep angles in round is still a steep angle in fancy cut, but you just can't defined it purely based on the crown height, total depth simply because it is not symm as in a round brilliant. Unless you have the exact measurement of each facets then that is another thing which is not what you are showing here.
Absolutely.

But we know the optimum angles for a round brilliant.
Therefore, if the mid-point of the angles of a fancy overlap with the ideal angles in a round brilliant, from my recent studying, you will get good internal reflection, good light return and good overall performance.
After all, we know that ideals will work well within quite a broad range - 14% crown/43% pavilion work well in a round, as does 17% crown/42% pavilion.
Therefore, by pitching the mid-point angles of a fancy in the ideal range for a round (which would basically be equivalent to seeking a steep/deep set of round proportions), the fancies seem to perform very well indeed.
Consider the pears that I list above. The proportions would be considered steep/deep by PS members if we were talking about a round. But a pear elongates as you move towards the ends, which therefore virtually decreases the crown height and pavilion depth % and brings the various angles into the ideal range as you move halfway round the stone towards the ends, while at the ends, the angles start to becomes rather shallow.
But the overall effect seems to be that the average angle sits nicely in the ideal range and the stone perfoms very well.

Additionally, although GIA certs for fancies state 'Profile not to actual proportions', from my detailed analysis of GIA certs fo non-rounds, the profiles are printed correctly for the proportions of the smallest axis of the stone. Therefore, you can get an idea of the approximate crown height and pavilion depths without needing a scan.

On the GIA reports for those two pears, I can use a simple 30cm ruler from my desk, to measure the profile pictures, which give the following:

Pear #1
Crown: 5.75mm
Pavilion: 18.0mm
Width: 40.5mm

Crown height est: 5.75/40.5 = 14.2% (actual Sarin= 14.8%)
Pavilion depth est: 18/40.5 = 44.4% (actual Sarin = 44.8%)

Pear #2
Crown: 6.25mm
Pavilion: 17.25mm
Width: 40.5mm

Crown height est: 6.25/40.5 = 15.4% (actual Sarin = 15.7%)
Pavilion depth est: 17.25/40.5 = 42.5% (actual Sarin = 43.8%)

Not exact proportions, but good enough to make some close approximations as to whether the proportions are compatible with a good stone. You could even plug the numbers into AGA's calculator (link here > http://gemappraisers.com/oldcutgrade.asp <), or look for a steep/deep proportion set on HCA.

I also find that stones in 'no-man's land' for weight, seem to have few, if any, cutters tricks - presumable because the stone comfortable managed 1ct.

I'm sure that concept is unacceptable for many PS members, but it seems to work extremely well, based on my studies of recent months. I have yet to find a stone that didn't reveal it's general characteristics using such 'crude' methods.

...and I'm expecting to get a serious bashing for suggesting this, but I'm known for telling it like I see it.
FB,

This conversation centres on round diamonds and the status quo advice is all round diamonds but especially those with steep deep combinations should be checked for leakage using visual methods.
What RD has failed to understand is that the interpretation of photographs is difficult as leakage and obstruction can both manifest themselves in different ways in a photograph and many conclusions drawn from photographs are inaccurate.
Further he has completely failed to understand why the use of Idealscope and ASET photograph images provides a more consistent screening tool which allows us to differentiate more reliably both of these negative aspects of diamonds far more than the inconsistent and inaccruate way you are both trying to draw general conclusions or lack thereof from plain photographs. The level of scrutiny for rounds and acceptance of leakage is much lower, arguably, slight or significant leakage shown in round diamonds will never approach the significant leakage seen in fancy shapes.

I will be nothing but supportive of someone who tries to develop a better screening tool for pear cuts but any numerical model have to be supported by visual comparison.
I would like Gary to put up a cut grading chart with a corresponding example Idealscope and ASET for each cut class of Pear but that hasn't been done mostly because it would be controversial and there may be more exceptions than those that fit the scale. Still a worthwhile cause if you want to try to do this. However, you will not get very far if you try to support your claims with plain photography or a complete lack of images.
You may be able to start with DiamCalc simulations but working with actual diamonds and visual photography and videography will at some point be required.

Good-luck with your research but I think you should make a new thread to discuss this rather than to post here.

