How Distinct Diamonds Become Art
It is possible to take a rough diamond and cut its proportions “ideally” by sacrificing its size, cut it poorly maximizing its size, or cut it cut it the best way possible without sacrificing size or quality. Sometimes this can equate to a whole carat. A 3ct poor cut Round Brilliant can be worth about the same as a 2.5ct “ideal.” After all, you can always have the diamond re-cut, although you’ll have to pay the cutter. On the other hand, it’s also possible for both cuts to look exactly the same. Just because a cut follows a computer model doesn’t necessarily mean it’s going to look like the model – there are too many variables involved even in brilliant cuts. Even if you have two equally polished diamonds, both the same carat size, both the same color, both the same clarity, they may look completely different. There are so many different shapes and facets in a diamond where weight can be distributed that a computer model just can’t take enough data into account.
For more about this see: http://www.diamondcut.gia.edu/06_estimating_a_cut_grade.html
Unfortunately, these computer simulations are being used as the basis of new cut grades. Takanori Tamura’s Hearts and Arrows design from 1984 displays a unique pattern under H&A viewers like Firescopes or IdealScopes, but how many people carry the viewer around in their pockets? Tolkowsky, the mathematician who discovered the proportions for round brilliants in 1919, may have come up with proportions that theoretically should make diamonds “jump out,” but the best device to measure cut grade is the human eye. You may prefer fire and scintillation while your fiancée prefers brilliance and the classic look of purity. That is why supposedly inferior cuts like the Cushion cut from 1800s are gaining popularity. She wants to be able to look into the bottom of the diamond, while you want to be blinded by it. You may like smaller tables and larger crowns while she prefers larger tables and smaller crowns. Even the labs have gone too far in trying to qualify cut. Other than AGS, the most popular labs have resisted giving a grade out for years. There are many reasons, but the most valid one is that it is subjective. Cut encompasses too much to be based on generic tables and AGS’s “technology” is so inaccurate that many gemologists actually devalue it. The fact is that cutting a diamond remains an art. Diamond cutters are not gemologists and they are not jewelers. A mathematician can’t tell you what cut you should like.
Despite Tolkowsky’s theories on how to cut a diamond, opinions regarding diamond proportions are still not unanimous. Lead by GIA in the 1950s up until 1997, gemologists moved away from Tolkowsky’s proportions as his studies were only two-dimensional and ignored incident light from many different directions as well as having made too many assumptions. They traveled toward diamonds with shallower crown angles, as low as 32 ½ degrees, and larger tables of 65%. Many went so far as to argue that the proportions of the “ideal” cut created an inherent over-abundance of dispersion, or fire, which distracted from a diamond’s brilliance. As proof that the “ideal” cut was not an absolute embodiment of perfection, they pointed to Eastern cultures who considered larger tables more desirable than the smaller ones which typify an “ideal” cut.
 |
This is why there is no such thing as an “ideal” cut. To an experienced gemologist, the Hearts and Arrow shapes are really not anything to be amazed at; it is an effect of perfect symmetry and has nothing to do with a diamond’s quality of cut. It is actually very simple to set lasers to cut a perfect hearts and arrows pattern when looked at through a H&A viewer. The cutter may have to sacrifice some weight in narrowing the depth and table percentages or other desirable features to achieve this, but it doesn’t take nearly as long as people have been lead to believe. Cutting diamonds this way takes the art out of an art form. It’s the same analogy as artists using computers to paint paintings. Some people prefer actual paint on their canvases. That doesn’t stop many cutters from trying to make it sound like they are going all out to cut diamonds this way.
Wholesalers usually have pages dedicated to explaining why you should pay more for their “ideal” cuts... |
We’re not saying that we, necessarily, know more than anyone else or are superior gemologists – all we want is for a diamond to get the credit it deserves. If the most magnificent diamond we have ever seen doesn’t happen to be a Hearts and Arrow’s cut but may look twice as beautiful as a Hearts and Arrows in your eyes, we want you to know why.
Chances are you saw the same thing as us. We believe that cutting a Distinct Diamond is an art form. Tolkowsky, much like daVinci, was a mathematical genius, but that doesn’t mean that everyone likes a daVinci painting or a Tolkowsky diamond.
When researching diamonds be weary of the wealth of misinformation out there. Most of the other devices advertised by jewelers and other websites to grade diamonds are nothing more than selling tools. You’ll find that the diamond entry on www.wikipedia.com, which feeds into www.answers.com, is full of seller-sponsored websites and misinformation. The Hearts and Arrows section that retail jewelers are basing their facts on is still in complete disarray.
Did you know that most online sellers don’t even see the diamonds they sell? They use manufacturer search engines based on the 4 C’s?
|
