Diamond Light Performance – Marketing Spin or Diamond Shopping Essentials?

[Texas Leaguer]

You're making my point very well.
In your comparison, diving needs to be judged subjectively ( like a diamond) whereas a swim race is won by the fasted swimmer. Nothing to interpret.

The diver might do a belly flop, which might actually please some onlookers more than a perfect swan dive....are they wrong?
But if Michael Phelps swam the 100 faster than all the competitors, his performance is NOT subjective.
In the Olympics, we're allowing the diving judges to subjectively assess the performance.
I don't feel that consumers should allow diamond sellers that same leeway to decide which "performance" is best.
It's a semantic difference- and your company surely does offer substance to back up your subjective opinions.
But by and large, no, the term is misused IMO

David,
I'm glad you think I am making your point. You're welcome

There is a "taste" factor in any diamond that you look at. Everybody likes good quality ice cream but not everybody likes the same flavor.

A really interesting example of how subjective taste can take precedence over objective performance is the case of EightStar. For those not familiar, EightStar was one of the first 'super ideal' brands. They took the classic round brilliant and through precision cutting produced a diamond that not only had ideal proportions and top optical symmetry, but also eliminated the small percentage of light leakage that the classic ideal round exhibits. Objectively this was an improvement in performance over the competition, and the company heralded it as the brightest diamond in the world.

But curiously, very knowlegable consumers (pricescope was a major proving ground) did not respond to it all that well in the longrun, with most people prefering the "classic coke"!

More to say on this later as it relates to scintillation....

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I disagree Bryan.
A mistake that AGS made - all diamonds should be compared to the market leader.
The Tolkowsky round brilliant cut.
For spread
Fire
light return
scintillation
Whatever

Viralently disagree 9stronger than strong)

I very strongly disagree Garry.
The make everything a mrb is destructive and the wrong direction.
Changes in lighting will leave the mrb behind eventually is a part of the reason.
Another is the destruction of diversity for different preferences.

Virulently disagree (stronger than strong) Karl.
From practical experience generating new cuts for the MSS master stone collection - using Tolkowsky as a bench mark creates a target to achieve and in some cases those targets have been exceeded.
Keeping up with the Joneses never made MillionBillinaires

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Ha! When was Tolkowsky ever the market leader! Tell that to the American cutters who were using essentially the same propotioning and trying to get the industry to cut for beauty over weight, well before Tolkowsky wrote his thesis. Until recently that goal has been consistently thwarted by the "market leaders".

But in the information age consumer understanding of cut quality and light performance has proliferated and given new life to those who have struggled to get the industry to adopt a more consumer-centric philosophy. Even GIA was convinced to add a cut grade to their reports, and when they did, cutting improved overnight. At least for rounds.

Maybe now that they have the AGSL tools they will do the same for fancy shapes.

Maybe Bryan, but they are still mostly a bunch of GeoChemists and look at the stuff up they did with rounds!
IGI and GCAL are leapfrogging them,

 

[Ibrakeforpossums]

Texas Leaguer, where do you think EightStar failed to impress? I think a local chain here, Kesslers, sold something similar.
I love threads like this.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Texas Leaguer, where do you think EightStar failed to impress? I think a local chain here, Kesslers, sold something similar.
I love threads like this.

On behalf of Bryan who is sitting down with a glass of whisky while his family bring slippers and set the table:
They painted far too much resulting in GIA dinging them (and probably AGSL too after Pete got around what they were doing and had software to confirm the painting impact.
The Kessler Bros were part of the R&D team that ended up in court with AG and the GCAL crew.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Texas Leaguer, where do you think EightStar failed to impress? I think a local chain here, Kesslers, sold something similar.
I love threads like this.

Good question @Ibrakeforpossums. @Garry H (Cut Nut) alluded to it, but in his obtuse, wine influenced way Let me try to describe it differently:

For a classic round, including ideal and super ideal, the cutter uses what is called standard indexing as a setting that controls the small, upper girdle facets. That setting produces a very small amount of leakage around the perimeter of the diamond. (white in this IdealScope image).


But the tool can also be set in a non-standard index by adjusting it a click or two. This changes the pointing direction of the upper girdle facets (the azimuth) which can have various effects on the diamond. Non-standard indexing can be used to retain weight, among other things. Eightstar used it to eliminate virtually all of those little leakages that the classic round brilliant exhibits (below).



The interesting thing is that it turns out those little leakages have a positive effect on scintillation! While the EightStar managed to squeeze a tiny bit of extra brightness out of the stone, it did so at the expense of some scintillation, and it was just enough to be noticeable to people with a developed eye for light performance.

This was revelatory to me and helped me understand the concept of leakage contrast. So, we normally think of contrast as black and white (literally) - on/off blinking of contiguous facets - one facet lights up and the one next to it goes dark. But you can get a little contrast between a lit up facet and one that is leaking light. To me, this is why you can look at a crushed ice cushion with an ASET that is mostly green, almost no blue, and with a lot of leakage scattered about, and it is still twinkly and attractive. It's because of leakage contrast.

That is not to say that leakage is the new brightness. It has to be very well distributed in order to be additive to scintillation and overall eye appeal.
Because the small leakages in the classic round are so small and well placed and distributed, they are actually additive to scintillation, and that was something people could notice, whether they knew the root cause or not.

Structured contrast is necessary for a diamond to have brilliance and depth. Too little contrast and a diamond can look flat. While the Eighstar had great edge to edge brightness, the perimeter looked a little flat due to this loss of contrast.

