but...some time 4 EX may not be the kind of stone to shoot for.Date: 10/10/2005 2:34:51 AM
Author: Daniel B
Dancin:
I''ve done research on the HCA and have found specs for FIC''s that are EX/EX/EX/EX
They are:
Depth: 59.8-60.3
Table: 53-57
Crown: 35.6
Pav: 40.3-40.6
Any of these combos within the ranges i''ve given should yeild 4 EXcellents
Yes, if anything the depth is a bit shallow, everything else looks ideally firey to me.Date: 10/10/2005 2:51:13 AM
Author: Dancing Fire
but...some time 4 EX may not be the kind of stone to shoot for.
I don't know any better than you do, but that 'fiery' looks may come from other cut details than HCA catches (table, crown and pavilion angles). Say, small table and/or short upper girdle facets may also work. For one page of quick expert notes, you may want to take a look on the page about 'minor facets' at GoodOldGold.com . If you want to spend lots and lots of time on it, try the Diamond Cut Study articles HERE.Date: 10/10/2005 2:54:49 AM
Author: Daniel B
Yes, if anything the depth is a bit shallow,
It just so happens that 60% depth came to be sort of fetish... a bit less is not necesarily 'shallow'. You may call it that way, of course, but what does that do and why is that 'bad'?
everything else looks ideally firey to me.
Unless I missed some of the talk, you do not have a diamond with those exact proportions at hand. And neither have I... The numbers read 'FIC' on a scale, and that is all there is to see.
In fact, i bumped the depth to 62 and it got EX/EX/EX/VG-- This is all just based on the HCA- dont really know what it'd look like in person
Yeah... seein them in flesh is the usual problem ... nothing new.
GH>> But Storm what I am saying is you need not compromise - you can have your cake (fire) and eat it too with an FIC with the right Lower Girdles etc.
And I will see what I can do to let some manufacturers know that there is a market that they can get better yeilds on from some shapes of rough diamond.
So when these stones start to appear - it will be really important that you guys do not say "oh no, you cant buy a 32 crown angle" or "that 37 crown angle will have a lousy spread."
Date: 10/10/2005 3:51:34 PM
Author: Mara
'that 37 crown angle will have a lousy spread.'
______________
well won't it?
see the image below Mara - the wearer gets to see a lot more diamond with an FIC
I don't have a problem with other types of potentially ideal cuts if they are beautiful with great light return, but for me if something WILL have lousy spread I think it should be pointed out to the customer. I would want to know that when buying, esp if I want a larger diamond for the money. It's important to put down opinions as well as facts and then letting the consumer buy what appeals to THEM in the end. Mara you do not tell Princess buyers this every time - that princess has a losuy spread and less light return than rounds to boot.
I also am not married to the idea of 34 and 41 (I don't even like 41!!) there ya go again Darli'n - if you are going to like a 31, 32 0r 33 crown angle diamond, and i think YOU will, then you are only gunna like em if they have pavilion angles over 41 degrees, you lilltle ol economic rationalists.... but those really extreme examples like that 25 crown angle, I think some of those need to really be seen to be believed. and FIC's can have thinner girdles - but below 30 you need a thicker girdle to reduce chipping risk with lower crown angle - and problem is this reduces yeild (wierd huh?) - so these stones will really be for earrings and pendants - non dangerous environ's - and that means they can be even shallow shallow combo's - Remeber drena's era rings - the vegas tests etc?
From one night owl to another...Date: 10/10/2005 2:21:28 PM
Author: Daniel B
Broken link Val- do ya have another?
Welcome to my page Rhino - after 5 years of bashing my head on a brick wall I can finally see a glimmer thru the cracks.Date: 10/10/2005 4:39:00 PM
Author: Rhino
Wish I had more time to participate here. Garry ... its scary how we''re so on the same page mate. MKB may be soon sending me some of these types for observation testing and lab examination. Once we get our hands on some live specimens we''ll be posting the data for study.
Peace,
Date: 10/10/2005 3:36:26 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
So when these stones start to appear - it will be really important that you guys do not say 'oh no, you cant buy a 32 crown angle' or 'that 37 crown angle will have a lousy spread.'
Date: 10/10/2005 3:36:26 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
So when these stones start to appear - it will be really important that you guys do not say ''oh no, you cant buy a 32 crown angle'' or ''that 37 crown angle will have a lousy spread.''
Chicken and eggDate: 10/10/2005 9:18:01 PM
Author: aljdewey
I think there is a *vast* difference between saying ''oh no, *YOU* can''t buy a 32 crown angle'' and saying ''*I* personally wouldn''t prefer a 32 crown angle.''
I honestly don''t see the area of concern here, Garry.....as has always been on Pricescope, balanced opinions will equalize everything. If Mara and Storm didn''t prefer 32 crown angles but you and Dave Atlas or someone equally knowledgable responded with why it MIGHT make a good stone, I don''t see the problem.
