Why I love 60/60 diamonds- compared to AGS0 IS/ASET and photos

[stone-cold11]

Date: 5/20/2009 4:56:28 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Fine Storm- use the hand shot.

Doesn''t the 60% table diamond look slightly larger?

It does in real life.

Not to me, they looked about the same size.

From your description of what you like about the stone, you like the splintery look of a non-ideal optical symm stone, it does not have anything to do with near tolk as AGS0 will not have a less than ideal symm. You are comparing two different things here. Try getting a near tolk G grade symm stone and compare with your 60/60.

 

[Rockdiamond]

There is no industry accepted term called "backlighting" Stone-cold. It's a term invented here.
GIA has nothing at all to do with that fact- nor did Storms comments about the GIA DD have anything at all to do with the topic at hand.
I have not seen any diamond photos where the pavilion has the light blocked off from it. It seems like an impossibility. Put light in the front, it will be there at the back as well.

Please show me a photo that is taken that way you want me to take the photos.
Then ask the person who took the photo exactly how to they took it.
Provide the specific instructions, and I'll do it.

Serg- do you have a photo of a stone shot in the manner you suggest?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/20/2009 4:56:28 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 5/20/2009 4:02:02 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 5/20/2009 3:56:38 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

What does any of this have to do with the subject at hand?

The way you are photographing and looking at the 60/60 other than the hand shot is covering flaws in the cut of the 60/60.
In the hand shot the head shadow is unrealistic making it not valid also.

You set out to prove that a 60/60 can be a good diamond, which I already know.
But you have not proven it here like you said you would.

Fine Storm- use the hand shot.
Doesn''t the 60% table diamond look slightly larger?
It does in real life.

David as I have mentioned before you seem to want this to be about a different topic - photorgraphing diamonds.

I thought the topic was 60:60 diamonds and why you like them. Remember?

It seems everyone else now knows why you like them.
It is for the reason I suspected and have asked you about for years - it is how you look - not how the diamond looks.


In answer to the reason the stone you chose appears larger - it is simply because it is painted. you probably do not know what that means and I would say that even if you did you would not care, and I do not care either.
the painting has somewhat saved this diamond that would otherwise just be a good example of a diamond with a ring of death once it has a bit of gunk on the pavilion on Mrs. Jones hand.


But please debate on and waste everyones time with threadjacks and what we call Furphys here in Australia.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Funny Garry- from where I sit, it''s me trying to discuss the merits of the larger table- skinnier appearing pavilion facets and other aspects of the diamonds.
Others are drawing the conversation away towards photography.

So, you admit that the 60% tabled diamond looks bigger in the example I showed. Don''t you think that would matter to some buyers?

All due respect, but please speak for yourself. Neither you nor I knows "what everyone" knows or does not know.

Furthermore, I learned about painted facets many many years ago.
Maybe you''re still angry that I scoffed at the ASET/and IS years ago- but I have learned a lot.
Isn''t about time to start acting in a manner that allows for the other''s point of view?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/20/2009 5:21:35 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Funny Garry- from where I sit, it''s me trying to discuss the merits of the larger table- skinnier appearing pavilion facets and other aspects of the diamonds.
Others are drawing the conversation away towards photography.

So, you admit that the 60% tabled diamond looks bigger in the example I showed. Don''t you think that would matter to some buyers?

All due respect, but please speak for yourself. Neither you nor I knows ''what everyone'' knows or does not know.

Furthermore, I learned about painted facets many many years ago.
Maybe you''re still angry that I scoffed at the ASET/and IS years ago- but I have learned a lot.
Isn''t about time to start acting in a manner that allows for the other''s point of view?

David if you know what painting is then you would know it can also be applied to the AGS stone, although AGS has a more consistant approach to dinging painting when it is bad.

Nothing however will stop your 60:61 example from having a dead ring on mrs. Jones hand, other than if she keeps it clean and only looks at in your room the way you look.

