arrows

[chicatraviesa]

Are fatter arrows better than skinnier ones? If so, does anyone know why?

 

[oldminer]

I suppose that the answer is moderation. Not too fat and not too thin. We are not talking of anything here that anyone exactly measures, but if an arrow looks fat or looks like a slightly bulging line, we would probably say there was something wrong with the "arrow" shape we normally expect to see.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 12/24/2004 12:36

1 AM
Author:chicatraviesa
Are fatter arrows better than skinnier ones? If so, does anyone know why?

Skinnier ... but not too skinny. Lengthening the lower girdles is what creates the thinner arrows however it creates another phenomena within the diamond as well. It creates more areas within the diamond that cause more light to exit the diamond at high angles (ie. towards the viewers face). In one of GIA''s latest studies on "dispersed colored light return" (DCLR) they had stated that one of the most dramatic changes in appearance was when the lower girdles were lengthened causing greater DCLR.

This also happens to be my personal preference as well (the thinner arrows) although some people do prefer the fatter arrows. When we show both to our clients the majority prefer the thinner arrows as well.

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!!!

 

[Superidealist]

I encourage all who read Jon''s post to actually read the GIA study to get the complete picture.

 

[strmrdr]

It really depends on what your looking for.
Rhino as stated likes the arrows on the thinner side, 8* goes for fatter arrows and whiteflash aca and Paul's venus by infinity splits the difference but the variation isnt that big between them except for 8*.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 12/24/2004 11

1:57 AM
Author: Superidealist
I encourage all who read Jon''s post to actually read the GIA study to get the complete picture.

Here is a link to the Professional Jeweler article which summarizes the results of the study.

http://www.professionaljeweler.com/archives/articles/2002/jan02/0102dg.html

 

[strmrdr]

To expand on my previous post:
Rhino biases his diamonds towards direct light situations and b-scope readings.
8* well goes for the 8* look but goes more towards the low light sparkle side of things.
The aca''s and Paul''s diamonds strike a balance between the extremes.

 

[Rhino]

Links to the entire articles by GIA on both brilliance & fire can now be found at this link. I agree with SI, you should read these articles.

http://www.gia.edu/newsroom/wd_608ar_12760_news_release_details.cfm

 

[chicatraviesa]

Wow, that''s a lot of information to try to make sense out of. I''ll have to read them a few more times. One thing I did take from the articles (correct me if I''m wrong)- is it true to say that there are many more combinations of specs that can create a pleasing diamond than is often advocated here. It seems like most of the consumers on this forum reject a diamond immediately if any of the specs deviates from the definition of ideal. But it seems to me that it''s more complicated than that, you have to know how the different combinations will affect each other. Thanks in advance for any comments!

 

[Rhino]

That is correct chica and GIA's study is right on in what it is saying to. There is not just one set of proportions that will produce a pleasing diamond.

You may be interpreting the definitions of some askew. On the forum most try to steer people into sets of proportions that *will* produce high brilliance. There are a number of tools in the trade that help experts do this. Some of the ones you see mentioned here often is the HCA, DiamCalc, GemAdvisor (files generated by DiamCalc to open in GemAdvisor), BrillianceScope, Isee2, H&A scopes and red reflectors (IdealScope, LightScope, FireScope etc.). Not all of these instruments give the same type of information. Some emphasize symmetry, some the appearance of the diamond in direct light conditions, some diffuse light conditions, etc.

These technologies correlate with the data and studies that both GIA and AGS are carrying out.

I would encourage anyone into a stone that has a set of proportions that *work* regardless of whether it falls into AGS current definition of ideal.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 12/24/2004 11:11:59 AM
Author: strmrdr
To expand on my previous post:
Rhino biases his diamonds towards direct light situations and b-scope readings.
8* well goes for the 8* look but goes more towards the low light sparkle side of things.
The aca''s and Paul''s diamonds strike a balance between the extremes.

Not entirely true strm. I bias my stones towards both direct and diffuse light testing. I do not deem one test as being more important than the other. If I had to place a priority on one testing over another perhaps it woudl be Isee2 testing since diamonds are observed most in lower light conditions. Also, while we do feature many H&A''s of the longer star/lower girdle combo we have stones with fatter arrows than 8*''s and everything inbetween including the newest 2nd gen super ideals.

 

[strmrdr]

True enough rhino you carry such a wide assortment of cuts that I should have specified that your super-ideal classic h&a''s tend (but not always) that way.
Which would be the ones im comparing to the others.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 12/24/2004 12:45:31 PM
Author: strmrdr
True enough rhino you carry such a wide assortment of cuts that I should have specified that your super-ideal classic h&a''s tend (but not always) that way.
Which would be the ones im comparing to the others.

Thanks bro. You are correct though in the sense that I do make an effort to hunt down the longer lg/star combos. The scintillation in those are 2nd to none except for perhaps the Eighternity or Solasfera. When you''re up around this neck of the woods you gotta see these side by side. We''ll have a rock party.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

http://www.ideal-scope.com/manuf_fine_tuning.asp
This is my favourite range.
What do you think Rhino?

 

[perry]

Rhino:

You state that you feel the Isee2 readings to be relevent as diamonds are most often seen in duffuse light.

So how come we never see anyone report what the Isee2 results are, or any discussion on what are "good" vs "bad" Isee2 results.

Perry

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 12/26/2004 6:27:19 AM
Author: perry
Rhino:


You state that you feel the Isee2 readings to be relevent as diamonds are most often seen in duffuse light.


So how come we never see anyone report what the Isee2 results are, or any discussion on what are 'good' vs 'bad' Isee2 results.


Perry

Rhino is off on vacation untill the 4th of jan.
Ill tackle your question.
Isee2 decided that the internet was not there market and made all there dealers pull the information off the net.
They can share the info in private but not post the results on there webpage.
If you do a search on isee2 here there still should be some information on it.