Richard Sherwood
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2002
- Messages
- 4,924
Princess Cut Ideal Cut
- Thread starter avengerzx9
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2008
- Messages
- 320
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 5,096
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
This thread has taken an interesting turn.
Im going to clarify one point then comment.
There is another legit way to say a diamond has AGS0/Ideal light performance and that is to run a full 3d scan report through the AGS software.
Now for the comment..
The problem with charts for fancies is that you can not get close to describing a fancy cut with a few numbers like you can with rounds.
Using John's analogy the numbers with round brilliants might get you in North America. Using numbers with fancies you might or might not hit the earth.
Im going to clarify one point then comment.
There is another legit way to say a diamond has AGS0/Ideal light performance and that is to run a full 3d scan report through the AGS software.
Now for the comment..
The problem with charts for fancies is that you can not get close to describing a fancy cut with a few numbers like you can with rounds.
Using John's analogy the numbers with round brilliants might get you in North America. Using numbers with fancies you might or might not hit the earth.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 5,096
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 5,096
Sorry..., dont agree on the Princess cuts..., the beauty in princess cuts is much wider in range than I have seen being marketed in AGS "Ideals"...
Much wider!
Most AGS Ideal Princess cuts I have seen offered to consumers are very limited in proportion range...
Princesses as with other fancies have the potential of being beautiful in a much wider scope/range than the AGS Ideal Princesses I have seen being offered!
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2002
- Messages
- 2,859
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 5,096
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 5,096
Again..., depending on many more factors....
But based on my personal experience and opinion..., Princess Cuts within these numbers have possibilities of being awesome beauties!!!
But again..., must be seen and judged with the eyes and must be based on personal tastes as with other fancy shapes!!!
Sure I understand the "play safe" mode AGS 'Ideals" offer..., I am just sorry (for the consumers playing safe) they are not offered to the full range AGS allows.
avengerzx9
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 17
All,
I went down to the different vendors today and I think I am going to choose from the following stones. Please assist me in ranking them and tell me what's wrong with the others, since they are all approximately the same price.
1.21 EVS2 GIA 17176123 Polish VG Symmetry VG 6.10 x 6.01 x 4.18 Table 77% Depth 69.6%
1.24 EVS2 GIA 17189401 Polish VG Symmetry VG 6.05 x 5.95 x 4.22 Table 68% Depth 70.9%
1.20 FVS1 GIA 17238036 Polish VG Symmetry G 5.95 x 5.66 x 4.15 Table 70% Depth 73.3%
1.14 FVS1 GIA cert Polish EX Symmetry VG 6.06 x 5.82 x 4.17 Table 73% Depth 71.6%
T
I went down to the different vendors today and I think I am going to choose from the following stones. Please assist me in ranking them and tell me what's wrong with the others, since they are all approximately the same price.
1.21 EVS2 GIA 17176123 Polish VG Symmetry VG 6.10 x 6.01 x 4.18 Table 77% Depth 69.6%
1.24 EVS2 GIA 17189401 Polish VG Symmetry VG 6.05 x 5.95 x 4.22 Table 68% Depth 70.9%
1.20 FVS1 GIA 17238036 Polish VG Symmetry G 5.95 x 5.66 x 4.15 Table 70% Depth 73.3%
1.14 FVS1 GIA cert Polish EX Symmetry VG 6.06 x 5.82 x 4.17 Table 73% Depth 71.6%
T
jstarfireb
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
- Messages
- 6,232
Well, I''m not an expert, but here''s how I see things:
Diamond 1 has a table that''s way too big.
Diamond 2 looks promising.
Diamond 3 is too off-square, also would go for VG-Ex symmetry, not just good.
Diamond 4 could be OK, but is a little off-square and has a table larger than its depth (but not by too much).
So I''d look into the second stone a bit more. Nice, because it''s one of the largest!
Also, you could easily drop the color in an ideal cut stone to save some money or put it toward a bigger rock. Clarity could go down to the SI range if it''s eye-clean.
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2001
- Messages
- 6,341
That''s the best commentary that can be offered based on this extremely limited information. Also while VG symmetry looks nice on paper it does not reflect actual optical symmetry which can really throw the optics in a loop. As jstarfire has said 2 and 4 would be worth further investigation but with this little bit of knowledge ... its a roll of the dice. Are you a gambling man?
Craps anyone?
avengerzx9
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 17
Thanks Rhino and Jstarfireb
The problem with the first two stones is that the vendor don''t have the setting I want, so I may have set it somewhere else (which means no warranty)
As for the third stone, they actually provide the best service and cheapest out of the four.
As for the last one, they make the best setting, but also the smallest.
Nevertheless, keep the comments coming, I really appreciate it.