 

[risingsun]

When we are using measurement devices to help evaluate a diamond, we are taking an objective approach. When I see hearts through the H&A viewer, I will never see them after the stone is mounted. It gives me information about the cut of the stone, but won't be visible in subsequent photos. As long as I have the information I need from a variety of objective sources, I feel free to then make a subjective decision. If I'm looking for a true H&A stone, I expect the photos to reflect that. I don't expect to see black arrows on my hand. The vendors also tend to post photos of the diamonds without the black arrow patterns to give a more realistic RL look. My pics were also a RL look. All I am suggesting is that we use both the techology available to choose our top tier stones and use our eyes to pick from the best of the best. Now that is coming from an OCD PSer, but I think consumers need to understand what type of diamonds they are seeing. If they say "my budget is X$," they need to be educated. For X$ we can look at Tier 1 diamonds with these characteristics and Tier2 diamonds with these characteristics--and explain the differences using tech and talk.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Garry- I never said the AGS stone could not have been painted.
Your ideas about "Mrs Jones" ring have no basis whatsoever in fact.

I''ve looked at diamonds in many many rooms Garry- as have you and all the other tradespoeople.
All the folks who''ve bought diamonds over the years can make that same statement.
If they like a 60% table better, they need to stop believing their own "lying eyes".. and take your view on this.....is that it?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/20/2009 5:06:48 PM
Author: Stone-cold11


Not to me, they looked about the same size.
In real life David could easily be seeing the 60 stone as being larger SC, he has eyes and can see. His problems are not what he see''s but how he looks, but as i say, it his and his clients problem - just as long as we no longer see him advising consumers here as some sort of psuedo arty farty expert.

From your description of what you like about the stone, you like the splintery look of a non-ideal optical symm stone, it does not have anything to do with near tolk as AGS0 will not have a less than ideal symm. You are comparing two different things here. Try getting a near tolk G grade symm stone and compare with your 60/60.
Labs don''t grade symmetry the way we do here. There are H+A''s with bad meet point sym and Exc sym stones with shocking symmetry. Have a look here if you wish to learn more
http://www.gemology.ru/cut/english/symmetry/

 

[stone-cold11]

Garry, I understand about the difference between optical symm and lab symm points.

Thanks.

 

[Rockdiamond]

SC- part of what I am saying is that some people may actually prefer a less organized facet pattern.

But it seems that having such an opinion is cause for the type of attacks Garry and others deem appropriate.
We've nothing to hide- I'm not ashamed of anything I've written here or anywhere.


Part of the discussion, for me, was a great help in educating me on something I had scorned in the past.
Clearly the ASET IS offer a far higher level of consistency , as opposed to people who select diamonds individually- such as the buyers for Tiffany's Cartier, Harry Winston, etc. So clearly, there's sellers not using reflectors that are interested in great makes.
I realize that you have to throw a lot of less than reliable sellers in the same category with the sellers I mentioned- making a really good case for the use of reflector technology to "even the playing field" in the selection of diamonds.
Sellers like GOG, Excel, and others have adopted the use of this technology in the best possible way, for those who wish to use it.
Storm, and others, help a tremendous amount of consumers utilizing reflector technology right here on PS.

This does not invalidate other methods that do not use reflector technology, and might actually end up getting the buyer a different stone that better suited their needs, and tastes.

None of the experts seem to want to address one point I keep making- a blind test.
Show 100 people interested in diamonds the two stones I have here.
Show the diamonds to the people any way you suggest. Show it to them loose- lit from the front, closed on the back with tin foil. Show it to them set into any type of setting you choose. Show them clean, show them dirty.
A fair number of interested viewers will select the larger table diamond. When I say interested- I mean people interested in and with an eye for a diamond's cut.

It's really the same thing as when someone walks into a jewelry store asking for a 2 carat diamond.
They are told it's $30K- a G/VS2
The shopper might say "But I want to spend $15k. What about a J color?"
'Oh, you don't a J color- that's a bad diamond- we don't carry those."
In fact, many women ( and men) would way prefer a 2 ct J versus a 1.5ct G
A reasonable amount of folks will actually prefer a J to a D. It might be 10% might be 25% - but some like the warmer colors better.