I don't think you will gain much respect with comments and indirect support for RD's rediculous and technically unsound rambling. I can just picture one of those Mall salespeople who stand behind a counter for 30 years showing diamonds calling themself a technical expert and expounding on "Zee quality of zee diamonds I judge by my eyes".
9.gif
 
CCL

Next year, I plan to have a better camera and a larger diamond collection (it is expanding rapidly for reasons detailed on another thread). So far, the screening results are excellent for pear, princess, cushion and oval.
I'm not advocating that others use these experimental methods, nor will I encourage anyone to use my experimental ideas - merely that there might be something in them that others can also explore for their own curiosity. I will continue to support the PS members who recommend images and photos because that is the "gold standard".
Although I am happy to buy "unseen" stones via my screening method, I would not buy unless I had a reasonable returns policy.

I'm a keen financial market trader. I specialised in statistics at college. I'm very familiar with using algorithms to estimate and weigh probabilities of success - and I get excellent results, without a losing investment year in over a decade (and that includes last year's crash).
I also work as a scientist (infectious diseases), where, given the natural variation and random mutations between the fast-growing and potentially fast-mutating biotypes of disease-causing organisms, it is often required to run their chemical reaction or genetic profiles through a probability algorithim that pieces together lots of bits of information, to then allow a confirmation of their identity and to see whether they have a high chance of being part of an outbreak.
I am extrapolating these kind of probability algorithms to simple screening of diamonds that I hope can give a high probability of success. Mr.Atlas has already offered what appears to be an excellent method on his website.
Results of my simple methods are excellent so far but it is a work in progress that may be abandoned at any time - so I will not be encouraging newbie diamond hunters to follow my lead.

Regards,
 
Hi everyone!
In my experience photos can give a very good representation of the cut of a diamond.
Far better than ASET/or IS to my eyes.

My experience is based on literally thousands of human correlations.
We publish photos of stones, and people buy them.
They tell us the photos gave them a very good idea of how the diamond looks.

If it's true that the negative effects of "steep deep" can't be photographed, maybe they can't be seen naked eye. That makes perfect sense to me.
Minor leakage is another aspect that would seem to be either too minor to see, or we could depict it in close up photos.
To me this seems to be simple common sense- but again, I have photographed many thousands of diamonds, and noticed how the pictures show different aspects of cut. Especially dark areas.

The link Serg posted does nothing to explain how "Head Obstruction" would come into play if the diamond is being examined in a position where the head has no possible way of obstructing the light.
Clearly it would be possible to photograph diamonds in such a manner that nothing would come between the diamond and the light to obstruct it.

Thank goodness this is not medieval warfare. To me, almost as interesting as the subject is the vehemence some have against anyone who dares to even ask about this stuff.


I'll bet that others might have similar questions and would appreciate understandable explanations and photos of these issues.
 
It can be photographed, you have seen the examples, but you just do not want to recognize it, admit it. The JA's stones I posted. When it suit your arguments, you praised their photographs, when I posted the steep/deep examples you questions the set up. Moving the goal post.
 
Date: 11/14/2009 3:16:55 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Hi everyone!

In my experience photos can give a very good representation of the cut of a diamond.

Far better than ASET/or IS to my eyes.


My experience is based on literally thousands of human correlations.

We publish photos of stones, and people buy them.

They tell us the photos gave them a very good idea of how the diamond looks.


If it's true that the negative effects of 'steep deep' can't be photographed, maybe they can't be seen naked eye. That makes perfect sense to me.

Minor leakage is another aspect that would seem to be either too minor to see, or we could depict it in close up photos.

To me this seems to be simple common sense- but again, I have photographed many thousands of diamonds, and noticed how the pictures show different aspects of cut. Especially dark areas.



The link Serg posted does nothing to explain how 'Head Obstruction' would come into play if the diamond is being examined in a position where the head has no possible way of obstructing the light.

Clearly it would be possible to photograph diamonds in such a manner that nothing would come between the diamond and the light to obstruct it.


Thank goodness this is not medieval warfare. To me, almost as interesting as the subject is the vehemence some have against anyone who dares to even ask about this stuff.



I'll bet that others might have similar questions and would appreciate understandable explanations and photos of these issues.

re:The link Serg posted does nothing to explain how 'Head Obstruction' would come into play if the diamond is being examined in a position where the head has no possible way of obstructing the light.

David, it is very good explanation if you are ready to think and learn.