Agreed. Committed patterning, in any combination, maximizes that combo's potential.Date: 10/10/2005 9:42:37 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Chicken and egg
They have not seen symmetrical nice combo stones like those.
If people keep saying '*I* personally wouldn't prefer a 32 crown angle.' then they wont see them.
No one will see them. And that will be a loss.
Garry, I think part of the problem is that we are at crossed purposes.Date: 10/10/2005 9:42:37 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Chicken and eggDate: 10/10/2005 9:18:01 PM
Author: aljdewey
I think there is a *vast* difference between saying ''oh no, *YOU* can''t buy a 32 crown angle'' and saying ''*I* personally wouldn''t prefer a 32 crown angle.''
I honestly don''t see the area of concern here, Garry.....as has always been on Pricescope, balanced opinions will equalize everything. If Mara and Storm didn''t prefer 32 crown angles but you and Dave Atlas or someone equally knowledgable responded with why it MIGHT make a good stone, I don''t see the problem.
They have not seen symmetrical nice combo stones like those.
If people keep saying ''*I* personally wouldn''t prefer a 32 crown angle.'' then they wont see them.
No one will see them. And that will be a loss.
A loss of billions of dollars of ground off diamond.
A loss of differentiation of appearance for peoples different taste.
Aljdeway we really can establish this market here. Or we can keep stymiying it.
Date: 10/11/2005 12:57:48 AM
Author: Daniel B
Thank you Val for the updated page, appreciate that
Through reading this and my thread over again, it seems that a TIC stone with shorter LGF (75-76%) will yeild more fire, but it is best not to incorporate a smaller table in with that. Got it!
My question: Given I want to maximize fire, (but not go with a FIC) I should find a TIC with the 75-76 LGF, not a small table, and what % of stars should i look for?
Also, please, does it give it more fire if i go with a 34.8-35 degree crown angle as opposed to a 34.4 crown?
Lastly should i still look for a shallower Pav (40-40.5)?
Thanks! ! !
Date: 10/12/2005 10:53:18 AM
Author: aljdewey
Garry, I think part of the problem is that we are at crossed purposes.
I''m not here to help establish a market. I''m not here out of concern for potentially lost dollars to cutters. I''m here as a *consumer* worrying about *consumer* interests. If consumers can have a more diverse range of options that are desirable and cost less money then I think Pricescope is performing its function.
But current behaviour is restricting consumers options.
Now, if Pricescope wants to change it''s stated purpose so it reads ''helping to establish new diamond markets'', then fine. But, that''s not its purpose now.....as it stands today, it''s a consumer advocacy site, and that means consumers should be able to share their *opinions* freely.
If you want to worry about helping to establish a market, then you can choose to chime in on those types of threads with your expert opinion.
Look, I think there''s enough work for a lifetime just in helping folks understand that cut matters at all. That''s what I care about.
Date: 10/12/2005 4:17:00 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Date: 10/12/2005 10:53:18 AM
Author: aljdewey
If consumers can have a more diverse range of options that are desirable and cost less money then I think Pricescope is performing its function.
But current behaviour is restricting consumers options.
Current behavior, Garry? You say this like we are breaching some obligation..... you don''t get it. IT''S NOT MY JOB to "present a diverse range of options" here. That is not my responsibility, or Mara''s, or anyone else''s. Geez!Date: 10/12/2005 4:17:00 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Date: 10/12/2005 10:53:18 AM
Author: aljdewey
I''m not here to help establish a market. I''m not here out of concern for potentially lost dollars to cutters. I''m here as a *consumer* worrying about *consumer* interests. If consumers can have a more diverse range of options that are desirable and cost less money then I think Pricescope is performing its function.
But current behaviour is restricting consumers options.
I simply ask that the range of "acceptable" proprotions that respected people suggest be considered in the light of scientific evidence.Date: 10/12/2005 5:28:15 PM
Author: aljdewey
Current behavior, Garry? You say this like we are breaching some obligation..... you don''t get it. IT''S NOT MY JOB to ''present a diverse range of options'' here. That is not my responsibility, or Mara''s, or anyone else''s. Geez!Date: 10/12/2005 4:17:00 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Date: 10/12/2005 10:53:18 AM
Author: aljdewey
I''m not here to help establish a market. I''m not here out of concern for potentially lost dollars to cutters. I''m here as a *consumer* worrying about *consumer* interests. If consumers can have a more diverse range of options that are desirable and cost less money then I think Pricescope is performing its function.
But current behaviour is restricting consumers options.
I''m here to present MY opinion. I know that others who have different preferences will express theirs, too, and in THAT way, consumers will have a ''diverse range of options''.
I''m really getting disturbed at the premise that we cannot express our opinions or preferences as WE feel, and I find it distateful that you''re making US feel as though we have obligations to help cutters maximize their yield.