 

[Ibrakeforpossums]

Wow. I'll read this 8 times.

 

[MissGotRocks]

Good question @Ibrakeforpossums. @Garry H (Cut Nut) alluded to it, but in his obtuse, wine influenced way Let me try to describe it differently:

For a classic round, including ideal and super ideal, the cutter uses what is called standard indexing as a setting that controls the small, upper girdle facets. That setting produces a very small amount of leakage around the perimeter of the diamond. (white in this IdealScope image).


But the tool can also be set in a non-standard index by adjusting it a click or two. This changes the pointing direction of the upper girdle facets (the azimuth) which can have various effects on the diamond. Non-standard indexing can be used to retain weight, among other things. Eightstar used it to eliminate virtually all of those little leakages that the classic round brilliant exhibits (below).



The interesting thing is that it turns out those little leakages have a positive effect on scintillation! While the EightStar managed to squeeze a tiny bit of extra brightness out of the stone, it did so at the expense of some scintillation, and it was just enough to be noticeable to people with a developed eye for light performance.

This was revelatory to me and helped me understand the concept of leakage contrast. So, we normally think of contrast as black and white (literally) - on/off blinking of contiguous facets - one facet lights up and the one next to it goes dark. But you can get a little contrast between a lit up facet and one that is leaking light. To me, this is why you can look at a crushed ice cushion with an ASET that is mostly green, almost no blue, and with a lot of leakage scattered about, and it is still twinkly and attractive. It's because of leakage contrast.

That is not to say that leakage is the new brightness. It has to be very well distributed in order to be additive to scintillation and overall eye appeal.
Because the small leakages in the classic round are so small and well placed and distributed, they are actually additive to scintillation, and that was something people could notice, whether they knew the root cause or not.

Structured contrast is necessary for a diamond to have brilliance and depth. Too little contrast and a diamond can look flat. While the Eighstar had great edge to edge brightness, the perimeter looked a little flat due to this loss of contrast.

Makes sense - appreciate the explanation!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Good question @Ibrakeforpossums. @Garry H (Cut Nut) alluded to it, but in his obtuse, wine influenced way Let me try to describe it differently:

For a classic round, including ideal and super ideal, the cutter uses what is called standard indexing as a setting that controls the small, upper girdle facets. That setting produces a very small amount of leakage around the perimeter of the diamond. (white in this IdealScope image).


But the tool can also be set in a non-standard index by adjusting it a click or two. This changes the pointing direction of the upper girdle facets (the azimuth) which can have various effects on the diamond. Non-standard indexing can be used to retain weight, among other things. Eightstar used it to eliminate virtually all of those little leakages that the classic round brilliant exhibits (below).



The interesting thing is that it turns out those little leakages have a positive effect on scintillation! While the EightStar managed to squeeze a tiny bit of extra brightness out of the stone, it did so at the expense of some scintillation, and it was just enough to be noticeable to people with a developed eye for light performance.

This was revelatory to me and helped me understand the concept of leakage contrast. So, we normally think of contrast as black and white (literally) - on/off blinking of contiguous facets - one facet lights up and the one next to it goes dark. But you can get a little contrast between a lit up facet and one that is leaking light. To me, this is why you can look at a crushed ice cushion with an ASET that is mostly green, almost no blue, and with a lot of leakage scattered about, and it is still twinkly and attractive. It's because of leakage contrast.

That is not to say that leakage is the new brightness. It has to be very well distributed in order to be additive to scintillation and overall eye appeal.
Because the small leakages in the classic round are so small and well placed and distributed, they are actually additive to scintillation, and that was something people could notice, whether they knew the root cause or not.

Structured contrast is necessary for a diamond to have brilliance and depth. Too little contrast and a diamond can look flat. While the Eighstar had great edge to edge brightness, the perimeter looked a little flat due to this loss of contrast.

Excellent explanation Bryan! That whiskey really works - can I have a recommendation please - we occasionally substitute bourbon for wine!
To add to this, because we have captured some inquisitive minds!

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

I'm going to make some comments on the original question.
While I essentially agree that light performance is essential when buying a diamond, I think the wording of light performance ought to be replaced with something easier for the buying public to understand. Karl made this point earlier on, and also said the consumer would understand better if this concept were simpler.

Rockdiamond also made his point again that he also did not like using all the terminology and tools put forth and as he used to say "use your eyes". I never quite understood what he meant until lately. But I think his point is well taken, by me at least.

Now the hero of my post is Garry. He has put his finger on , what I perceive should be the next marketing avenue for diamonds. His calls himself a sparkiologist .( A new category of employment) Everyone understands what that means. Our own TL walked into a store that dealt in MMD and spoke about the blazing sparkle of those diamonds. EMD don't compare unless excellent cut. So the sparkle is the point.

I purpose the usage of the word sparkle, sparkly sparkiest be associated with diamonds rather than light performance. A diamond SPARKLES LIKE THE STARS. i LOVE MY OWN SLOGAN.iTS A BEAUTIFUL VISION.

Annette

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Garry calls himself a sparkiologist
I purpose the usage of the word sparkle, sparkly sparkiest be associated with diamonds rather than light performance. A diamond SPARKLES LIKE THE STARS. i LOVE MY OWN SLOGAN.iTS A BEAUTIFUL VISION.

