Opinions Please on this Princess Cut Stone - Thank You!

[John P]

Date: 1/22/2009 2:39:01 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Thanks John- but I never said that cutting a princess cut diamond to 65% depth will result in poor performance and hidden weight.

Neither did I.

Nor do I believe that Dave's mindset is 'old'
I believe it's simply a question of preference.

Stated as that I have no problem, but Dave is not indicating preference. He is accusing our approach of being self-serving when that is absolutely incorrect: It would be far more cost-effective for us to cut "whatever" and send it to GIA. Less weight loss. Easier to get top finish grades. No need to work for top performance values in the ray-trace (or any cutting standard at all!) and far more lab-awareness among the general population.

As I said, I have respect for those who love an 'Ideal Cut' look- but that does not make people who'd like a well cut, and larger looking stone for the weight 'old thinking'

Ok David but here we go again: What is “Ideal?” And what is “well-cut?” If you're talking the AGS Ideal grade it's wide for princess cuts. You can't apply what you see in one to all of them. And saying “well-cut” is like saying “creampuff.” I have no idea what comparison is being made speficially. Give me concrete examples.

You posed a hypothetical 6 vs 5.5. What if it's 6.9 vs 6.7? 6.5 vs 6.3? Spread, depth and appearance are all variables and can't be judged without more information. A blanket condemnation is wrong.

I have a lot of respect too for those who study the minutia of how many facets a diamond has- but again, that does not make those who look at diamonds more holistically uneducated. I don't look at the facet pattern to decide if I love a diamond, I look at the diamond.

It does only if the person starts thinking he or she has “seen it all.”

As for taste, if you've seen the precise geometry, chevroning and commitment to performance we're taking on I will accept your words as duly informed. I find that unlikely though. Very few productions cut for AGS0 and there are a wild variety of looks among those who do. Among them, few cut >70%. Why? Because they know how this business works. It is precisely the old notions of depth permeating the trade that makes some manufacturers of AGS0 princess cuts avoid depths that would result in even greater brightness for their stones. It's much like the old "fear" of fluorescence that causes suppliers to this day to discount - and sometimes avoid - diamonds with fluoro. Do you believe, just because people thought fluorescence was "evil" in the 60s and 70s that such a notion is correct? Or are the modern notions of fluorescence, after extensive research, more open-minded? (and please memo all those who didn't get the memo)

When all is said and done I have no problem with taste, hopefully based on experience, but we should not condemn the taste of others.

I think it’s reasonable to hope that inaccurate blanket statements will not be made about any diamond based on a single attribute. We’ve seen such prejudgments before on these forums and in every case such stereotyping is proven irresponsible in the end. I know you understand this since I have often defended beautiful 60/60s alongside you in the past.

Again- it's really a different way of looking at diamonds- but I strongly believe that neither is 'wrong'

We never disagreed.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 1/22/2009 4:03:09 PM
Author: jstarfireb

Date: 1/20/2009 7:32:21 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
There are many beautiful princess cut diamonds with a depth in the mid 60''s, table in the high 70''s.

Rockdiamond, keeping in mind that I''m a consumer and not an expert...I''ve always been told that a smaller table is generally associated with more fire, at least for rounds. Would a larger-tabled princess be up to par in the fire/dispersion department? Is the table issue with princesses akin to brilliant vs. fiery ideal cuts in round stones?

Your post brings up a lot of great points!
People have come up with names to describe different aspects of a diamond''s look.
They even have machines to validate the semantics.
Some would say fire and brilliance are two different things.

That being said, is fire better than brilliance?
A round diamond with a 56% table might have more "fire"- but a well cut round diamond of 60% table has more "sparkle- or whatever you want to call it.
There is a trade off- the 56% table stone has more of one thing- but the 60% table stone has more of another!
If one subscribed to AGS "Ideal" standards, before GIA''s cut grade, you;d think there was something "wrong" with a diamond that had a 60% table. I''ve been a diamond grader since 1976- and I always preferred a 60% table to a 57%. By no means am I alone in this preference.
Thankfully, GIA was far more inclusive when they designed their cut grade system.
It''s noteworthy to mention that AGS now includes diamonds of 60% table in the "Ideal" range.


I feel the same is true on princess cuts- albeit Princesses can have much larger tables than round diamonds and still look good.
It''s also true that there can be a greater yield from the rough with a larger table.
Again, a trade off. A "normal" princess cut- even a really well cut non ideal one- is about 25% less costly than a round of similar size, color and clarity.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 1/22/2009 4:41:49 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 1/22/2009 2:39:01 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Thanks John- but I never said that cutting a princess cut diamond to 65% depth will result in poor performance and hidden weight.

Neither did I.

Nor do I believe that Dave''s mindset is ''old''
I believe it''s simply a question of preference.

