elle_chris
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Messages
- 3,520
- Status
L
Lula
Guest
I forgot one other benefit that comes with buying a branded stone like Infinity -- sometimes the designer of the brand shows up on your PS thread! Thank you, Paul, for your comments; they reminded me of a conversation I had in May, when Wink called me about the .53 J VS2 Infinity stone.
When I spoke to Wink that day, I explained to him that I was returning a stone I had purchased from another vendor. He asked me why, and I explained that I had a nagging feeling that the cut was not as precise as I'd like. I explained that while the cut of my stone was good, I knew from more reading on PS, that Infinity stones had a reputation for their precise cut. I told Wink that if I was going to spend the money on an ideal cut, H&A diamond, I wanted the best I could get in that category, not just good enough, or close enough.
Wink spent a long time on the phone that day with me explaining why Paul's stones were "different" - a lot of which I didn't really understand at the time, but after learning more, I came to appreciate the careful design and craftsmanship that went into each stone. For example, Wink told me about Paul's process -- how one cutter cuts each stone, stops and evaluates the stone during the cutting process, confers with Paul, and decisions are made how to proceed to the next stage of the cutting process. That is the craftsmanship I spoke of earlier (Paul and/or Wink -- I am going by memory here of earlier conversations with Wink -- please correct me if I'm not remembering right).
I remember being very impressed at the time, because I had very little knowledge of the diamond cutting industry and had just assumed that cutting was more of an assembly line process. I was proud to buy a stone crafted using an artisan approach.
It wasn't until I decided to upgrade and ordered my 1.00 M SI2 Infinity stone from Wink that I understood with my eyes what I am calling "cut consistency" (please note, I am using that term as a consumer would -- the conversation that Storm and Paul are having about angles is out of my league!).
Cut consistency to me became a reality when I opened the package from Wink and saw my new 1.00 M stone. The appearance and character of the stone, the performance of the stone, the crispness of the stone was identical to my J. It was like my M was the big sister stone to my J -- I don't know how else to explain it. This similarity was a amazing to me because I had gone down 3 color grades and 2 clarity grades.
I started thinking about photos of other Infinity stones I'd seen on SMTR (QueenMum's photos of the Infinity he owned in the "L color and under" thread on SMTR is one of the more recent posts I remember), and how those stones, too, are strikingly similar to my Infinity stones.
That's why I decided to post the photos. If we throw out the blurry photo (the second photo) and compare photo number 1 (the M) with photo number 3 (the J), those two photos demonstrate best what I'm trying to show here -- the consumer definition of cut consistency!
I took the photos at two separate times under two separate lighting conditions; it struck me how similar the stones looked IRL and it also struck me how similar they look in photos!
This is what I paid for when I bought my Infinity -- consistency of appearance and performance, intentionality of design (not random or hit or miss accuracy of cut) -- and, of course, perceived beauty. It's what I wanted in a stone, and it's what I got.
I'm sorry I cannot explain this in more technical terms; but, to me, as a consumer, wearing the diamond on my finger, I want it to look beautiful to my eyes; I want to be certain of its quality; and proud of the process -- I'm using that word intentionally now! -- that brought the diamond from rough to polished stone. This is what I bought when I bought my Infinity.
I'm not sure if this will muddy the waters or offer clarity, but here are the links to my two stones (with the AGS reports). After I read Storm's comments, I went back and looked at the dates on the certs from my two stones.
Interestingly, the .53 J VS2 cert is dated Feb. 2005; the 1.0 M SI2 cert is dated Feb. 2009 -- four years apart. The stones look like sisters. What can I say, except that's the kind of cutting I want in a diamond!
.53 J VS2
AGS report
1.00 M SI2
AGS Report
When I spoke to Wink that day, I explained to him that I was returning a stone I had purchased from another vendor. He asked me why, and I explained that I had a nagging feeling that the cut was not as precise as I'd like. I explained that while the cut of my stone was good, I knew from more reading on PS, that Infinity stones had a reputation for their precise cut. I told Wink that if I was going to spend the money on an ideal cut, H&A diamond, I wanted the best I could get in that category, not just good enough, or close enough.