Annette

Yup, I have dropped brilliance.
Also on record that 3/4 mmd get great HCA cut and less than 1/4 of diamonds do

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Yup, I have dropped brilliance.
Also on record that 3/4 mmd get great HCA cut and less than 1/4 of diamonds do

There is nothing to be gained economically in taking liberties with cut quality on mmd. Uniformity of rough also allows for a great deal of repeatability and more efficient production.

Maybe a new generation of cutters will learn their craft on mmd and that may carry over to better cutting on natural stones. Of course, AI will probably be cutting the diamonds of the future.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

There is nothing to be gained economically in taking liberties with cut quality on mmd. Uniformity of rough also allows for a great deal of repeatability and more efficient production.

Maybe a new generation of cutters will learn their craft on mmd and that may carry over to better cutting on natural stones. Of course, AI will probably be cutting the diamonds of the future.

Would WF like to sponsor a mmd cut design competition?

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Hi,

I'm going to make some comments on the original question.
While I essentially agree that light performance is essential when buying a diamond, I think the wording of light performance ought to be replaced with something easier for the buying public to understand. Karl made this point earlier on, and also said the consumer would understand better if this concept were simpler.

Rockdiamond also made his point again that he also did not like using all the terminology and tools put forth and as he used to say "use your eyes". I never quite understood what he meant until lately. But I think his point is well taken, by me at least.

Now the hero of my post is Garry. He has put his finger on , what I perceive should be the next marketing avenue for diamonds. His calls himself a sparkiologist .( A new category of employment) Everyone understands what that means. Our own TL walked into a store that dealt in MMD and spoke about the blazing sparkle of those diamonds. EMD don't compare unless excellent cut. So the sparkle is the point.

I purpose the usage of the word sparkle, sparkly sparkiest be associated with diamonds rather than light performance. A diamond SPARKLES LIKE THE STARS. i LOVE MY OWN SLOGAN.iTS A BEAUTIFUL VISION.

Annette

I get the point about romancing the stone. And I agree... to an extent. But our business has shown us that there are a great many consumers who are very technical and want to gain a technical understanding of the diamonds they are considering.

And "use your eyes" is fine and good. However, most people do not have a trained eye for diamonds (especially young engagement ring shoppers) and have difficulty picking up even relatively large differences at first. It takes time to tune your eye and many shoppers have more immediate goals.

As a merchant it is important to understand your customer and what is important to them. It is VERY easy to over-do the technical, and that is not helpful to them.

 

[V_sh]

Thanks to all the friends and masters for giving us their precious time and consideration.

I learned from you, and I DO appreciate that

@Garry H (Cut Nut) and @Texas Leaguer and @Rockdiamond

Thanks for sharing your valuable opinions about diamonds being compared with their peers or with Tolkowsky RBC. fortunately, I agree with all of you and understand your concerns and unfortunately, I disagree with all of you also.

My opinion is a combination of yours and I really like to know your feedback, please.

I think that some parameters of a diamond should be evaluated regarding its peers and some other parameters should essentially be assessed regarding the Tolkowsky RBC; Let's dive to the depth


why does "Standard Round Brilliant Cut" matter? Because it's the most popular diamond cut in the world

why does "Tolkowsky Round Brilliant Cut" and also the MSS project matter? Because the most Balanced diamond cut in terms of all of the optical qualities that we can reach is TRBC or "MSS13 stone"

what do I mean by "most balanced"? I mean we can not increase or decrease a light performance quality (out of three Brilliance, Scintillation, and Fire) without expecting to sacrifice or strengthen at least one of the other two light qualities.

(I have an argument about "Most balanced" as I think TRBC is not balanced regarding the Three performances and MSS13 is almost balanced but lacks the desired pattern symmetry, So we may search for the REAL "Balanced" one)

So I think that we cannot compare for example "Spread" of a fancy-cut diamond with its peers as 70% of the cut, sold, and worn diamonds are Standard RBC. ( So I agree with @Garry H (Cut Nut) and maybe disagree with @Rockdiamond and @Texas Leaguer)

Other parameters that are like Spread in my opinion: Optical symmetry, Brilliance, etc.
(Because almost no single stone is more brilliant or symmetrical than RBC)


and also we can not compare the Fire or Brilliance of a Crushed Iced with an Emerald cut or an Oval and choose just one of them, as the designer's purpose in cutting these stones was completely different, to get to most Scintillation or most Fire (then I probably disagree with @Garry H (Cut Nut) and agree with @Rockdiamond and @Texas Leaguer)

Then the personal taste discussion will be the point.

Other parameters that are like the above example in my opinion: comparing the clarity in Crushed Ice with an Emerald Cut it's not a good thing to do

(Because one small dark inclusion in a hall of million mirrors will become a million small inclusions)


In the end, I think the most reasonable way to find the right diamond for a person (Customer) consists of three steps:

1- Introduce the customer to the "Most balanced/Most popular" diamond cut (It will be a specific Standard RBC)

2- Ask for the customer's personal taste and personal things that will affect the appearance of the diamond (skin tone, environment to wear the diamond, the favorite light performance cts.) and choose some cuts after that

3- Lead the customer to compare the chosen cuts from Step 2 with peers of those cuts and also with the "Most balanced/Most popular" stone.

Then we find out the best Dimond cut or maybe Size(Because fire may matter) for the customer

@Karl_K thanks for your valuable information

but I think no REAL customer gonna complain about a Vendor that pays detailed attention to the customer's personality and tastes, and helps them to choose the right personalized diamond.

Do you agree?