Couldn't it be the same if we compare Near Tolks with diamonds that are well cut, but don't quite meet "reflector standards?"

In fact, when shown the two diamonds I posted anyone with an eye will say the .54ct looks larger in diameter. It's .02ct heavier, but actually measures fractionally smaller.
Plus, the .54 is actually brighter in person.
Not that I would suggest these as a pair.
But based on appearance, I prefer the .54ct.
I'm honest, brave, or stupid enough to say it.

Personally, I am saddened that the market is funneling everything into stones with smaller tables.
I feel something is lost when the diversity goes away.

If there is actually anyone interested in the conversation, here's the two diamonds in a display box. A white fabric glass top box. The diamonds are held about 4 inches under a fluorescent 3 bulb diamond lamp- my head is not obstructing the light.
It's difficult to get focus on both- but this one shows both in a fairly equal light.
Since they are pressed into cotton, and no light can enter from behind, would that satisfy your "backlighting" moratorium?

I honestly do not believe that closing the back of the diamond shows it in a manner more realistic than showing it with the back open.
But I'm happy to show the diamonds that way if there is a practical method.
Black foil? I don't think so....


Finally- guys- no need to attack- I've been challenged so many times, and let's face it, it's hard to express an alternative viewpoint among so many going in one direction.
I truly respect the work done here, and have no desire to "interfere"

I had hoped a strictly academic conversion would be interesting and hopefully show what I am talking about.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/20/2009 10:24:31 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

SC- part of what I am saying is that some people may actually prefer a less organized facet pattern.

But it seems that having such an opinion is cause for the type of attacks Garry and others deem appropriate.
We''ve nothing to hide- I''m not ashamed of anything I''ve written here or anywhere.

David you are quite wrong. I often disagree with others about the benefits of ultra high end symmetry.

Date: 5/20/2009 10:24:31 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

I honestly do not believe that closing the back of the diamond shows it in a manner more realistic than showing it with the back open.
But I''m happy to show the diamonds that way if there is a practical method.
Black foil? I don''t think so....

You know why people are rude to you david?
Because loads of them have suggested you do that experiment with black behind the stone. No, you have no ulterior motives, none at all.
Most of those gem boxes have a black and a white reversable side.

 

[Serg]

Garry, Karl, Yurii, StoneC,
I remember exactly same ''Dispute'' with Rhino about light conditions for diamonds with Leakage

I suggest to write joint article with photos, ASET images, Raytracing and detail explanations . I hope G&G could publish it, IF G&G will reject it this article will helpful PS tutorial . Otherwise we need spend a lot time to explain exactly same to each newbie professional.

re:There is no industry accepted term called "backlighting" Stone-cold. It''s a term invented here.
GIA has nothing at all to do with that fact- nor did Storms comments about the GIA DD have anything at all to do with the topic at hand.

David,

We are living in turnabout time. Very often you can find new and very important information about cut on PS much early than GIA will publish it.
It is your choice how you use such possibility for self education.
BTW Some PSers are part industry and they know very well "backlighting" phenomena . You have choice when you start use it.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/21/2009 2:34:31 AM
Author: Serg

re:There is no industry accepted term called ''backlighting'' Stone-cold. It''s a term invented here.
GIA has nothing at all to do with that fact- nor did Storms comments about the GIA DD have anything at all to do with the topic at hand.

Sergey there is a term ''backlight'' - it is used in gem microscopes for inclusion location.
I sometimes refer to it.
Here are 2 good examples from Rhino''s site - look at the microscope images and compare them to ideal-scope images

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/5459/
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/5808/

And note the integrity of his actual ''normal'' photo - how the dark zone on the bad stone lights up with backlight.