Stated as that I have no problem, but Dave is not indicating preference. He is accusing our approach of being self-serving when that is absolutely incorrect: It would be far more cost-effective for us to cut ''whatever'' and send it to GIA. Less weight loss. Easier to get top finish grades. No need to work for top performance values in the ray-trace (or any cutting standard at all!) and far more lab-awareness among the general population.

As I said, I have respect for those who love an ''Ideal Cut'' look- but that does not make people who''d like a well cut, and larger looking stone for the weight ''old thinking''

Ok David but here we go again: What is “Ideal?” And what is “well-cut?” If you''re talking the AGS Ideal grade it''s wide for princess cuts. You can''t apply what you see in one to all of them. And saying “well-cut” is like saying “creampuff.” I have no idea what comparison is being made speficially. Give me concrete examples.

You posed a hypothetical 6 vs 5.5. What if it''s 6.9 vs 6.7? 6.5 vs 6.3? Spread, depth and appearance are all variables and can''t be judged without more information. A blanket condemnation is wrong.

I have a lot of respect too for those who study the minutia of how many facets a diamond has- but again, that does not make those who look at diamonds more holistically uneducated. I don''t look at the facet pattern to decide if I love a diamond, I look at the diamond.

It does only if the person starts thinking he or she has “seen it all.”

As for taste, if you''ve seen the precise geometry, chevroning and commitment to performance we''re taking on I will accept your words as duly informed. I find that unlikely though. Very few productions cut for AGS0 and there are a wild variety of looks among those who do. Among them, few cut >70%. Why? Because they know how this business works. It is precisely the old notions of depth permeating the trade that makes some manufacturers of AGS0 princess cuts avoid depths that would result in even greater brightness for their stones. It''s much like the old ''fear'' of fluorescence that causes suppliers to this day to discount - and sometimes avoid - diamonds with fluoro. Do you believe, just because people thought fluorescence was ''evil'' in the 60s and 70s that such a notion is correct? Or are the modern notions of fluorescence, after extensive research, more open-minded? (and please memo all those who didn''t get the memo)

When all is said and done I have no problem with taste, hopefully based on experience, but we should not condemn the taste of others.

I think it’s reasonable to hope that inaccurate blanket statements will not be made about any diamond based on a single attribute. We’ve seen such prejudgments before on these forums and in every case such stereotyping is proven irresponsible in the end. I know you understand this since I have often defended beautiful 60/60s alongside you in the past.

Again- it''s really a different way of looking at diamonds- but I strongly believe that neither is ''wrong''

We never disagreed.

John- I apologize if I was speakig to a different part of Dave''s setniment.
I am extremely impressed with any comapny''s ability to cut to AGS0 standards- particuarly when it comes to Princess Cuts.
One of the best part of fancy shapes, from a cutter''s standpoint, is that there''s a lot more leeway when it comes to things like having both sides of the diamond faceted the same way.
Naturals ( areas of the diamond that are un-poisihable in some cases) can be handed with more of a free hand.
Choosing to cut the way Infinity does requires a huge undertaking- from the buying of very specific rough- to recutting the stone to get that extra .00009% to get the zero grade.
A appluad your commitment.
I''ve looked at the site- the results are impressive, to say the least.

I apologize too if I was acting like I''d seen it all.
I do have a different opinion because I look at diamonds "the old fashioned way"

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 1/20/2009 4:28:26 PM
Author: oldminer
I think 1:1 to 1:1.15 is resonably about square. Not 1:1.5 as posted above.

The stone is deepish and therefore rather small for its weight, but it could be very attractive in appearance. Finding a less deep stone of the same weight will result in a wider look.

Dear Dave,

Forgive me, but I have been reading the OP''s question and your reply here a dozen times, and I still do not understand how you dare to write this down. As I am traveling, I only had time today to address this issue, and I really am at a loss here.

May I give you a question? Below are four stones, with basic measurements.

a. is the stone of the original poster, 1.00, 5.70x5.37x4.06, depth 75.6%
b. is a square stone, 1.00, 5.37x5.37x4.06, depth 75.6%
c. another square stone, 1.00, 5.37x5.37x3.92, depth 72.6%
d. a very rectangular stone, 1.00, 6.50x5.37x4.06, depth 75.6%

Which of these has the best spread for the weight?

If I follow your reasoning, you would say stone c. In reality, it is a tied third in this comparison.

A logical person however would say stone d, without any doubt. The proper order is d, then a, then b and c tied.

What you are doing here, is creating fear with this consumer, while the obvious facts of the stone are being denied by you. I do not understand.

I know, notation-rules of fancy shapes are stupid. But with your experience, you should understand that and give decent advice to consumers, not use the stupid rule to create unwarranted fear. My articles in the journal about depth in fancy shapes are about three years old. It is your professional duty to know them and to understand them. Apparently, if I read this current post, you do not grasp them at all.

