General Diamond Performance: Vendors please

[Gypsy]

Thanks Gypsy... it's usually paired with the hearts view in a hearts and arrows tutorial but I don't think it's the true Ideal Scope either...

Arrows image. Hearts is from the Pavillion and Arrows is from the Table. It's just patterning though. You realize that? You can have a stone without that perfect patterning that out performs one with that patterning. The patterning doesn't dictate the amount or type of light performance, that's the angles and the other stuff. The only reason we pay attention to the patterning is because when a stone has that perfect precision patterning it costs a lot more than when it doesn't. And when you are paying for it, you want to be able to make sure it's there, that's the ONLY value of those hearts and arrows images.

 

[sleeprequired]

yeah i'm onto it, i just wanted to make sure that the above is not an IS...

yeah from all the reading i've been reading hearts and arrows is just a really handy way of cutting a stone to bring in some measureable consistency (and good marketing)...

it doesn't mean that every H&A will outperform even a non-H&A correct? That's why we use the IS and ASET? that does indicate light performance...

I just wanted to make sure a) what the image is and b) that the dark ring in the image is normal for that view. and i guess c) it's not a different version of an IS

 

[Christina...]

yeah i'm onto it, i just wanted to make sure that the above is not an IS...

yeah from all the reading i've been reading hearts and arrows is just a really handy way of cutting a stone to bring in some measureable consistency (and good marketing)...

it doesn't mean that every H&A will outperform even a non-H&A correct? That's why we use the IS and ASET? that does indicate light performance...

I just wanted to make sure a) what the image is and b) that the dark ring in the image is normal for that view. and i guess c) it's not a different version of an IS

Yeah, it's just the hearts and arrows viewer and as Gypsy already said it speaks little about the actual performance of the diamond and as you said, much more about it's marketability. We have seen many many new PS members post photos of their HA diamonds that actually should never have been considered HA based on the angles, but the viewer showed HA so therefore it must be.....blah blah! The only real way to judge light performance is with the IS and ASET and most importantly with your eyes. Your eyes are going to be the most important tool in choosing a diamond that appeals to you. I often wonder how many PSers have purchased these super ideal cuts simply for their pedigree and without taking into consideration that there a thousands of beautiful diamonds out there that don't adhere strictly to the rigid guidelines of a super ideal, and how many of them would have preferred a different cut if they had only let there eyes choose and not the documents that accompanied them.

 

[ddiamond]

I often wonder how many PSers have purchased these super ideal cuts simply for their pedigree and without taking into consideration that there a thousands of beautiful diamonds out there that don't adhere strictly to the rigid guidelines of a super ideal, and how many of them would have preferred a different cut if they had only let there eyes choose and not the documents that accompanied them.

I'm probably in that boat, at least for the first point. I didn't trust myself enough. I relied on the reputation of the jeweler, my fiancee's tastes, my friends here on PS, the technical data about the stone and my budget. I probably over specified the clarity (VVS2) and color (G) to remove any chance of issue on either front. If carat size were more important, I probably would have had a much tougher time.

All that said, we're both really happy with the ring and have no regrets. The education provided here was tremendously helpful. I shutter to think what a dog I might have ended up with left to my own devices.

 

[Christina...]

I often wonder how many PSers have purchased these super ideal cuts simply for their pedigree and without taking into consideration that there a thousands of beautiful diamonds out there that don't adhere strictly to the rigid guidelines of a super ideal, and how many of them would have preferred a different cut if they had only let there eyes choose and not the documents that accompanied them.

I'm probably in that boat, at least for the first point. I didn't trust myself enough. I relied on the reputation of the jeweler, my fiancee's tastes, my friends here on PS, the technical data about the stone and my budget. I probably over specified the clarity (VVS2) and color (G) to remove any chance of issue on either front. If carat size were more important, I probably would have had a much tougher time.

All that said, we're both really happy with the ring and have no regrets. The education provided here was tremendously helpful. I shutter to think what a dog I might have ended up with left to my own devices.

I wonder if that's true though. Certainly I think that a person that is newly shopping for diamonds needs to looks at many many different stones and train there eyes. And all the information and advice here is perfect to take out into the battlefield. Shopping online does put people into a difficult postition, most of us don't want to be shipping stones back and forth a number of times and fewer of us have the funds to purchase two or three for a side by side comparison. Therefore the safe thing to do is to purchase stones that perform well under the technologies available to us and come of course with GIA or AGS excellent grading. I was looking at this article last night and I thought it made the point nicely, by all appearances the stone in this example should be a dog, but consumers picked it 95% of the time. http://goodoldgold.com/4Cs/NewCutGrading/GIAExAGSIdeal/

 

[ddiamond]

I would have chosen based on color and clarity.

I thought cut referred to round brilliant versus princess, etc.

 

[Christina...]

I would have chosen based on color and clarity.

I thought cut referred to round brilliant versus princess, etc.

Your half right, cut does refer to the shape of the diamond ie 'I'm looking for an Emerald cut.". The other half is the precision in which that diamond was cut as in on the cutting wheel. Stones that are cut well, with specific angles that work together, produce more beautiful diamonds with better light return. Diamonds that are cut poorly have inferior light performance and will look dull and lifeless. So you can have a D VVS1 that performs beautifully because it is cut with ideal proportions, or you can have a D VSS1 that is cut too steep and deep, or any other unfavorable combination that will look just blah!

Many of the PSer here feel that GIA's excellent cut grade is too wide and includes too many potential proportions, and that AGS's cut grade system is more strict. And once you have used the technologies available to determine performance you will start to see where sometimes they are unreliable. You will find AGS0 and more often GIA Ex that score poorly on the HCA but are actually very beautiful diamonds. And sometimes (like the example I posted in the link above) there are diamonds that score horrible on reflector tests that are still gorgeous. You'll also see diamonds that score very well on all these tests that are actaully dogs. So, that's why it's so important to really train your eyes, and learn to what to look for, and what is appealing to you. Because just like clothes, people will prefer different looks.

Of course it takes a very long time to develop a keen eye and be able to differentiate some of the fine nuances of different cuts, and you'd have to have access to many diamonds at a time to compare. And that's why I think that so many people, especially online, purchase diamonds that are more cookie cutter, table 56 depth 61 crown 34 pav 40.8 55/80, because it's the safe choice. It's unlikely you will end up purchasing a dud. But it goes back to my original question, if these same people had access to many stones with different proportions, what would their eyes choose? That said GIA's cut grading was based on consumer preferences, so maybe that answers my question.