Some diamonds could be bright only if your head is Bright(Bright light source, I mean). You can use a lot of lights in different directions but you will see just yourself in these diamonds. most known example is 90 degree prism. but you can achieve same result by diamonds too. See example. most known example for diamond traders is Bow-tie

Screen shot 2009-11-14_HeadObscuration.png
 
Serg, I am grateful for the opportunity to learn.
I''m not a physicist. It never seemed all that important for me to learn the physics of how the light travels through a diamond. Identifying well made diamonds using actual diamonds seemed more important.
That''s why I have asked to see examples.
The photos we''ve seen so far have been illustrative- but I don''t really see a pervasive problem.

When I was learning to grade diamonds they showed us how deep diamonds looked dark in the center.
I saw the effect- and could also notice that the stones were deeper by looking at them from the side.
How does head obstruction change what a person sees if their head is not in a position to obstruct the lighting source?
The graphic you posted doesn''t answer that.
I DO want to learn about this- but graphs showing light paths don''t seem to be giving answers.

Stone I do feel that we have not seen any really bad examples.
I''ll go over the thread and repost the photos from earlier so we can again look at what''s been presented.
If there''s a problem, showing shoppers ( and me) how to identify it visually can only help.
 
FB- I am extremely interested in the work you''ve done.
I may not agree, but I would be extremely curious to hear how you''ve come to some of your conclusions
 
Date: 11/15/2009 11:43:23 AM
Author: Rockdiamond
Serg, I am grateful for the opportunity to learn.

I''m not a physicist. It never seemed all that important for me to learn the physics of how the light travels through a diamond. Identifying well made diamonds using actual diamonds seemed more important.

That''s why I have asked to see examples.

The photos we''ve seen so far have been illustrative- but I don''t really see a pervasive problem.


When I was learning to grade diamonds they showed us how deep diamonds looked dark in the center.

I saw the effect- and could also notice that the stones were deeper by looking at them from the side.

How does head obstruction change what a person sees if their head is not in a position to obstruct the lighting source?

The graphic you posted doesn''t answer that.

I DO want to learn about this- but graphs showing light paths don''t seem to be giving answers.


Stone I do feel that we have not seen any really bad examples.

I''ll go over the thread and repost the photos from earlier so we can again look at what''s been presented.

If there''s a problem, showing shoppers ( and me) how to identify it visually can only help.

re:How does head obstruction change what a person sees if their head is not in a position to obstruct the lighting source?
The graphic you posted doesn''t answer that.

David you missed point. Head obscuration has not any connection between relative position light source , head and diamond.
It is about diamond proportions.

Good diamond collect light from different directions and redirect it to your eyes . And you see bright diamond
Diamond with "Head obscuration proportions " can collect light from direction to your head only. you can add a lot of light sources around diamond but diamond will dark in any case.
it could be very helpful for you if you understand how cut( diamond) works, how cut collect light from different directions and redirect it to your eyes

re:When I was learning to grade diamonds they showed us how deep diamonds looked dark in the center.

RBC with pavilion angle 43-45 degrees and classical crown angle34-35 degree Has dark center due Head obscuration problem ( Nail Head diamonds in your slang )

Leakage is not main reason why such diamonds are dark( Until now GIA cut course is misleading ). Nail head, Bow-tie come from Head obscuration cut parameters .
 
Serg- Thank you for engaging in interesting, civil conversation.
I went back to the link you sent me to.
Here's the paragraph uner the title "The Viewer's Head"


Rays which are reflected to the viewer`s eye must come from directions which missed his head. Figure 2 shows that at a viewing distance of one foot, as when examining a stone prior to purchase, the angle (or divergence) between incident and reflected directions of the same ray must be at least 10°; otherwise the viewer will see reflections of himself.
There's also a diagram like the one you posted showing how in many lighting environments, the viewer's head will obstruct the main light light source.

If we're allowed to question that physical aspect- that being- a deep diamond will look dark in the center even if the viewer's head is not obstructing ( or obscuring) the light.
When looking at a deep diamond under a diamond grading light, in tweezers, there is no possible way for the viewer's head to interfere with the primary lighting source. And the center looks dark. Therefore the diamond looks dark without the influence of head obstruction.