 

[stone-cold11]

I just disagree with your choice of stones for this experiment too. The title is why you like 60/60, you then choose a 60/60 with relatively bad optical symm and compared it with a AGS0 with relatively good optical symm. The relatively bad optical symm of 60/60 giving tiny splintery virtual facet look while the near tolk AGS0 with better optical symm gives a more chunkier virtual facet look. That is 2 different variables being thrown into to an experiment, a 60/60 and near tolk variation and a difference in the optical symm. How would you know if any who choose the 60/60 do so for the splintery look or for the 60/60 look that way or vice versa? This is confusing the entire issue.

A near tolk can also have less than ideal optical symm, giving it a splintery look too. Why not find a near tolk that looks splintery and then compare the 2? As you noted, some people do like splintery look but here we are trying to compare the optical difference between near tolk and 60/60, not splintery or chunky facet look.

 

[oldminer]

What makes YOU think something is beautiful? It may not be the same set of appearances which makes someone else select another or the same thing. It is personal and not something we can ever agree upon. We should agree that we clearly understand that we must live with our own personal taste. We can't systematize personal taste to any rigid rule set although there are general terms which we do agree on.

However, I do stand for the right of a consumer, a person who knows little about diamonds or who does not care all that much about them, to have the right to select a diamond based on compromises which fit their budget. A typical 60/60 may look okay to a consumer and be less costly that an AGS0. For that consumer, the choice is a good one. For folks who want an AGS0 with its particular look and "performance" characteristics, then it is also good for them to have it to choose.

We have put the word "Ideal" on many diamonds which are not at the very top end of the game. There remains a range of performance in "ideal" diamonds depending on the lab and the system. The Ideal diamond for a consumer is one which looks great, one whcih they can afford and one which is durable. These are different definitions of ideal which we need to come to terms with. I am sure many consumers can't tell AGS0 diamonds from some 60/60 diamonds. I am also certain that some consumers, who have been given expert guidance can then see some differences. The devil is ion the details. The lighting chosen to display diamonds for comparison purpose definitely can have an effect on finding the best performers from the lesser stones. However, what consumers might pick in a blind test is hardly the way to "grade" diamonds.

The reasons that the best of ideal cut diamonds command a higher price is based on facts plus marketing. Sellers of 60/60 can make some legitimate "better value" claims or say that some of these stones looks "just as good", but it is truly not based on facts, but based tradition, promotional marketing and for the consumer who is less investigative and a bit more impulsive.

 

[denverappraiser]

As an AGS member I again feel obligated to defend the AGS grading system. Much of this discussion and particularly the title, includes the notion that 60/60 and AGS0 are opposing choices in terms of cutting. This is not correct. Not only are some 60/60 stones as beautiful as an AGS0, some of them ARE AGS0’s. I think the subject 60/60 stone of this thread probably isn’t, but it’s because of the symmetry, not the proportions. It’s also entirely possible that the other one isn’t either, at least not under the current system. The rules were change drastically in 2005 in order to both include stones that were previously excluded and to exclude others that were left wanting despite what seems like good proportions. We don’t actually know much about this stone (either one really), and I'm sure it's lovely but to suggest that this is evidence of a decision between 60/60 and AGS0 where one is preferable to the other is a false choice. They are not mutually exclusive and both groups encompass a large range of stones (60/60 being a far bigger range).

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[Serg]

Date: 5/21/2009 9:12:00 AM
Author: denverappraiser
As an AGS member I again feel obligated to defend the AGS grading system. Much of this discussion and particularly the title, includes the notion that 60/60 and AGS0 are opposing choices in terms of cutting. This is not correct. Not only are some 60/60 stones as beautiful as an AGS0, some of them ARE AGS0’s. I think the subject 60/60 stone of this thread probably isn’t, but it’s because of the symmetry, not the proportions. It’s also entirely possible that the other one isn’t either, at least not under the current system. The rules were change drastically in 2005 in order to both include stones that were previously excluded and to exclude others that were left wanting despite what seems like good proportions. We don’t actually know much about this stone (either one really) but to suggest that this is evidence of a decision between 60/60 and AGS0 where one is preferable to the other is a false choice. They are not mutually exclusive and both groups encompass a large range of stones (60/60 being a far bigger range).