 

[V_sh]

Of course, AI will probably be cutting the diamonds of the future.

Great point you made Bryan, thanks a lot

Here is my opinion

AIs are not really intelligent as they can not solve a problem that is completely new (they lack the essential creativity) they are just some fast algorithms and search engines that will mix and search available answers that humans created before.

an AI with no access to human databases and experiences will do nothing and those that have access won't give us a real novel thing (By novel I don't mean a new thing which is the mix of older versions or finding the hidden data out of a huge database)

Then I think you are partially right, new cutters with a good understanding of old things and modern things who are able to use AI to reach their purpose will change the diamond world forever.

I can also confidently say the next generation of buyers (GenZ) will decide how to shape this market. (not happened yet)

I DO assure you that this generation thinks totally differently about buying things (you may consider LGD and mined ones or cut quality) and also really suggest you and @Garry H (Cut Nut) to deeply study their behaviors and argue with a couple of them. (You may have done so before which can be so precious for me to know)

I expect you as leaders of the industry and I'm sure some of your opinions will change if you do so and then you will lead us better.


I enormously appreciate both of you for your precious time and consideration

 

[Serg]

How balanced a cut is depends not only on its design but also on its size. For example, the balance of a round cut is significantly disrupted for stones larger than 10 carats. Even for 5-carat stones, I would not recommend a round cut. There are also 50-carat diamonds with a round cut that look more like they are made of glass rather than diamond.Additionally, if someone has seen a 2-carat classic diamond in a Pave setting, they would likely agree that this is extremely unfavorable for RBC, as the bright melee of the same design kills the performance of the larger stone.

For a cut to be a reference, it does not have to be the best or the most balanced.
We chose the round cut as a reference not because it can't be improved, but because it is the most common, well-known, and therefore easier to compare with.
There is no perfect cut, nor is there a perfectly balanced cut. Some people prefer more Fire, others Brilliance or Scintillation. Some love large Fire flashes, while others want the cut to have great "Life". Different balances are achieved in different cuts, it is a matter of taste, much like one's favorite dish. Everyone has their own food preferences, and the same should apply to diamonds. We should create many different High Performance diamonds, depending on the size of the diamonds and the tastes of the specific consumer, rather than insisting that one cut is perfect.

 

[V_sh]

How balanced a cut is depends not only on its design but also on its size. For example, the balance of a round cut is significantly disrupted for stones larger than 10 carats. Even for 5-carat stones, I would not recommend a round cut. There are also 50-carat diamonds with a round cut that look more like they are made of glass rather than diamond.Additionally, if someone has seen a 2-carat classic diamond in a Pave setting, they would likely agree that this is extremely unfavorable for RBC, as the bright melee of the same design kills the performance of the larger stone.

For a cut to be a reference, it does not have to be the best or the most balanced.
We chose the round cut as a reference not because it can't be improved, but because it is the most common, well-known, and therefore easier to compare with.
There is no perfect cut, nor is there a perfectly balanced cut. Some people prefer more Fire, others Brilliance or Scintillation. Some love large Fire flashes, while others want the cut to have great "Life". Different balances are achieved in different cuts, it is a matter of taste, much like one's favorite dish. Everyone has their own food preferences, and the same should apply to diamonds. We should create many different High Performance diamonds, depending on the size of the diamonds and the tastes of the specific consumer, rather than insisting that one cut is perfect.

Thank you so much for your valuable opinion Sergey, That really worth a lot.

Although I should think about and study what you said and for sure I need to learn more, after your words, my opinion would be this way:


I agree about the size and I think a 1ct round brilliant seems popular enough and we may be able to compare other stones with that.

then there will be a limit for 1ct standard round brilliant, and as you suggested we may seek some high-performance designs that each of them show different characteristics that suit different personal tastes.

a high-performance design with high Fire
another with high Scintillation
and one more with high brilliance
also, combinations may be needed

If I'm thinking of the highest performance that's because I suppose that customers with a specific taste are really willing to know what is the highest performance that suits their personal preference.

for example, I personally like my stone to have high Scintillation; then I'd like to know what design can show me the highest Scintillation.
this is the way that I can decide correctly for buying a diamond in this big market.

do you agree?

But at this point, it's confusing that we should really compare the Scintillation of a diamond with a 1ct standard RBC which has the highest Scintillation, or should we compare it with for example a Crushed Iced with the highest Scintillation?

Appreciate your consideration

 

[Serg]

Thank you so much for your valuable opinion Sergey, That really worth a lot.

Although I should think about and study what you said and for sure I need to learn more, after your words, my opinion would be this way:


I agree about the size and I think a 1ct round brilliant seems popular enough and we may be able to compare other stones with that.

then there will be a limit for 1ct standard round brilliant, and as you suggested we may seek some high-performance designs that each of them show different characteristics that suit different personal tastes.

a high-performance design with high Fire
another with high Scintillation
and one more with high brilliance
also, combinations may be needed

If I'm thinking of the highest performance that's because I suppose that customers with a specific taste are really willing to know what is the highest performance that suits their personal preference.

for example, I personally like my stone to have high Scintillation; then I'd like to know what design can show me the highest Scintillation.
this is the way that I can decide correctly for buying a diamond in this big market.

do you agree?

But at this point, it's confusing that we should really compare the Scintillation of a diamond with a 1ct standard RBC which has the highest Scintillation, or should we compare it with for example a Crushed Iced with the highest Scintillation?