T
The problem with the first two stones is that the vendor don''t have the setting I want, so I may have set it somewhere else (which means no warranty)
As for the third stone, they actually provide the best service and cheapest out of the four.
As for the last one, they make the best setting, but also the smallest.
Nevertheless, keep the comments coming, I really appreciate it.
T
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2001
- Messages
- 6,341
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2002
- Messages
- 2,859
I am confused, Diagem.
Our AGS-0''s are cut outside what you call the wide range that can produce beautiful princess-cuts.
I suggest that we agree that princess-cuts can be produced well in a very wide range. And that you forget your preconceived notion that AGS-0''s are cut in a very narrow range. At the same time, I think that we also agree that the basic average numbers are insufficient to judge the performance of a princess-cut.
Live long,
Our AGS-0''s are cut outside what you call the wide range that can produce beautiful princess-cuts.
I suggest that we agree that princess-cuts can be produced well in a very wide range. And that you forget your preconceived notion that AGS-0''s are cut in a very narrow range. At the same time, I think that we also agree that the basic average numbers are insufficient to judge the performance of a princess-cut.
Live long,
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 5,096
Paul..., I cant help notice that AGS 0''s are cut to a very specific area within the US (using John''s example)...
I agree that numbers cant relay the beauty (what I guess you call performance) of a Princess Cut!
But I still dont understand why most AGS 0 Princess cuts I see are cut to extremely limited proportions? Maybe I dont understand the ranges allowed, can you inform me of the allowed range, for example what is the range of the total depth % which can achieve the 0 grade?
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
Maybe someone with permission can post a couple of the charts....
They would explain both what you and Paul are talking about.
There are multiple ags0 zones each of which is fairly small in size for each table and p1 angle.
If you are seeing one companies ags0 range it is rather small but another company may cut to one of the other boxes which is widely separated from the box another cutter may target.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2002
- Messages
- 2,859
I will try to make it clearer. Reading my post again, it could be misunderstood.
You have posted charts, in which you indicate within which limits you think that it is possible to obtain a great princess-cut. In your words: Princess Cuts within these numbers have possibilities of being awesome beauties!!!
That leads me to believe that you think that princess-cuts outside of these limits cannot be great.
At the same time, you state that AGS-0 princess-cuts are cut to an extremely limited range, which you deplore. I trust that you think that all AGS-0''s are well within your indicated very wide range.
Well, the fact is that our AGS-0''s are outside of your very wide range. To me, that proves two things:
- Princess-cuts can be cut well in much wider ranges than commonly accepted. We agree on this.
- If you think that AGS-0''s are all within a very limited range, your thinking is incorrect.
I hope that this is clearer.
Live long,
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 5,096
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2002
- Messages
- 2,859
Now, you are on my favorite subject: mathematics.
If depth were measured in the same way for fancy shapes as for rounds, 64% total depth would translate into 51%.
I trust that we agree that it is close to impossible (I am very careful in my words here) to cut the best performing rounds with a depth of 51%.
So, why would you expect a possibility of producing the best performing princess-cuts with a similar depth?
I can even respond that last question: There have never been standards for princess-cuts (nor for any other fancy shapes). As a result, these stones were never really cut for beauty, only for weight retention and for rapid sellability (is that a word?). The trade has built a conception of what are good princess-cuts, based upon the vast production of under-performing princess-cuts. And still, the majority of the trade holds on to this conception, also because the majority has never examined, let alone even seen a properly cut AGS-0 princess-cut.
Unfortunately, there is a huge dichotomy between what the trade thinks and what the trade could know.
Producing myself about 200 AGS-0 princess-cuts yearly, and having seen a few other productions, I know how rare these are and how few professionals have actually seen examples of them. If I walk outside of this office in the Antwerp diamond quarter and ask seasoned trade professionals about AGS, AGS-princess-cuts and the effect on light-performance, I doubt if 1 out of 100 professionals will know what I am talking about. If I would ask about Pricescope, the score might be a bit higher, maybe 3 out of 100.
So, to answer your question. I do not think that it is possible to produce an AGS-0 princess-cut with a depth of 64%.
Live long,
avengerzx9
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 17
All,
First of all, thanks for keeping this thread going.
Secondly, I agree with Paul-Antwerp that AGS cert stones are hard to find, let alone AGS 0. In fact, of all the vendors I talked to yesterday, no one has any stone certified by AGS.
As for the four stones that I am looking at, can you guys (i.e. Paul-Antwerp, DiaGem) provide some of your opinion on them?
Thanks again.
First of all, thanks for keeping this thread going.
Secondly, I agree with Paul-Antwerp that AGS cert stones are hard to find, let alone AGS 0. In fact, of all the vendors I talked to yesterday, no one has any stone certified by AGS.