Wink spent a long time on the phone that day with me explaining why Paul's stones were "different" - a lot of which I didn't really understand at the time, but after learning more, I came to appreciate the careful design and craftsmanship that went into each stone. For example, Wink told me about Paul's process -- how one cutter cuts each stone, stops and evaluates the stone during the cutting process, confers with Paul, and decisions are made how to proceed to the next stage of the cutting process. That is the craftsmanship I spoke of earlier (Paul and/or Wink -- I am going by memory here of earlier conversations with Wink -- please correct me if I'm not remembering right).
I remember being very impressed at the time, because I had very little knowledge of the diamond cutting industry and had just assumed that cutting was more of an assembly line process. I was proud to buy a stone crafted using an artisan approach.
It wasn't until I decided to upgrade and ordered my 1.00 M SI2 Infinity stone from Wink that I understood with my eyes what I am calling "cut consistency" (please note, I am using that term as a consumer would -- the conversation that Storm and Paul are having about angles is out of my league!).
Cut consistency to me became a reality when I opened the package from Wink and saw my new 1.00 M stone. The appearance and character of the stone, the performance of the stone, the crispness of the stone was identical to my J. It was like my M was the big sister stone to my J -- I don't know how else to explain it. This similarity was a amazing to me because I had gone down 3 color grades and 2 clarity grades.
I started thinking about photos of other Infinity stones I'd seen on SMTR (QueenMum's photos of the Infinity he owned in the "L color and under" thread on SMTR is one of the more recent posts I remember), and how those stones, too, are strikingly similar to my Infinity stones.
That's why I decided to post the photos. If we throw out the blurry photo (the second photo) and compare photo number 1 (the M) with photo number 3 (the J), those two photos demonstrate best what I'm trying to show here -- the consumer definition of cut consistency!
I took the photos at two separate times under two separate lighting conditions; it struck me how similar the stones looked IRL and it also struck me how similar they look in photos!
This is what I paid for when I bought my Infinity -- consistency of appearance and performance, intentionality of design (not random or hit or miss accuracy of cut) -- and, of course, perceived beauty. It's what I wanted in a stone, and it's what I got.
I'm sorry I cannot explain this in more technical terms; but, to me, as a consumer, wearing the diamond on my finger, I want it to look beautiful to my eyes; I want to be certain of its quality; and proud of the process -- I'm using that word intentionally now! -- that brought the diamond from rough to polished stone. This is what I bought when I bought my Infinity.
I'm not sure if this will muddy the waters or offer clarity, but here are the links to my two stones (with the AGS reports). After I read Storm's comments, I went back and looked at the dates on the certs from my two stones.
Interestingly, the .53 J VS2 cert is dated Feb. 2005; the 1.0 M SI2 cert is dated Feb. 2009 -- four years apart. The stones look like sisters. What can I say, except that's the kind of cutting I want in a diamond!
.53 J VS2
AGS report
1.00 M SI2
AGS Report
L
Lula
Guest
this is a photo of QueenMum''s (Stephan''s) Infinity from the Show me the Ring forum. He posted this photo of his Infinity along with another ring (an ACA maybe?). Anyway, I think the similarities in appearance between the photo of his Infinity and the photos of mine are uncanny.
I don''t think it''s an accident that these diamonds look so similar. I think it''s because of the cut quality and cut consistency -- again, my layperson''s opinion!
I don''t think it''s an accident that these diamonds look so similar. I think it''s because of the cut quality and cut consistency -- again, my layperson''s opinion!
L
Lula
Guest
Date: 8/29/2009 12:43:38 PM
Author: strmrdr
Date: 8/29/2009 12:17:40 PM
Author: elle_chris
Very good point, Storm. I think Paul disagrees with ya regarding Infinity though.
Sara- I got my e-ring stone through WF. While I did find a couple of stones I was interested in, but WF gave this one their thunbs up and then it went straight to my appraiser where I was able to view it with another set of eyes. I didn''t just pick the stone without having someone I trust give me their opinions
(i just didn''t want you to think that i picked a virtual stone and bought it just like that. Quite a few people evaluated it for me before i purchased it. including Ps''rs)
As Paul explains above we are simply looking at it in different ways and different directions.
I want to make it clear that I have a lot of respect for Paul and his products.
The same goes for many of the PS pros and their products be it diamonds or appraisals or tools.
I know Storm has a lot of respect for Paul and Paul''s stones, because it was Storm''s comments on other threads about Infinity diamonds that led me to Infinity (through Wink) back in May!