Appreciate your consideration

On one hand, it seems entirely logical to find diamonds that have:

1. The highest scintillation
2. The highest fire
3. The highest brilliance

There are contests for eating spicy peppers, and there is ongoing selective work to breed hotter peppers. Have you ever heard of contests for eating the sweetest or saltiest foods? I wouldn’t be surprised if such contests exist, as there is always a need to set some records.
On other hand if we are interested in delicious dishes, they usually need to balance different flavors. In Asia, the concept of five flavors is widespread, and there are many different dishes with completely different combinations of these five flavors. Will winning a contest for eating the spiciest pepper help better compare and enjoy dishes with different combinations of the five flavors?

And what is maximum fire? Is it better to have one large flash of fire or many smaller ones with a total area equal to the large one? I think different consumers have different answers to this question, and therefore, there is probably no single diamond that everyone would consider the winner in a fire competition. Some might prefer large, full-color but rare flashes in an emerald cut, while others might choose cuts with significantly more but smaller flashes of color. How can we determine the absolute leader here? And is it really necessary?

Personally, I'm not interested in the spiciest pepper; I prefer to enjoy different variations of the balance of the five flavors.

Instead of seeking ideal leaders, I would advise creating a rich, positive language of communication about the beauty of diamonds and tools to educate consumers to see this beauty, to learn to independently distinguish excellent fancy cuts from just good ones.

 

[V_sh]

On one hand, it seems entirely logical to find diamonds that have:

1. The highest scintillation
2. The highest fire
3. The highest brilliance

There are contests for eating spicy peppers, and there is ongoing selective work to breed hotter peppers. Have you ever heard of contests for eating the sweetest or saltiest foods? I wouldn’t be surprised if such contests exist, as there is always a need to set some records.
On other hand if we are interested in delicious dishes, they usually need to balance different flavors. In Asia, the concept of five flavors is widespread, and there are many different dishes with completely different combinations of these five flavors. Will winning a contest for eating the spiciest pepper help better compare and enjoy dishes with different combinations of the five flavors?

And what is maximum fire? Is it better to have one large flash of fire or many smaller ones with a total area equal to the large one? I think different consumers have different answers to this question, and therefore, there is probably no single diamond that everyone would consider the winner in a fire competition. Some might prefer large, full-color but rare flashes in an emerald cut, while others might choose cuts with significantly more but smaller flashes of color. How can we determine the absolute leader here? And is it really necessary?

Personally, I'm not interested in the spiciest pepper; I prefer to enjoy different variations of the balance of the five flavors.

Instead of seeking ideal leaders, I would advise creating a rich, positive language of communication about the beauty of diamonds and tools to educate consumers to see this beauty, to learn to independently distinguish excellent fancy cuts from just good ones.

Amazing examples and questions that are going to guide my mindset in this journey, Thank you so much for your precious time.

I do agree with you and as I read your articles I understand what you are looking to provide for the market, and I'm grateful for that.

A very important question remains for me.

I assume that theoretically there should be a balanced design for every kind of cut, a balanced RBC a balanced standard Oval cut ... that I think we should know about for creating the language you said.

We can also expect many parameters for a balanced cut; distribution of fire flashes or their size, the efficiency of cutting a rough, Brilliance, Spread, and ...

But I'm still confusingly thinking of your opinion about a balanced cut.

nor is there a perfectly balanced cut

I prefer to enjoy different variations of the balance of the five flavors.

Is it really impossible to define some parameters for a diamond and balance a design regarding them?

For example, let's just take Brilliance and Scintillation; I think in a specific design like Standard RBC we should have a defined mix of angles, azimuth, and proportions to create a cut that its Brilliance and Scintillation can't be improved further, and are completely balanced.

Am I wrong?

I know about the precision limits that we have and I also assume that it's hard to reach this in reality

but let's first assess if it's theoretically possible or impossible.

 

[Serg]

Amazing examples and questions that are going to guide my mindset in this journey, Thank you so much for your precious time.

I do agree with you and as I read your articles I understand what you are looking to provide for the market, and I'm grateful for that.

A very important question remains for me.

I assume that theoretically there should be a balanced design for every kind of cut, a balanced RBC a balanced standard Oval cut ... that I think we should know about for creating the language you said.

We can also expect many parameters for a balanced cut; distribution of fire flashes or their size, the efficiency of cutting a rough, Brilliance, Spread, and ...

But I'm still confusingly thinking of your opinion about a balanced cut.




Is it really impossible to define some parameters for a diamond and balance a design regarding them?

For example, let's just take Brilliance and Scintillation; I think in a specific design like Standard RBC we should have a defined mix of angles, azimuth, and proportions to create a cut that its Brilliance and Scintillation can't be improved further, and are completely balanced.

Am I wrong?

I know about the precision limits that we have and I also assume that it's hard to reach this in reality

but let's first assess if it's theoretically possible or impossible.

I would not like to discuss the balance between Brilliancy and Scintillation on the forum. It is difficult to discuss even when working with real diamonds, as few people understand that a diamond can be very bright, but have practically no Brilliancy, Scintillation, or Fire. Moreover, not everyone can distinguish Scintillation from Brilliancy. This is quite a complex issue, as there is no clear boundary between them theoretically, just as there is no clear boundary between red and yellow colors, although pure colors differ significantly. Gradually changing the proportion of green when mixed with red, you get completely different colors from red to green. And can anyone say where the best balance between red and green is? Mixing different proportions of sour and sweet can result in completely different delicious combinations of sweet and sour, and just as there is no answer to which yellow color is better, it is unlikely that a system can be created to evaluate which sweet and sour taste is better. Why then can the best balance between Brilliancy and Scintillation be determined? Between Brilliancy and Fire? One can probably say that a diamond without Fire is too simple, like a dish with only one flavor. Even children prefer to eat not pure sugar, but candies or ice cream with a more complex taste, where sweet is mixed with other flavors.