As for the four stones that I am looking at, can you guys (i.e. Paul-Antwerp, DiaGem) provide some of your opinion on them?
Thanks again.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2000
- Messages
- 6,733
I think the question that must be asked is it possible to cut a princess cut with a 64% depth that would be highly attractive, beautiful and have relatively equivalent light return as some AGS 0 princess cut?
I am not asking if a 64% depth stone could be as good as the very best of AGS 0, but rather could a 64% depth stone match the performance of a mid or lower range AGS 0 princess cut? I believe dealers think it is possible. I think it is possible, too.
If such a diamond could be cut, then Paul not being able to cut an AGS 0 at this depth precentage is a problem of the AGS system and/or the inherent issues with the configuration of rough diamond material. I''d sure like to know more on this. THANKS
I am not asking if a 64% depth stone could be as good as the very best of AGS 0, but rather could a 64% depth stone match the performance of a mid or lower range AGS 0 princess cut? I believe dealers think it is possible. I think it is possible, too.
If such a diamond could be cut, then Paul not being able to cut an AGS 0 at this depth precentage is a problem of the AGS system and/or the inherent issues with the configuration of rough diamond material. I''d sure like to know more on this. THANKS
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2000
- Messages
- 6,733
Paul doesn't think he can cut an AGS 0 princess with a 64% depth. You seem to agree that with the current facet designs it can't be done. I was not asking if an AGS 0 can be cut at 64% however.
What I was asking was could a diamond with reasonably equivalent beauty and relatively equivalent light performance be cut at that 64% depth and not be graded as an AGS 0?
How do you 'know" that the light performance must necessarily be less at that depth? What range of light performance is given by the system you are using (DiamCalc?) to measure or estimate light performance of the full range of AGS 0 cut princess cuts? Some of these diamonds must be quite high, but some must be lower than the maximum. There has to be a range. Couldn't a 64% depth princess hit inside the "range" of AGS 0 in terms of light performance?
What I was asking was could a diamond with reasonably equivalent beauty and relatively equivalent light performance be cut at that 64% depth and not be graded as an AGS 0?
How do you 'know" that the light performance must necessarily be less at that depth? What range of light performance is given by the system you are using (DiamCalc?) to measure or estimate light performance of the full range of AGS 0 cut princess cuts? Some of these diamonds must be quite high, but some must be lower than the maximum. There has to be a range. Couldn't a 64% depth princess hit inside the "range" of AGS 0 in terms of light performance?
avengerzx9
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 17
All,
Great discussion everyone
Can you will please provide me with some comments on the following diamonds? I plan to either a) pick one sometime this weekend b) scrap all of them and start looking again
1.21 EVS2 GIA 17176123 Polish VG Symmetry VG 6.10 x 6.01 x 4.18 Table 77% Depth 69.6%
1.24 EVS2 GIA 17189401 Polish VG Symmetry VG 6.05 x 5.95 x 4.22 Table 68% Depth 70.9%
1.20 FVS1 GIA 17238036 Polish VG Symmetry G 5.95 x 5.66 x 4.15 Table 70% Depth 73.3%
1.14 FVS1 GIA cert Polish EX Symmetry VG 6.06 x 5.82 x 4.17 Table 73% Depth 71.6%
Currently, I have 2 vote for 2, 1 vote for 3 and 4.
T
Great discussion everyone
Can you will please provide me with some comments on the following diamonds? I plan to either a) pick one sometime this weekend b) scrap all of them and start looking again
1.21 EVS2 GIA 17176123 Polish VG Symmetry VG 6.10 x 6.01 x 4.18 Table 77% Depth 69.6%
1.24 EVS2 GIA 17189401 Polish VG Symmetry VG 6.05 x 5.95 x 4.22 Table 68% Depth 70.9%
1.20 FVS1 GIA 17238036 Polish VG Symmetry G 5.95 x 5.66 x 4.15 Table 70% Depth 73.3%
1.14 FVS1 GIA cert Polish EX Symmetry VG 6.06 x 5.82 x 4.17 Table 73% Depth 71.6%
Currently, I have 2 vote for 2, 1 vote for 3 and 4.
T
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2000
- Messages
- 6,733
Diagem;
I think you and I see beautiful princess cuts outside the AGS 0 range are because the cutters who have opted to go for the AGS 0 princess style have to make the safest bet possible each time they cut their rough. To make the safest bet means they head for the zone of parameters which make it is most likely for them to hit an AGS 0 cut grade. I gather the AGS 0 grade is a difficult target to hit even within the widest range of target zones. It is my understanding that if the AGS 0 is missed, it is not financilly rewarding to recut to try a second time to hit the target. Failed stones must settle for a lower AGS cut grade and we don''t see many AGS 1 diamonds being marketed with any special degrees of success. While there are cut specs which could give AGS 0 cutters a wider range of cuts these optional zones are even more difficult and narrow targets, or have other financial consequences such as increased weight loss. Missing the target "0" grade is a huge problem so we don''t see the variety that is actually possible within AGS 0 standards on a frequent basis.