I enjoy reading their back and forth comments, even though I don''t always understand what they''re talking about...
elle, thanks for the clarification about your WF stone. It is a lovely diamond (and I''ve always admired your setting!).
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
That''s okay Sara, I don''t always understand them either...Date: 8/29/2009 4:40:48 PM
Author: sarap333
Date: 8/29/2009 12:43:38 PM
Author: strmrdr
Date: 8/29/2009 12:17:40 PM
Author: elle_chris
Very good point, Storm. I think Paul disagrees with ya regarding Infinity though.
Sara- I got my e-ring stone through WF. While I did find a couple of stones I was interested in, but WF gave this one their thunbs up and then it went straight to my appraiser where I was able to view it with another set of eyes. I didn''t just pick the stone without having someone I trust give me their opinions
(i just didn''t want you to think that i picked a virtual stone and bought it just like that. Quite a few people evaluated it for me before i purchased it. including Ps''rs)
As Paul explains above we are simply looking at it in different ways and different directions.
I want to make it clear that I have a lot of respect for Paul and his products.
The same goes for many of the PS pros and their products be it diamonds or appraisals or tools.
I know Storm has a lot of respect for Paul and Paul''s stones, because it was Storm''s comments on other threads about Infinity diamonds that led me to Infinity (through Wink) back in May!
I enjoy reading their back and forth comments, even though I don''t always understand what they''re talking about...
elle, thanks for the clarification about your WF stone. It is a lovely diamond (and I''ve always admired your setting!).
Storm has worked hard and learned a lot about diamonds in a relatively short time and he is well respected by Paul also. (And as you have just seen, being respected does not mean freedom from being disagreed with!)
LOL! Every time I begin to think I finally have this diamond cut thing learned pretty well, Paul peels another layer off the onion of diamond cut knowledge and I have to start a whole new chapter in my learning.
Wink
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
lol sort of.......Date: 8/29/2009 6:33:11 PM
Author: sarap333
LOL, Wink!
I often wonder, is it English they''re speaking?!?
Your main point is that Paul produces a very consistent line of diamonds and I don''t think anyone can disagree with that.
That plus the extras he adds and the quality of his dealer network is a nice value add.
That Sir John works for him and helps out here is a very nice bonus on top of all that.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2002
- Messages
- 2,859
L
Lula
Guest
Date: 8/29/2009 11:07:08 PM
Author: strmrdr
Date: 8/29/2009 6:33:11 PM
Author: sarap333
LOL, Wink!
I often wonder, is it English they're speaking?!?
lol sort of.......
Your main point is that Paul produces a very consistent line of diamonds and I don't think anyone can disagree with that.
That plus the extras he adds and the quality of his dealer network is a nice value add.
That Sir John works for him and helps out here is a very nice bonus on top of all that.
Yes, my main point is that Paul's diamonds are consistent. But it's more than that -- I wanted to know the reason why they are consistent. Paul's response about the process has clarified that for me.
I was searching for answers to what I saw, both in person and in photos, when looking at my two Infinity stones and comparing them to the stone I sent back.
I wanted to know the reasons behind what I was seeing, i.e., why my two Infinity stones shared the same "look," and had the same character.
If I am understanding Paul's response, cut consistency (what I see with my eyes and in photos) is due to a pre-determined formula/process, which is based not only on the physics of light return but also incorporates the less tangible appearance or characteristics -- the "look" -- of an Infinity diamond.
This process allows Infinity stones to not only pass the standards of the common tools or tests used in the diamond industry -- ASET, IS, AGS0, H&A -- but to transcend them, and provide a product that not only performs well on the tests, but provides the consumer with a consistent -- non-random -- performance from stone to stone.
The look, or character, or specific performance -- whatever the term -- is what I purchase when I purchase a diamond.
I think that the internet has done diamond consumers both a service (price, selection) and a disservice (reliance on numbers alone when selecting a stone).
In the case of Infinity, Paul's process has ensured that the numbers are there (the stones pass all the tests) but the art, or craft, of diamond cutting is also preserved -- i.e., he's not cutting just to meet a set of numbers; rather, he's cutting stones for a specific look or performance level.
To me, it means the Infinity stone I receive will peform -- it will please my eye! And the performance involves no guesswork on my part -- I don't have to worry when I open my FedEx box that my diamond won't meet my expectations.
I guess I am finally starting to understand what some on this forum say when they say "you're buying the diamond, not the paper."