Similarly, the classic RBC cut has very little Scintillation, and small changes in proportions do not correct this. At the same time, there are other designs with a round girdle that have much more spectacular combinations of Brilliancy and Scintillation. So, I see no point in spending time slightly changing the balance in a round cut, as it will not change anything in terms of its effectiveness as a reference. It makes more sense to use several references. For example, RBC, Princess cut, Radiant or crushed Ice cushion, Emerald. These four cuts have completely different combinations of Brilliancy, Fire, Scintillation, Brightness, and can serve as good benchmarks for evaluating other cuts, and most importantly, for communicating with consumers about what they like best.

 

[V_sh]

I would not like to discuss the balance between Brilliancy and Scintillation on the forum. It is difficult to discuss even when working with real diamonds, as few people understand that a diamond can be very bright, but have practically no Brilliancy, Scintillation, or Fire. Moreover, not everyone can distinguish Scintillation from Brilliancy. This is quite a complex issue, as there is no clear boundary between them theoretically, just as there is no clear boundary between red and yellow colors, although pure colors differ significantly. Gradually changing the proportion of green when mixed with red, you get completely different colors from red to green. And can anyone say where the best balance between red and green is? Mixing different proportions of sour and sweet can result in completely different delicious combinations of sweet and sour, and just as there is no answer to which yellow color is better, it is unlikely that a system can be created to evaluate which sweet and sour taste is better. Why then can the best balance between Brilliancy and Scintillation be determined? Between Brilliancy and Fire? One can probably say that a diamond without Fire is too simple, like a dish with only one flavor. Even children prefer to eat not pure sugar, but candies or ice cream with a more complex taste, where sweet is mixed with other flavors.

Similarly, the classic RBC cut has very little Scintillation, and small changes in proportions do not correct this. At the same time, there are other designs with a round girdle that have much more spectacular combinations of Brilliancy and Scintillation. So, I see no point in spending time slightly changing the balance in a round cut, as it will not change anything in terms of its effectiveness as a reference. It makes more sense to use several references. For example, RBC, Princess cut, Radiant or crushed Ice cushion, Emerald. These four cuts have completely different combinations of Brilliancy, Fire, Scintillation, Brightness, and can serve as good benchmarks for evaluating other cuts, and most importantly, for communicating with consumers about what they like best.

Thank you so much for your priceless explanations, for sure I should study every single part of your precious experience; thanks a lot for your guidance.

So my conclusion at the end, is that we may take some suitable cuts as our references, after that we'd better find boundaries for each cut by playing with their design and also investigate and recognize the optical capabilities of each.


Then your example about quality of foods works really good here.

Some people like the appetizer the most, others prefer the main course or dessert; each of these categories of foods has their own purpose in human nutrition.
We can not compare all foods with a single main course because it's more popular and abundant, a sweet dessert is totally diferent.

People at different ages or with diverse cultures may prefer completely dissimilar foods.
99% of humans avoid even smelling the "Kiviak" although some people in Greenland consider this food, an amazing one.
In some cultures people don't eat appetizer.

the competition of making the best dessert is not like creating the best main course; but each group of these foods have some similar and common features; each group has its specific fans.
Also there are different styles of cooking in each of food's category.

Meat is an important part of main course, if we cook a delicious meaty food, then most of main course fans may like it.

The big difference we face between Diamonds and Foods is that formulating and creating a diamond is much more expensive for the producer and complicated to understand for the end consumers and we may not be able to have thousands of different main courses to fit the diversity of humans' tastes; so we may have few nice main courses at the end and one main course as the refrence to compare others with.


Thanks for this amazing insight you provided.

 

[Serg]

The big difference we face between Diamonds and Foods is that formulating and creating a diamond is much more expensive for the producer and complicated to understand for the end consumers and we may not be able to have thousands of different main courses to fit the diversity of humans' tastes; so we may have few nice main courses at the end and one main course as the refrence to compare others with.

We started using food analogies to demonstrate the error in positioning natural diamonds many years ago, and today it is more relevant than ever due to the diamond market crisis caused by the large-scale production of CVD diamonds and their positioning in the same niche as natural diamonds. The cost of a 1-2 carat CVD diamond has become not only lower than the cost of a meal for one person at a three-star Michelin restaurant but even lower than a meal for two at a regular fine dining restaurant if you want to enjoy good food paired with decent wine.

For our courses, we cut many diamonds, and on average, D, E color, VS1 clarity diamonds cost us $220-250 per carat. Currently, it's quite easy to buy diamonds for $120 if they are of F-G color, and this price even includes an IGI certificate. I cannot understand how such a price is achieved because even if using low-quality CVD material at $20 per carat, with a yield of about 30%, and including the costs of HPHT, sawing, blocking, and polishing, the total should be at least $110-120, plus the IGI certificate. We needed D, E color diamonds and were buying raw materials at $45 (now it's $35), and our HPHT and laser sawing, blocking, and cutting costs were around $100-120. We had to pay double rates for cutters because we needed to precisely cut specific fancy shapes. Even with significant process optimization and not paying cutters, I don't see how to get a price below $170 for D, E stones. It seems many companies are willing to sell stones below cost just to maintain cash flow. So, now is a good time to buy ready-made CVD diamonds for re-cutting instead of buying raw materials. The cost of raw materials is unlikely to rise, while diamond prices should increase when some companies go bankrupt, and diamonds stop being sold below cost.