Neil Beaty

GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Nail,

re:I think the subject 60/60 stone of this thread probably isn’t, but it’s because of the symmetry, not the proportions.

Proportions are reasons too , because David "60/60" is 60/61. Pavilion is to deep. 60/60 could be much better.

But main discussion here is about Light condition . What is correct Light environment for cut comparison?





Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[denverappraiser]

This thread has spanned a lot of ground and a variety of important topics including lighting, photography, optical symmetry and taste. All are important issues. David’s point, I think, is that there are stones in the category of ‘60/60’ that could be described at top performers. I agree. I also definitely agree with your prior statements that any such comparison revolves around the definition of ‘performance’ and under what conditions this is to be evaluated. There is no agreed upon answer to these and I think it’s unlikely that this discussion will lead to a resolution to this, much less to an answer to what is ‘better’, but I think AGS has done a good job of answering these questions within their own context of AGS0. There are no such standards for ‘60/60’, so it’s moot to argue that David’s stone fails to meet them. His general point is valid – a 60/60 might be lovely. I agree and so does AGS.

One thing I think we all agree on is that table and depth ratios are not sufficient information to meaningfully to describe the cutting of a diamond, whatever those measurements happen to be.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[Serg]

Date: 5/21/2009 9:53:23 AM
Author: denverappraiser
This thread has spanned a lot of ground and a variety of important topics including lighting, photography, optical symmetry and taste. All are important issues. David’s point, I think, is that there are stones in the category of ‘60/60’ that could be described at top performers. I agree. I also definitely agree with your prior statements that any such comparison revolves around the definition of ‘performance’ and under what conditions this is to be evaluated. There is no agreed upon answer to these and I think it’s unlikely that this discussion will lead to a resolution to this, much less to an answer to what is ‘better’, but I think AGS has done a good job of answering these questions within their own context of AGS0. There are no such standards for ‘60/60’, so it’s moot to argue that David’s stone fails to meet them. His general point is valid – a 60/60 might be lovely.


One thing I think we all agree on is that table and depth ratios are not sufficient information to meaningfully to describe the cutting of a diamond, whatever those measurements happen to be.


Neil Beaty

GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA

Professional Appraisals in Denver

re: but I think AGS has done a good job of answering these questions within their own context of AGS0.

I am agree what ASG has done a good job, because AGS has established new Standard. AGS standard become popular because it was much better and easy to use than any other standards.
But ASG did not give any answers on most questions in this thread, questions which are very important for consumers and Diamond market.
ASG did not give ANY tools and instruments to compare Fancy cuts, AGS did not do observer tests in ANY Consumer light envirements to check ASG standard .

AGS did not do even simple observer tests Like GIA did with DD.
AGS has not any scientific proof what ASG0 diamonds have best performance in any light environment except ASET, Because AGS did mot do Experiment and did not publish results such tests.

 

[strmrdr]

Neil, I have pointed out to David that a 60/60 could get ags0 and he does not care.
He has an agenda and that is all he has.
He was challenged to back it up and all that was demonstrated was a fundamental lack of understand of diamond cut and performance.
It has been proven that the difference in these stones is the pavilion and some painting.
In 10 minutes with someone who is 1/2 way interested that understanding could be passed on to a consumer yet we have a long time trade member who does not understand diamond design and refuses to learn.
Which sadly is not that unusual.
I run into them all the time at the mall and in some independent shops.
I run as fast as I can out the door.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I don''t have much time right now- but there''s a few points I can address including my motivation: It''s really no mystery whatsoever.
1) First of all, we sell diamonds on the Internet. Participating in such a conversation is integral to our business. Pricescope generously allows my signature to link to our site. Keep trashing us using baseless accusations, and malicious insults Storm and others- people will look at our site and decide for themselves.

Looked at objectively, Pricescope has more benefit for consumers for just this reason. I have little doubt that Neil, Dave, and others post here in the hopes people will see what they do, and use their services.
If we''re talking about Garry- he is pushing a clear agenda. He wants to sell IS/ASET- or promote HCA.
Paul? He''s here selling his idea of what a diamond should look like.
Infinity Princess cuts, for example- many disagree with the choices made there- he''s here defending his turf.
So, many professionals are here for commercial reasons.