But does this mean that I am ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater and say that certs don't matter? No, absolutely not.
What I am saying is after reading Paul's response, it seems that it is no accident that Paul's process results in a diamond that passes all the "tests" because his cutting process is based on an intentional set of parameters, and is not random. Other companies seem to take an approach that allows them to do just enough to pass the test -- the "good enough" approach -- but then may be in trouble when the test requirements change.
I think most of us consumers on this forum struggle with the nuances of cut, and cut grade(s). It's complicated and requires years of study -- "peeling the onion" as Paul noted.
Paul peels the onion for me; I don't have to do it myself by becoming an armchair expert on diamond cutting! And, yes, this goes directly to the "trust" factor that has been discussed in many, many threads.
Again, I am not saying that other companies do not cut beautiful stones. But I will leave it to consumers and/or producers of those diamonds to comment on their perceptions of cut consistency and character within those brands/makes.
I am also not able to comment on the process of selection that Storm alluded to in an earlier response on this thread when he noted that careful selection can produce cut consistency.
But I could not help but notice the process that Storm went through in helping Stephan (QueenMum) find a new diamond to replace the one that was stolen:
Stephan's stone
Anyone reading this thread was no doubt amazed at how quickly Storm was able to locate a diamond that would a) have the same cut parameters of the lost diamond; and b) be perceived by Stephan as beautiful.
After years of study, Storm is able to go into the virtual listings, sort through massive amounts of certification data -- across certification companies (AGS/GIA) and grades ("true hearts" AGS0, GIA excellent, etc.) -- and locate a stone that is well cut and fits Stephan's preferences.
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that what Storm was doing in that instance is using his knowledge and experience to look for cut consistency on the back end, or consumer end, of the diamond purchase.
I can't do what Storm does (an understatement if there ever was one!).
I trust Paul to do that for me on the front end, or production end, instead.
glitterata
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2002
- Messages
- 4,506
Hi, Sara--
I have two Infinity diamonds, and while they''re both gorgeous, they do have different personalities. My .73 J I1 has thicker stars than my 1.45 S I1. The J has a pavilion angle of 40.7, while the S is 40.8. The J''s LGFs are 74, while the S''s are 80.
Here are the specs and info:
J I1
S I1
The J:
The S:
I have two Infinity diamonds, and while they''re both gorgeous, they do have different personalities. My .73 J I1 has thicker stars than my 1.45 S I1. The J has a pavilion angle of 40.7, while the S is 40.8. The J''s LGFs are 74, while the S''s are 80.
Here are the specs and info:
J I1
S I1
The J:
The S:
L
Lula
Guest
Hi, Glitterata
Every time I see photos of your J in that vintage setting, I swoon (and then become green with envy
!!). I can't wait to see your S after it's set.
What I'm talking about goes beyond the angles and percentages -- though I do agree differences in those parameters tweak the stone's personality.
But what I see is consistency in the nature and pattern of dispersion, it is the sense of depth I get when looking into the stones. It goes beyond differences in color and clarity and angles among stones.
I notice it in the photo gallery of Infinity stones that Wink has posted under the PS gallery page, too. I can see that the stones have a consistent look to them -- what Wink calls dispersion, I believe, in the videos he's posted -- and the consistency is there across stones.
I don't think I'm imagining this...
ETA: Another word that comes to mind when I look at the photos/videos/IRL is "crispness."
Every time I see photos of your J in that vintage setting, I swoon (and then become green with envy
What I'm talking about goes beyond the angles and percentages -- though I do agree differences in those parameters tweak the stone's personality.
But what I see is consistency in the nature and pattern of dispersion, it is the sense of depth I get when looking into the stones. It goes beyond differences in color and clarity and angles among stones.
I notice it in the photo gallery of Infinity stones that Wink has posted under the PS gallery page, too. I can see that the stones have a consistent look to them -- what Wink calls dispersion, I believe, in the videos he's posted -- and the consistency is there across stones.
I don't think I'm imagining this...
ETA: Another word that comes to mind when I look at the photos/videos/IRL is "crispness."
L
Lula
Guest
I was hoping this thread could describe/demonstrate cut consistency in a way that would relate to what the consumer sees when living with/viewing stones.
It really goes to the reason that most of us -- as consumers -- purchase stones -- their perceived beauty. Right now there is no way to quantify that, and maybe there can''t be.