Frankly, I am amazed. I am surprised. I am ashamed for you. Truly, this is a very sad day.

 

[Rockdiamond]

It''s much like the old ''fear'' of fluorescence that causes suppliers to this day to discount - and sometimes avoid - diamonds with fluoro. Do you believe, just because people thought fluorescence was ''evil'' in the 60s and 70s that such a notion is correct? Or are the modern notions of fluorescence, after extensive research, more open-minded? (and please memo all those who didn''t get the memo)

Actually my experience is different.
I was not in the business in the ''60s- but I can tell you about the mid-late ''70s.
Back then GIA reports were far less common- though color and clarity still affected the price.
Stones of medium or even strong blue were actually in demand.

I hate to say it but I think the more modern take on fluorescence makes it seem like a detraction. At Least if you go by the prices and saleability of high color stones with Med or Strong Blue

 

[strmrdr]

Trading a little spread can be a good thing even if it were true that it did trade some in the stones under discussion.
For example I would gladly trade some spread for a 25% crown on an asscher because of what it brings to the diamond.
Same with an oec style cut or the more modern FIC the trade off is worth it if you love them and it is what speaks to you.
When I have a problem with low spread is when it is smaller and uglier.
Spread traded for performance or the look one wants is not a bad thing and there are hundreds of PS consumers who will agree with me.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 1/22/2009 2:16:02 AM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 1/21/2009 6:44:01 AM
Author: oldminer

Many rather deep princess cuts do look very lovely. Some are graded as ''Ideal''. I contend that overly deep, but beautiful princess cuts are a viable choice, but would argue they cannot be called ''Ideal'' although many do grade or call them as such these days. It is highly self serving to have come up with ''Ideal'' standards which neglect the decreased visible surface area of a diamond which is way over deep. By doing so, the cutters retain far more weight. They get to cut heavy, small looking princess cuts, call them ''Ideal'' and consumers swallow it.

Dave, I''m sure you didn’t mean this offensively but as a company with the goal to acquire the best possible performance in a princess, and considering that we lose more weight in the effort, it’s hard not to take it that way.

Depth aside, princess cuts have historically been cut to retain weight. This includes thick-girdled deeps in the 70s (and we agree that these are awful choices). It also includes a majority of spready, steep-crowned princess cuts in the 60-something depth range which you don’t seem to take issue with.

In essence you''re blindly recommending ‘spread’ with no information about visual beauty.

Will you now be urging shoppers to buy rounds with 55% depth because they spread larger than 61%? I trust you won''t. Why? Because you recognize the configuration with the greater depth will be the better performer. I would also remind you that depth in a princess is not closely-linked to spread as it is in a round...there is far more flex room...so perhaps there is not such a loss of spread...and perhaps the cutting motives make that diamond the best choice.

It is highly self serving to have come up with ''Ideal'' standards which neglect the decreased visible surface area of a diamond which is way over deep. By doing so, the cutters retain far more weight.

In our case you have it backwards....Our case is Plan 2, but first let''s look at the most popular plan.

Factory Apprentice: ''Sir, why do so many princess cuts have spready tables and steep crown angles?''
Factory Veteran: ''Save weight young man...Always save weight.''

Ergo, Plan 1: Sawing at the center of the crystal and making crown angles steep is the best way to follow the outline of the rough. The result is large tables and crown angles near 44 degrees. There are millions of princess cuts produced like this. While it saves precious material and $$$ for manufacturers, performance is simply not a priority here, weight is. 90% of the world still thinks this way, cutting as close as possible to the rough crystal’s outline with no performance consideration. And why should they? They aren''t sending them to labs with cut grades. Commercial princess cuts are knocked out in this fashion and sent to labs with no assessment or accountability for performance. Take a look at commercial princess cuts in the ASET and notice how red areas (if present) are limited to the table and do not approach the edges.

Sorry to dredge up an old thread- but I did some additional checking- I was using knowledge I picked up dealing with our normal cutters- they specialize in Radiant, cushion and fancy colors primarily.
Speaking with a few other cutters confirmed John''s statement about cutting an octahedron in half. this is a valid approach in some cutting situations.
My apologies John, and thanks for info!

 

[John P]

Date: 2/2/2009 2:15:08 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Sorry to dredge up an old thread- but I did some additional checking- I was using knowledge I picked up dealing with our normal cutters- they specialize in Radiant, cushion and fancy colors primarily.
Speaking with a few other cutters confirmed John's statement about cutting an octahedron in half. this is a valid approach in some cutting situations.
My apologies John, and thanks for info!

No apologies necessary David. Different strategies abound... Thanks for the get-back.