I'm not questioning what you are saying about the importance of light entering the top corners of the stone in many common situations where the head does obscure the primary lighting source. Clearly, that's important

We all agree that overly deep diamonds are generally to be avoided for a lot of reasons.
They look small for their weight, for example.
They are noticeably dark in their center is the second reason I know.

The photo from this thread that, to me, shows this best would be this one- I hope Jim won't mind me reposting it.
Diamond number 3 looks to be noticeably dark in the center. Enough so that to me, the depicts an "off make" stone.
To me number 4 seems much less dark in the center- though here is some darkness. But it doesn't seem to be elevated to a "problem" status, if the person was looking at it and liked it.
If they are 1.00ct stones spreading 6.2mm, that would be another problem aspect. Compared to a nicely cut stone in the 6.4-6.6range, they'll look small.

Using number three as an extreme example isn't that a reasonable representation of what a diamond showing a dark center looks like?

All I was really looking for was example of real diamonds that show such noticeable dark centers, yet still got EX from GIA.

Not that we'd all have to agree which ones had a negative darkness, but just to look at ones that did show noticeable darkness.

jimpica.jpg
 
Haha I don''t visit this forum as much as I once did, and I just came in and saw my thread in the beginning post for this debate. Well, I have to say, my picture, to ME anyway, is a PERFECT example of the type of picture RockDiamond is looking for. I totally get that HE doesn''t see a problem with it, but the picture shows a big difference to me. Yes, the first picture is pretty, it''s got more color and maybe more interesting contrast. BUT-- and this is a BIG BUT--- what the picture canNOT show is the difference in sparkle and fire. What the picture does show is a huge difference in brightness, and the better cut also seems to have made the stone appear whiter. The first picture shows that the stone is not as bright under the table, and is not as bright around the edges. Isn''t that exactly the reason that many people don''t like steep deep stones? The first picture has pretty colors in it, but the stone IN REAL LIFE has much more sparkle and fire now, so I see more colors coming out of it. Also, keep in mind that when I took the pictures before the recut, I was trying to make my diamond look it''s absolute best so I took it with the sun as backlight. The diamond looks way better in that picture than it looked on my hand that''s for sure. But since the recut, it look way more fabulous on my hand than it does in the picture. Also, it''s technically smaller now, and somehow looks bigger. And as a bonus, brighter and whiter too! And way more flashy. That to me, was exactly what I was looking for in my diamond. Keep in mind that I had absolutely NO idea what steep/deep was UNTIL I started doing research on why my GIA triple excellent diamond had a big black hole in the center of it!
 
HI Kelli,
I apologize for not knowing which pictures you are talking about.
Could you post a link here, or repost the photos?

It''s really not about if I see a problem with the diamonds themselves.
Personally, I''d never pick a deep diamond in a round.
I am saying that the photos I''ve seen of "steep deep" don''t illustrate a clear cut problem to me.
I have seen firsthand what a deep diamond looks like- many thousands of times.

No question the photo can''t capture lack of sparkle and other things you may have noticed in a deep stone examined personally.
But I do believe that if a stone has a dark center- and it''s extreme, this will show in a photo.
If a diamond has a dark center that is not extreme, it might look like contrast.

Knowing what a problem stone looks like can only help consumers, no?
 
RockDiamond, I''m referring to the exact thread you linked to start this topic. My pictures are the first two.

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
[/url] one, but have yet to find photos of an actual diamond showing any problems related to this.

Do any such photos exist?

It probably doesn''t show up as well in the pictures as it does in real life because at the point when I took them, I was still trying to love the stone as is. Putting the sun behind it helped it look better immensely-- I call them "glamour shots". The ONLY pics I took of it without the sun shining behind it were in a moving car and they turned out terrible and out of focus. I''ll post one just for reference, but they are probably so bad they won''t mean much to anyone.

 
Again, these are probably not even helpful, but they do show the big spot that I hated enough to recut the stone for.

ugly01a.JPG
 
And here''s one more example.

ugly4ab.JPG
 
In most lighting, I saw that ugly dark spot under the table. With the sun shining behind it in pictures, or once in a while in DIRECT sunlight, it made for pretty contrast. I''d say 98% of the time though, that wasn''t the case, and it just looked like a big dark blob. NOT pretty.
 
Thank you Kelli!
Now I remember- you are the person who had a steep deep recut- and you were very happy with the results. That''s a great outcome for you.