In any case, there is now an opportunity to acquire 1-2 diamonds at the cost of a meal at a good EU restaurant. Of course, B2C prices will be higher than the B2B prices I mentioned, but considering that in a restaurant you need to pay for two people and to find one restaurant that you really like, you have to visit 3-5 fairly mediocre ones, buying a diamond you like turns out to be much less expensive than the search for a good restaurant.
Below are a few slides from our 2019 presentation:





If it happens you have to choose just one ideal food for you at the moment, what would you choose? Think for a moment.

Then you can share your choice with a person next to you or with the whole audience should you wish or keep completely private of course. Great.

And now imagine that you have to eat only this ideal food for a long time and … forever.



You will very quickly find out that the combination of two great intents: Ideal and Forever results in an unhealthy condition.



In diamond market the combination of two propositions has caused the unhealthy condition.

It ruins the repeating purchases and thus diamond industry development.


The second option could be a bigger Ideal stone. If it is twice more expensive, it will make impression of just 20-25% bigger item. Is this progress value for money? And also then, the first purchase significantly loses its psychological value next to the new stone.

This is why the Ideal is so ruining for the market. It rigidly limits users' further progress within the category, therefore limits the repeating purchases.

Why then did it happen that the industry had forged these the proposition of Ideal? It was developed to address the main product challenges. What are they?

 

[V_sh]

We started using food analogies to demonstrate the error in positioning natural diamonds many years ago, and today it is more relevant than ever due to the diamond market crisis caused by the large-scale production of CVD diamonds and their positioning in the same niche as natural diamonds. The cost of a 1-2 carat CVD diamond has become not only lower than the cost of a meal for one person at a three-star Michelin restaurant but even lower than a meal for two at a regular fine dining restaurant if you want to enjoy good food paired with decent wine.

For our courses, we cut many diamonds, and on average, D, E color, VS1 clarity diamonds cost us $220-250 per carat. Currently, it's quite easy to buy diamonds for $120 if they are of F-G color, and this price even includes an IGI certificate. I cannot understand how such a price is achieved because even if using low-quality CVD material at $20 per carat, with a yield of about 30%, and including the costs of HPHT, sawing, blocking, and polishing, the total should be at least $110-120, plus the IGI certificate. We needed D, E color diamonds and were buying raw materials at $45 (now it's $35), and our HPHT and laser sawing, blocking, and cutting costs were around $100-120. We had to pay double rates for cutters because we needed to precisely cut specific fancy shapes. Even with significant process optimization and not paying cutters, I don't see how to get a price below $170 for D, E stones. It seems many companies are willing to sell stones below cost just to maintain cash flow. So, now is a good time to buy ready-made CVD diamonds for re-cutting instead of buying raw materials. The cost of raw materials is unlikely to rise, while diamond prices should increase when some companies go bankrupt, and diamonds stop being sold below cost.

In any case, there is now an opportunity to acquire 1-2 diamonds at the cost of a meal at a good EU restaurant. Of course, B2C prices will be higher than the B2B prices I mentioned, but considering that in a restaurant you need to pay for two people and to find one restaurant that you really like, you have to visit 3-5 fairly mediocre ones, buying a diamond you like turns out to be much less expensive than the search for a good restaurant.
Below are a few slides from our 2019 presentation:





If it happens you have to choose just one ideal food for you at the moment, what would you choose? Think for a moment.

Then you can share your choice with a person next to you or with the whole audience should you wish or keep completely private of course. Great.

And now imagine that you have to eat only this ideal food for a long time and … forever.



You will very quickly find out that the combination of two great intents: Ideal and Forever results in an unhealthy condition.



In diamond market the combination of two propositions has caused the unhealthy condition.

It ruins the repeating purchases and thus diamond industry development.


The second option could be a bigger Ideal stone. If it is twice more expensive, it will make impression of just 20-25% bigger item. Is this progress value for money? And also then, the first purchase significantly loses its psychological value next to the new stone.

This is why the Ideal is so ruining for the market. It rigidly limits users' further progress within the category, therefore limits the repeating purchases.

Why then did it happen that the industry had forged these the proposition of Ideal? It was developed to address the main product challenges. What are they?

wow, this amazing detailed insight excited me, thank you so much for sharing Sergey.

About the price of raw and "cut+IGI" material, it seems to me that selling without profit or with low profit to maintain the cash flow can not be a long-term strategy and is not a good one at this time, on the other hand after some investigation I think one of the main costs of CVDs and cutting process is the cost of fuel/energy and then the cost of labor; as you are probably aware of, both of these concepts have long long stories to be told or to be assessed when it comes to a country like India, so I think there are too many ways to reduce costs of these two expenses (for sure not legal or environmentally correct) and I appreciate it if you research about this subject and tell us if it's true, as you have facilities in India.

Also, it seems that a CVD with a regular/classic/old cut is really cheap as you suggested but one with a specific accurate cut that is novel or personalized can not be really cheap (we may consider what Paul Hung is doing in Jannpaul Diamonds)
So the future stories seem to be around cutting and personalizing.