With direct assessment tools, I believe one could prove that light performance of some diamonds outside of AGS 0 are equivalent or better than some that are within the "0" grade. People with vested interests in promoting the brand image of AGS 0 tend to disagree, but I am not sure at this time exactly where the truth lies myself with 100% confidence. I''d someday like to prove if this is correct or not just because I''d like to know and believe others also would like to know, too.
I think you and I see beautiful princess cuts outside the AGS 0 range are because the cutters who have opted to go for the AGS 0 princess style have to make the safest bet possible each time they cut their rough. To make the safest bet means they head for the zone of parameters which make it is most likely for them to hit an AGS 0 cut grade. I gather the AGS 0 grade is a difficult target to hit even within the widest range of target zones. It is my understanding that if the AGS 0 is missed, it is not financilly rewarding to recut to try a second time to hit the target. Failed stones must settle for a lower AGS cut grade and we don''t see many AGS 1 diamonds being marketed with any special degrees of success. While there are cut specs which could give AGS 0 cutters a wider range of cuts these optional zones are even more difficult and narrow targets, or have other financial consequences such as increased weight loss. Missing the target "0" grade is a huge problem so we don''t see the variety that is actually possible within AGS 0 standards on a frequent basis.
With direct assessment tools, I believe one could prove that light performance of some diamonds outside of AGS 0 are equivalent or better than some that are within the "0" grade. People with vested interests in promoting the brand image of AGS 0 tend to disagree, but I am not sure at this time exactly where the truth lies myself with 100% confidence. I''d someday like to prove if this is correct or not just because I''d like to know and believe others also would like to know, too.
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 5,096
Date: 12/18/2008 11:02:37 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Now, you are on my favorite subject: mathematics.
You might be on the subject of mathematics..., but I still am one of the last ones that doesnt measure "beauty" via math...., but again..., you are talking about performance and I am not.
If depth were measured in the same way for fancy shapes as for rounds, 64% total depth would translate into 51%.
I dont know, but do know that squares are not rounds yet..., and it is not the reality of the matter nor what I am speaking of!
I trust that we agree that it is close to impossible (I am very careful in my words here) to cut the best performing rounds with a depth of 51%.
Sorry..., I cant participate in your comparisons...
So, why would you expect a possibility of producing the best performing princess-cuts with a similar depth?
Paul..., I dont expect! I have seen plenty of gorgeous Princess Cuts with much lower depths than the monotone depths that usualy comes with the AGS 0 (Ideal) mark.
I can even respond that last question: There have never been standards for princess-cuts (nor for any other fancy shapes). As a result, these stones were never really cut for beauty, only for weight retention and for rapid sellability (is that a word?). The trade has built a conception of what are good princess-cuts, based upon the vast production of under-performing princess-cuts. And still, the majority of the trade holds on to this conception, also because the majority has never examined, let alone even seen a properly cut AGS-0 princess-cut.
Same with the AGS-0 Asscher''s..., right?Paul..., the Princess Cut was born as a high yield model for crystal shaped rough hence your saying from above "And compared to a round with similar performance, the princess-cuts go at a discount. It is all a matter of perspective."
You market a niche, thats fine, but that does not make the AGS-0''s a more beautiful Princess, it merely means that the AGS-0''s have better light performance which need to be measured by various tools and possess a more uniformed appearance (which not everybody likes or prefers).
Unfortunately, there is a huge dichotomy between what the trade thinks and what the trade could know.
Thats why niche businesses exists (thank god)
Producing myself about 200 AGS-0 princess-cuts yearly, and having seen a few other productions, I know how rare these are and how few professionals have actually seen examples of them. If I walk outside of this office in the Antwerp diamond quarter and ask seasoned trade professionals about AGS, AGS-princess-cuts and the effect on light-performance, I doubt if 1 out of 100 professionals will know what I am talking about. If I would ask about Pricescope, the score might be a bit higher, maybe 3 out of 100.
I fully agree with you that cutting AGS-0/GIA ex-ex Princess Cuts is an EXTREMELY hard task to achieve, and I admire your capabilities in your achievements..., and I truly believe its undervalued as compared to other Princess Cuts..., (I guess thats one of the messages Sergey keeps trying to get through to the trade), BUT cutting correctly 64% TD Princesses can definitely be super beautiful stones, I have no doubt on this!
So, to answer your question. I do not think that it is possible to produce an AGS-0 princess-cut with a depth of 64%.
Till this day, I never got a range possibilities for achieving the "0" grade??
Live long,
- Status
300x240.png)