2) Academic interest: Aside from the strictly commercial interest there is the fact that I''ve spent my life working in the diamond business- I love them, and love talking about them.

I AM NOT SELLING 60/60''S. MY INTEREST IN THAT PART OF THE CONVERSATION IS ONE OF ACEDEMIC INTEREST.

Neil- you mentioned how AGS changed their standards in 2005. Was that because 60/60 all of a sudden became a better cut, or was the old AGS grading system flawed by being to exclusionary?
Speaking of that- let''s look at Garry''s motivation again: Have you seen this horrendous "tutorial"? I really don''t understand the motivation to try and trash a set of diamond proportions.
Storm- what is your motivation?

It''s really a shame that so many members here have no reservations whatsoever about turning a civil conversation into a "trashing match"

Yet, it seems that every time I''m about to give up, I get an email from someone telling me how much they appreciate someone having the balls to stand up the bullies.
Or someone really interested in an actual conversation- like Serg- comes one and we have a new day.

Love and Peace to all.

 

[purrfectpear]

Emails, ORLY

 

[denverappraiser]

Date: 5/21/2009 12:49:49 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Neil- you mentioned how AGS changed their standards in 2005. Was that because 60/60 all of a sudden became a better cut, or was the old AGS grading system flawed by being to exclusionary?

AGS updated the system because better technologies became available for analyzing stones and consumers wanted more information on which to make a decision. The old parameter system became obsolete, as do a lot of technologies. It was good for what it was but things changed and another approach became more appropriate. It’s the same reason GIA introduced their own system shortly thereafter (and some 60/60’s are also eligible for GIA-excellent). Yes, there are stones that will now qualify that wouldn’t before as well as some stones that were AGS0 under the old system that would no longer be eligible. I would not describe this as a ''flaw'' as much as an evolution of the system. The current system is not the end of the road either and who knows what will be next. There are some smart people working on it and, every now and again, that results in progress. Few changes of import happen ''all of a sudden''.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/21/2009 12:49:49 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Storm- what is your motivation?

Simple..

1: pursuit and sharing of knowledge
2: consumer advocacy
3: seeking the ultimate asscher design
4: helping people
5: Having some fun!

Frankly this thread has been a total waste of time I could have better spent doing the above.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 5/21/2009 12:49:49 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Paul? He''s here selling his idea of what a diamond should look like.
Infinity Princess cuts, for example- many disagree with the choices made there- he''s here defending his turf.

David, this truly is news to me, can you elaborate on exactly who is saying what? Thank you!

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 5/21/2009 1:55:36 PM
Author: denverappraiser

Date: 5/21/2009 12:49:49 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Neil- you mentioned how AGS changed their standards in 2005. Was that because 60/60 all of a sudden became a better cut, or was the old AGS grading system flawed by being to exclusionary?

AGS updated the system because better technologies became available for analyzing stones and consumers wanted more information on which to make a decision. The old parameter system became obsolete, as do a lot of technologies. It was good for what it was but things changed and another approach became more appropriate. It’s the same reason GIA introduced their own system shortly thereafter (and some 60/60’s are also eligible for GIA-excellent). Yes, there are stones that will now qualify that wouldn’t before as well as some stones that were AGS0 under the old system that would no longer be eligible. I would not describe this as a ''flaw'' as much as an evolution of the system. The current system is not the end of the road either and who knows what will be next. There are some smart people working on it and, every now and again, that results in progress. Few changes of import happen ''all of a sudden''.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

HI Everyone!