But that doesn''t mean that cut consistency or a uniform "look" or "character" is not real and observable to the human eye.
I mean, I have read many threads about how certain a craftsman''s work has a recognizable fluidity and thus a particular character unique to that craftsman''s work (Mark Morell, e.g.). Can we not also say that a particular diamond cutter''s work has a certain look to it?
It takes an enormous amount of skill and experience for a craftsperson to get to this point, I think, whether it''s diamond cutting or metal work or fine art or music.
What I am talking about is not unique to Infinity, though I think Infinity does it well.
I also see a uniform "look," or "characteristics" in GOG''s chunky cushions in photos people have posted in the SMTR thread. These stones no doubt have minor variations in angles/percentages, too, but the fact remains that they have a look -- and that''s what people are buying -- that''s what speaks to a consumer, imho. I just haven''t seen them in person, so I can''t attest to their performance IRL. And I have no idea what goes into their process/selection. Maybe Rhino will chime in again.
So, I''m wondering, do others see what I see? A uniform "look" across a subset of diamonds that catches your eye?
So if cut consistency exists, is it important? Does it matter?
I think it does, or I wouldn''t have started this thread. Others may disagree.
It really goes to the reason that most of us -- as consumers -- purchase stones -- their perceived beauty. Right now there is no way to quantify that, and maybe there can''t be.
But that doesn''t mean that cut consistency or a uniform "look" or "character" is not real and observable to the human eye.
I mean, I have read many threads about how certain a craftsman''s work has a recognizable fluidity and thus a particular character unique to that craftsman''s work (Mark Morell, e.g.). Can we not also say that a particular diamond cutter''s work has a certain look to it?
It takes an enormous amount of skill and experience for a craftsperson to get to this point, I think, whether it''s diamond cutting or metal work or fine art or music.
What I am talking about is not unique to Infinity, though I think Infinity does it well.
I also see a uniform "look," or "characteristics" in GOG''s chunky cushions in photos people have posted in the SMTR thread. These stones no doubt have minor variations in angles/percentages, too, but the fact remains that they have a look -- and that''s what people are buying -- that''s what speaks to a consumer, imho. I just haven''t seen them in person, so I can''t attest to their performance IRL. And I have no idea what goes into their process/selection. Maybe Rhino will chime in again.
So, I''m wondering, do others see what I see? A uniform "look" across a subset of diamonds that catches your eye?
So if cut consistency exists, is it important? Does it matter?
I think it does, or I wouldn''t have started this thread. Others may disagree.
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
I admire you enthusiasm :}
angles and percentages define a diamond.
optical symmetry and physical tightness just modify it.
Flat facets help as well as careful control of the cutting process.
Paul''s diamonds, correction Paul''s process creates both tight optical and physical/angle symmetry.
Or in PS speak they are tight.
Does that make a difference? Well there is intense disagreement but I think it does to at least some degree.
There are other cutters that produce that level also.
wifey2b has one on her finger.
But to keep it real the difference is small and would be considered personality.
angles and percentages define a diamond.
optical symmetry and physical tightness just modify it.
Flat facets help as well as careful control of the cutting process.
Paul''s diamonds, correction Paul''s process creates both tight optical and physical/angle symmetry.
Or in PS speak they are tight.
Does that make a difference? Well there is intense disagreement but I think it does to at least some degree.
There are other cutters that produce that level also.
wifey2b has one on her finger.
But to keep it real the difference is small and would be considered personality.
L
Lula
Guest
Is wifey2b's stone the .42 RB from GOG that you posted photos/helium report for awhile back?
If so, by Jove, then I think I've got it!! This last post of yours was like a light bulb coming on in my head!
Finally, an explanation of physical vs. optical symmetry in less than 50 words that I can understand (it only took six months and a 1,000,000 word thread).
Yes, that's what I'm seeing. And, yes, I think it makes a difference -- to my eye anyway. Vielen Dank, Storm!
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
yep that is the one.Date: 8/31/2009 3:47:27 PM
Author: sarap333
Is wifey2b''s stone the .42 RB from GOG that you posted photos/helium report for awhile back?
If so, by Jove, then I think I''ve got it!! This last post of yours was like a light bulb coming on in my head!
Finally, an explanation of physical vs. optical symmetry in less than 50 words that I can understand (it only took six months and a 1,000,000 word thread).