It''s true the photos you posted are a little out of focus to really show the darkness you saw.
But you did find the darkness to be a bother, if I remember correctly.

Did you feel that the darkness was distinct enough to show in photos?
This is at the very crux of the discussion.
It might be something clear cut, that was easily noticable- or something that bothered you - and deserved getting a recut- but wasn''t very obvious if you did not know what too look for.

Again- not to question your decision- or the wonderful outcome in any way- just want to show the effect so others ( and I ) can see the extent of the problem.

In retrospect, a better title would have been
"I would love to see photos showing dramatic Steep Deep Stones graded EX cut grade"
 
Date: 11/14/2009 3:16:55 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
...If it''s true that the negative effects of ''steep deep'' can''t be photographed, maybe they can''t be seen naked eye. That makes perfect sense to me.
Minor leakage is another aspect that would seem to be either too minor to see, or we could depict it in close up photos.
To me this seems to be simple common sense- but again, I have photographed many thousands of diamonds, and noticed how the pictures show different aspects of cut. Especially dark areas.
WTH? Do you just refuse to accept what you read with your own eyes or have you somehow forgotten how many posters in this thread have stated "they CAN see it with their naked eyes"? Seriously, WTH
33.gif
 
True, we have had a few people posting that they could see a dark area, that is true,
We''ve also had others mentioning they picked Steep deep diamonds based on appearance.

The photos I''ve seen thus far of GIA EX cut graded stones didn''t really indicate anything very dramatic.
Some of those showing somewhat of a dark ring did not look bad enough to call a stone "badly cut" to me.

As has been discussed here more ( thankfully) lately- beauty has so much to do with one''s perceptions. The same could be said for the opposite of attractive.
What some people see as a negative darkness, others may see as attractive contrast.

Which is why I''m asking for examples of pictures that people feel shows this. Photos, to some extent, take people''s taste out of it and may possibly allow others who have never seen a deep diamonds a glimpse into what the discussion is about.
Maybe what bothers some people, others see as contrast, and find attractive.

There is debate as to whether or not photos can depict such aspects.
My experience is that a dark area in the center of a diamond, due to excessive depth, is relatively easy to capture in photos - if someone is capable of photographing diamonds.
 
David cameras have a single lens and most people have 2 eyes and see things differntly.
The last poster makes a very good point. You can clearly have your own standards, but what you are indicating is you accept lessor quality stones than others.
Also try looking at the stones we are discussing when they are dirty.

Finally I recieve many manufacturers listings of diamonds and it is very clear to me that many firms are gaming the GIA Ex system with steeper deeper proportions being much more common.
If someone wants to do some stats work on some excel sheets then get in touch and I will forward them.
 
Garry- I agree with a lot of what you're saying.
Deeper stones have more available space on the bottom to collect gunk and look dull.
There's a lot of deeper stones on the market. Nowadays, I'd have a very hard time finding a 2ct stone cut the way I love. Everyone and his brother are cutting with smaller tables.
Leading to higher crowns and steepr diamonds.

I personally don't prefer deeper stones at all.

The traditional manner of checking spread is fairly simple. The first qualifier is spread.

For readers who don't memorize crown and pavilion angles, what's a good way not to buy a deep diamond if you don't have internet access at the time it's presented to you?
What if one was offered a diamond that had no GIA report- or an older one missing the CA/PA?


For these reasons, I thought it might be useful to again visit the negative effects of depth on how a diamond looks. Maybe there were more photos that gave additional perspective to the ones already discussed..
It was never my intention to impugn the examples that exist here.
 
Date: 11/16/2009 8:09:23 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

For readers who don''t memorize crown and pavilion angles, what''s a good way not to buy a deep diamond if you don''t have internet access at the time it''s presented to you?
What if one was offered a diamond that had no GIA report- or an older one missing the CA/PA?
60/60 ?
2.gif
 
RD I wanted to apologize.
I should not have spoken to you so rudely and will never do so again.
35.gif
 

It''s true the photos you posted are a little out of focus to really show the darkness you saw.


The fact that they''re out of focus probably helps to show what she saw most often in real life becuase the focal point (of the camera) isn''t the facets in the stone.


Did you feel that the darkness was distinct enough to show in photos?


It does appear clearly in the photos she posted, so I''d have to think yes.