Terms that are used in the Diamond market remind me of those terms that are used by Biologists/Biology enthusiasts who have a wrong insight and perception of nature.

Ideal, Most, Best, Highest, and extreme adjectives like these are those kinds of terms that a real scientist/researcher barely dares himself to use, It's because of the modality of nature.

Diamond cutting and light physics are part of our beautiful nature also.

so my opinion is that there can be some sentences describing a diamond that are cautiously true and those that can not be true.

"Until now this diamond has an accurate cut which creates the highest brilliancy when compared with other diamond cuts at an equal condition"
This can be cautiously true

"The World's Most Perfectly Cut Diamond."
which is the slogan of a vendor on the internet.
This is definitely NOT true

surely I agree with you about the terms that are ruining the market and the consumers' feelings/perceptions. (consumer may think: what if I'm not buying the best diamond for my fiancee)

and then "Ideal" as an adjective is a highly relative concept:

When is it ideal?
Where is it ideal?
For whom is it ideal?
In what size is it ideal?
For what application is it ideal?

and by finding the answers to above questions for each consumer we will find so many Ideals for a single person.

Ideal for office
Ideal for outdoor sunny days
Ideal for party
Ideal for a sunny summer
Ideal for a sunny winter
Ideal for a person in his 20s
Ideal for long-sighted
Ideal for an albino person
Ideal for a color-blind person

and hundreds of combinations

so the next diamond for a consumer is another one which is also ideal but in a totally different condition.

and you perfectly pointed out that large size round brilliant cut seems less interesting, then we can suggest a regular consumer easily not to buy a 6cts RBC as an update for a 3cts RBC.

Much more expensive, a little bigger, and less interesting.


One big problem that remains unanswered in diamond cutting is that:
How can we produce a specific balanced design to fit a person or a specific situation?

Let's imagine a consumer gives us highly detailed information about himself and his life, everything that is related to light which helps us to suggest him the right diamond, the information leads us to the following properties of let's say a RBC.

_white arrows at the head shadow of 4° (one eye)
_dark arrows at the head shadow of 10° (the other eye)
_55% of total possible Fire (few pointed lighting he is exposed to)
_100% of total possible Brilliance (he is mostly exposed to scattered lighting)
_60% of total possible Scintillation (he is old and long-sighted, but uses glasses in the office)
_60-65% of the table (he likes his diamond to be perceived a little bigger)
_Star facets make two perfect rectangular to show the "Star of Lakshmi" (his personal beliefs)

We can not find him a diamond even in the biggest diamond stock; because firstly we don't exactly know the total possible Fire/Brilliance/Scintillation of RBC; Secondly we don't have light performance scores of every diamond: Thirdly we've never defined a method to regulate each light performance through a specific process.


lack of a defined method to personalize a diamond is a barrier for us to make the diamond industry like luxury industries that are selling personalized goods or like the food industry that provides something for every single taste.

Chiefs specifically design meals through defined methods to meet consumers' tastes.

Supercar companies have defined methods to provide new options or diversity of car models to meet consumers' desires.


For sure small changes to find better RBC are worthless but making small changes, putting them together, and interpreting them may lead us to find a method to precisely personalize a diamond cut without just doing the random designing and testing.
Thanks to your numeric diamond evaluating system which is the only way out of the darkness at this moment, Cutwise is a very essential part of personalizing, but using Cutwise in a random manner or for evaluating random diamonds is just 10% of its abilities.

what's your opinion about defining methods for personalizing diamonds for each kind of cut? Please

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

Are diamonds cut by hand or machine, say in India where most cutting is done?

White Flash charged a man $140,000.00 to cut a 4 ctw RBC a few months ago. I was shocked as it was in the midst of falling diamond prices. Most people here thought that the price was fair.
If you customize diamonds will they become too pricy for the average person. There is no supply shortage so how would those two ideas work together.

I just want my diamond to be beautiful.

Annette

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Hi,

Are diamonds cut by hand or machine, say in India where most cutting is done?

White Flash charged a man $140,000.00 to cut a 4 ctw RBC a few months ago. I was shocked as it was in the midst of falling diamond prices. Most people here thought that the price was fair.
If you customize diamonds will they become too pricy for the average person. There is no supply shortage so how would those two ideas work together.

I just want my diamond to be beautiful.

Annette

Never heard the $140k story???
The cutting process is partly mechanized and partly by hand.
Even the Synova laser blocking process (and other similar companies) requires hand brillianteering. That is like a final polish of every facet as the laser burns the diamond and makes it black.
The most expensive labor is the pre planning of what to polish from a piece of rough. This is expensive because the team are all advanced math/engineers on 6 figure equipment. This is not an issue with man made diamonds CVD as they are regular shapes and largely inclusion free.

 

[V_sh]

Hi,

Are diamonds cut by hand or machine, say in India where most cutting is done?

White Flash charged a man $140,000.00 to cut a 4 ctw RBC a few months ago. I was shocked as it was in the midst of falling diamond prices. Most people here thought that the price was fair.
If you customize diamonds will they become too pricy for the average person. There is no supply shortage so how would those two ideas work together.

I just want my diamond to be beautiful.

Annette

The same subject I wrote about, you may take a second look
you want it beautiful or personalized and beautiful?

A beautiful diamond which is viwed by a person with hight of 150cm and shorter arm length may not be beautiful for a 190cm person with longer arm length.

Light physics matters

No personalized lux object is inexpensive