Yes, that''s what I''m seeing. And, yes, I think it makes a difference -- to my eye anyway. Vielen Dank, Storm!
optical vs physical/angles vs meet point(lab) symmetry is a complicated subject and another one of those onion layers.
Then you go beyond that with Gavin Yaw then flat facets then ......
Gavin Yaw = twisted facets with variations across the face of the facet, sometimes done to get a higher polish grade or to make meet points better.
Sometimes is an equipment and or process problem.
Flat Facets = comes from rigid machines that don''t wobble as the diamond is polished.
Minor Gavin yaw can be related to not having flat facets but is other times intentional to to get the grade when something isn''t going right.
The equipment and processes are getting better so you see less yaw and better facets which is also why more h&a diamonds are being cut either intentionally or by accident but there are levels.
note: this is a very simplified explanation.
L
Lula
Guest
Thank you again, Storm, for the explanation. I am glad you appreciate my enthusiasm, because this has been one tough concept to explain!
Anyway, for the folks at home who are still awake and/or who still give a rat's a** about this topic, here's the link to Storm's thread I was referring to.
thread
It's a beautiful diamond, and the photo on page 2 of the tread shows exactly the "look" I keep talking about -- wifey2b's stone has the same crispness to it that I admire in my Infinity stones.
And when I looked at the Helium report for the stone, and saw the tight numbers (very small deviations in the deviation columns), it clicked:
The crown/pav angles only tell part of the story; the rest of the story -- the other onion layers -- are in the tightness of the execution.
Call me a geek, but one of the things I like to do is check out the Helium/Sarin reports for the stones posted on PS. I know I'm not the only PS'er who admired the beauty of the 1.74 O on GOG's site! The deviations are tiny.
When I chose my J and my M Infinity stones, I of course checked out the reports and, again, found tiny deviations.
My statistics training tells me that the lower the deviations, the tighter the cut (less error is what we say in my field).
So cut consistency not only requires getting the angles and percentages to work, but also requires good optical symmetry and physical tightness (low deviation numbers)?
Am I going in the right direction here, Storm?
If so, I have some other questions:
Right now do AGS0 or GIA excellent grades consider "tightness" of cut? Or is it only through tools like Helium that consumers can judge the tightness of cut?
So an
Anyway, for the folks at home who are still awake and/or who still give a rat's a** about this topic, here's the link to Storm's thread I was referring to.
thread
It's a beautiful diamond, and the photo on page 2 of the tread shows exactly the "look" I keep talking about -- wifey2b's stone has the same crispness to it that I admire in my Infinity stones.
And when I looked at the Helium report for the stone, and saw the tight numbers (very small deviations in the deviation columns), it clicked:
The crown/pav angles only tell part of the story; the rest of the story -- the other onion layers -- are in the tightness of the execution.
Call me a geek, but one of the things I like to do is check out the Helium/Sarin reports for the stones posted on PS. I know I'm not the only PS'er who admired the beauty of the 1.74 O on GOG's site! The deviations are tiny.
When I chose my J and my M Infinity stones, I of course checked out the reports and, again, found tiny deviations.
My statistics training tells me that the lower the deviations, the tighter the cut (less error is what we say in my field).
So cut consistency not only requires getting the angles and percentages to work, but also requires good optical symmetry and physical tightness (low deviation numbers)?
Am I going in the right direction here, Storm?
If so, I have some other questions:
Right now do AGS0 or GIA excellent grades consider "tightness" of cut? Or is it only through tools like Helium that consumers can judge the tightness of cut?
So an
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2002
- Messages
- 2,859
Sara,
I think that it is important to recognize that there are basically two schools.
One thinks that all information is in the measurements and the pictures, and that this covers the whole subject. This is quality-control after production. With the logical result that there needs to be some minimum-level to pass, where the stone is ''good enough''. That level of ''good enough'' then depends upon the person making that decision. Logically, as a retailer purchasing individual stones, or as a consumer, since all they can do after production is quality-control, the tendency to follow this school is high.
The other school considers all current cut-grading-tools, including measurements and pictures as minimum basic information, but understands the limitations of each tool. They also take into account unsolved matters of a diamond''s performance, and they have a theory on what most probably contributes on that level. This results in more emphasis on the process of cutting and on process-control as opposed to quality-control afterwards. As a cutter, who can control the process, it is logical that I am a member of this school.