It might be something clear cut, that was easily noticable- or something that bothered you - and deserved getting a recut- but wasn''t very obvious if you did not know what too look for.


This sounds like ''ignorance is bliss'' and it''s ''good enough'' as long as you don''t know any better? That runs pretty much counter to what most people who find Pricescope would accept. That''s part of what brings them here; because ''good enough'' isn''t enough.


I''d also contest the notion that it wouldn''t be noticeable to some people if they didn''t know what to look for. Granted, not all people would notice it, just as not all people will perceive body color. But I''m surprised at how often people DO notice it; they just don''t realize what causes it. The most common observation is ''my diamond isn''t as bright as others''.

 
Thank you Allison D!

Rockdiamond--I agree that the photos are out of focus, but claiming you can''t see the darkness in the middle is a bit absurd IMO. You keep asking if I thought it was distinct enough to show in photos. YES!!!! I do! To me, it''s pretty clear. And no offense, but I wouldn''t ever buy from a vendor who claimed he couldn''t see it. All that says to me is that his standards aren''t as high as mine, and so I''d go elsewhere. You may argue that you can see the diamond, you just don''t see a problem with it. But stating you can''t see the darkness after an unsatisfied consumer says it''s a problem just doesn''t make sense.


It might be something clear cut, that was easily noticable- or something that bothered you - and deserved getting a recut- but wasn''t very obvious if you did not know what too look for.

Here''s the thing that greatly bothers me about that statement, and the thing that I''ve already stated before. I DIDN''T know what I was looking for. I had never heard of steep deep diamonds. What I knew was that the GIA was supposed to be the very best as far as grading labs go, so I picked a GIA triple excellent. Still never having heard of steep deep diamonds, I started doing research on diamond cut and why on earth my supposedly top of the line diamond was showing a big black blob in the middle instead of brightness and sparkle. So yes, I think it was pretty obvious, even to ignorant old me.

Even in the "glamour shot" pictures as I''ve called them, I think it''s pretty obvious that the center was darker, as well as around the edges. I also think it doesn''t take an expert to assume that the diamond would have looked worse without the sun shining behind it. The still picture may have looked pretty, but in motion in real life, the pics I took in the moving car are much more accurate of a representation.

 
HI everyone!
Kelli, I''m sorry if I missed a statement you made before that you could easily see a dark center and it bothered you in the stone you own. No offense intended, I have no doubt you saw what you saw and it bothered you.

Yesterday we both posted at the same time ( about 2 in the afternoon) so you had already answered the questions I posed.

Yet again, what might be most interesting is how upset people get based on a conversation about the cut of diamonds.


Do Kelli''s photos show a dark center?
Maybe, but I don''t feel it''s clear.

The jeans are in perfect focus, I can''t really see the diamond well enough to see relationship of facets and light.
Kelli - you mentioned yourself that the photos probably would not be helpful.

Certainly we can illustrate dark centered diamonds better than that.

I already posted a stone that I feel shows a dark center clearly. I''m sure I do have some other photos myself. But we have pics so many that finding other examples will take some time.
Plus most of my photos will be of fancy shaped diamonds.


If we''re discussing the easily visible issue of lesser spread in deeper diamonds, there''s little debate.
A 1.00ct spreading 6mm is going to look small for it''s weight compared to other well cut diamonds. That involves mm measurements versus opinions.
A 1.00ct EX cut grade spreading 6.4mm being called deep is another issue.

Maybe it''s a question of degree- what some see as bothersome darkness, others see as contrast.

For this reason, I don''t feel we can have too many photographic examples.

Even today we''ve had someone asking for just that
 
I don''t feel the need to reiterate my points again. You don''t feel it''s clear. I don''t understand how that''s possible but it''s no skin off my nose. Just to clarify though, I am not upset. I think bolding and capitalizing when trying to put emphasis on certain things can make it look that way, but I''m hardly losing any sleep over this.
2.gif
 
Hi all,
Would this stone be considered a "Steep Deep" based on the CA/PA?

stdpcert.jpg
 
ooops, hit the submit button in error
 
Date: 11/17/2009 2:49:49 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Hi all,
Would this stone be considered a ''Steep Deep'' based on the CA/PA?
Steep, but not deep.
Deep starts at 41.2 in my mind. Others consider it to start at 41.0.
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Top