Neil- I believe that AGS''s actions prove my point very well.
I''ve heard this part disputed before, but there''s a lot of circumstantial evidence that AGS was simply responding to GIA''s upcoming grade when they changed the AGS 0 cut standards.
But the fact remains that a diamond that was not considered "Ideal"- or the best cut all of a sudden became the best cut. The diamond did not change- rather AGS looked at it differently.
The reason I bring up the "tutorial" was that about 5 years ago, I was making the very same point- only AGS was saying that 60%table could not be an "Ideal" cut.
Garry wrote the page showing exactly how bad a diamond could look with 60% table and 60% depth.
Of course, any diamond cut to those horrible angles would look terrible- regardless of the table and depth. The page is called 60/60- but actually is not about 60/60 exclusively

I also agree that to do a study, in the way AGS did- or the folks here on PS frequently do- we need all the statistics we can get.
Not only table and depth- but crown angles, pavilion depth, etc.

What if, just what if- the human eye is so important in the grading of a diamond, that any stats or figures are going to be secondary to that.
What if a significant number of interested shoppers actually prefer a diamond that, using measurements- we can prove is less well cut?

Why is this such a "hot point"?

What if- again, just a what if- sellers could charge more for a stone based on something that:
1) some people can''t even see
2) Even if they could see the difference, some will pick the "lesser" cut

It''s not a zero sum game- people ARE paying more for diamonds based on the fact they''re supposedly a "better cut"

Is that part of why I get so viciously attacked- for simply liking something?

 

[stone-cold11]

Looks like someone is crying, throwing a big hoo haaa and blaming everyone else but himself. We ask for data and you refuse to give any, where are the crown and pavilion angles by the way? How many times has that been ask? Where is the sarin report file? Stop trying to weasel your way out by blaming others. Give these data.

Waste of time!

 

[purrfectpear]

Good grief David, you aren''t being "viciously attacked". You''ve got to stop with this little boy whining all the time. It''s really silly for an adult man to constantly scream "attack, attack".

Once again, an ATTACK is when someone says you sell dog poop and you wouldn''t know a decent diamond if it flew up your butt! Now has anyone said anything even remotely like that? No.

Stick a fork in it, that turkey is so overdone...it''s been cremated.

You made this comment: "What if a significant number of interested shoppers actually prefer a diamond that, using measurements- we can prove is less well cut?"

I would respond: What if no one here disagrees with that? Does anyone on Pricescope disagree that the MAJORITY of diamond purchasers prefer a diamond that is 1. Cheap and 2. Big? If they didn''t, then mall stores wouldn''t be in business now would they? As you point out, people buy from Blue Nile all day long without setting eyes on the diamond until it''s in their mail box. 90% of them are "thrilled" with whatever shows up. Because it was 1. Cheap, 2. Sparkly and most importantly 3. A Real Diamond and not a rip off.

Why are you even discussing the "significant number of interested shoppers"? We''ve already PROVEN and no one disagrees that the "significant number" will be perfectly happy with whatever they can afford??? Is THAT what this whole discussion was about? A majority of uninformed, uneducated, diamond wearers?

Please hear me now so we can stop beating the dead horse...

THERE ARE DIAMOND SHOPPERS WHO WILL BUY JUNK AND CALL IT GOOD. THERE ARE DIAMOND SHOPPERS WHO WILL BE EQUALLY HAPPY WITH ALMOST IDEAL CUTS.


NO ONE IS DISPUTING IT!!!

 

[jet2ks]

Date: 5/15/2009 12:39:25 PM
Author: risingsun
I have a feeling we''ll be needing this:

Time for an emotie encore.

 

[Rockdiamond]

SC- Dave did not give me the sarin number, and I have not had the time to run another sarin.
I understand that Dave has sent the relevant info to Garry to translate into measurements.

I will also take a photo in a gem box with a black background, as Garry suggested.
It''s a matter of taking the time and we''re busy here.

Thanks for your input Purrfect.
You''re not very good at describing my position- in fact really poor at it.

Please speak for yourself. I sincerely believe many of the people who participate here have their own way of looking at things, and discussing them that might be different than yours.
If you think 90% of diamond shoppers are only interested in cheap, sparkly and "it''s a real diamond", that''s certainly your right.
Our experience dealing with tens of thousands of shoppers does not bear that out.