The difficulty is that, because of the different basic philosophy, it is very difficult for both schools to communicate with one another.
Live long,
I think that it is important to recognize that there are basically two schools.
One thinks that all information is in the measurements and the pictures, and that this covers the whole subject. This is quality-control after production. With the logical result that there needs to be some minimum-level to pass, where the stone is ''good enough''. That level of ''good enough'' then depends upon the person making that decision. Logically, as a retailer purchasing individual stones, or as a consumer, since all they can do after production is quality-control, the tendency to follow this school is high.
The other school considers all current cut-grading-tools, including measurements and pictures as minimum basic information, but understands the limitations of each tool. They also take into account unsolved matters of a diamond''s performance, and they have a theory on what most probably contributes on that level. This results in more emphasis on the process of cutting and on process-control as opposed to quality-control afterwards. As a cutter, who can control the process, it is logical that I am a member of this school.
The difficulty is that, because of the different basic philosophy, it is very difficult for both schools to communicate with one another.
Live long,
L
Lula
Guest
Your timing is appreciated, Paul! I was just typing this response to Storm --
''I''ve been pondering your last response, Storm. Thank you for your willingness to explain this in layperson''s terms.I keep wondering why there is "not universal agreement in this area" -- ''
-- when I saw your response come through.
Thank you for answering my question.
In my field we call your approach deductive, going from theory to data. It gives the researcher more control over the process, to be sure, and the result, the scientific method, is one of the ways my field, psychology, generates new knowledge.
Suffice it to say, that the first stone I bought and sent back was from school-of-thought #1, the "good enough" school.
Numbers don''t tell the whole story, even though on PS we wish it so, and I was unhappy with the stone. "Good enough" did not speak to me. A mind clean issue? Maybe.
But I think it''s more than that. My Infinity stones have a visual complexity that the other stone lacked. And now that I''ve owned two Infinity stones, and seen the same visual qualities in both of them, I know it''s not an accident that they look the way they do and perform the way they do.
So, even though I do not understand the theories behind the process that resulted in my Infinity stones, and even though there are not yet tools to measure what I see, or even words to describe it -- "crispness" doesn''t quite cut it -- I do know that I admire and appreciate the fruit of school-of-thought #2 on my hand every day.
I just wish there were tools to measure what I see -- LOL -- I guess there are -- my eyes
I think I am done with trying to understand more layers of the onion that is diamond cutting!
''I''ve been pondering your last response, Storm. Thank you for your willingness to explain this in layperson''s terms.I keep wondering why there is "not universal agreement in this area" -- ''
-- when I saw your response come through.
Thank you for answering my question.
In my field we call your approach deductive, going from theory to data. It gives the researcher more control over the process, to be sure, and the result, the scientific method, is one of the ways my field, psychology, generates new knowledge.
Suffice it to say, that the first stone I bought and sent back was from school-of-thought #1, the "good enough" school.
Numbers don''t tell the whole story, even though on PS we wish it so, and I was unhappy with the stone. "Good enough" did not speak to me. A mind clean issue? Maybe.
But I think it''s more than that. My Infinity stones have a visual complexity that the other stone lacked. And now that I''ve owned two Infinity stones, and seen the same visual qualities in both of them, I know it''s not an accident that they look the way they do and perform the way they do.
So, even though I do not understand the theories behind the process that resulted in my Infinity stones, and even though there are not yet tools to measure what I see, or even words to describe it -- "crispness" doesn''t quite cut it -- I do know that I admire and appreciate the fruit of school-of-thought #2 on my hand every day.
I just wish there were tools to measure what I see -- LOL -- I guess there are -- my eyes
I think I am done with trying to understand more layers of the onion that is diamond cutting!
haagen_dazs
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2009
- Messages
- 781
haagen_dazs
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2009
- Messages
- 781
interesting insight on the history for a newbie
can you tell me abit about the history of excel diamonds?
the previously called their diamonds "suberbbcert" from the old threads that i have read
however i dont see this terminology on their website anymore.
they just call their H&A diamonds SIGNATURE IDEAL ..is that their branded H&A diamonds or just the top of the line diamonds...
Are there reasons why other companies do not have their own in house brand? eg idjewellry, union, abazias?
haagen_dazs
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2009
- Messages
- 781
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2008
- Messages
- 320
- Status
300x240.png)