Way back in February we sent a 2.13ct diamond to the cutters. The diamond did not perform as well as it could (it was ugly) so it needed an overhaul.
Our little experiment was to be cut by numbers, based on the AGS cut grade scale. The AGS uses a number scale with the highest grade being 0. The worse a diamond performs in any area, the higher numeric value it gets. Lets look at the numbers now that we got the diamond back:
The diamond now scores a 0 in all of the above categories. The diamond is now considered to have the best possible light return and sparkle it can. The result is a diamond with excellent symmetry. Here are some photos of the diamond as simulated in the computer.
The green areas in the left photo show where light is leaking out of the diamond. The more light that leaks out, the less that is returned to the viewer of the diamond. A diamond that leaks light does not have much sparkle.
Actual photos of the before and after as viewed in the AGS viewing tool.
On the left is the before view, you can see lots of green areas where light is leaking out. There is no symmetry in the diamond and the large black culet in the middle. The right we have no culet and excellent symmetry. The diamond now scores and excellent cut grade (AGS 0) and is a real show stopper in real life.
Of course the downside of all this ‘improvement’ is we no longer have a 2ct+ diamond. The final diamond weight is 1.87ct. Some people would rather have a large diamond that does not perform as well as a smaller diamond. That trend is changing though, most consumers now want diamonds that are excellent or ideal cut so this diamond should find a new home much easier now that is rates AGS 000 vs. being larger but a bit out of shape.
Would you prefer a larger 2ct+ diamond that is a bit out of shape, or a 1.87ct diamond that is a fireball of light?