Crown Angles Greater than 40 degrees

[cushioncut]

Hello,

I''d love to find a cushion with a higher crown like the one in the top left of this picture... I noticed a few GIAs that said crown angles greater than 40 degrees in my search. Do you think these cushions would be more likely to have a higher crown? Or is this "higher than 40" tag bad news and something to avoid?

Thanks for any opinions!

 

[valeria101]

A stone with a large table, and low pavilion can also have a steep crown like that. As long as you can have the stone set ('above 40 degrees' does not mean 90 degrees!) and there are no related issues (uneven or brittle girdle), why not. These are stones that must be seen.

The respective angle plus table is informative for rounds, but does not reveal as much about a fancy mixed cut that can have just any type of pavilion facets.

Do you have a particular stone in mond ?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I think if you could get ideal-scope photos of plus 40 crown angle cushions you would be dismayed.

Look for smaller tables to get more crown height.

Next year cutters will be cutting 47% table size rounds to get AGS 0 - so if you can wait - you can have your cake and eati it too

(Ana you are up late!!)

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Here's a photo of a cushion cut which GIA declared to have crown angles greater- I don't understand why Garry said that an ideal scope photo of such a stone would be dismaying.

A find a lot of great looking cushions whch have crown angles greater than 40 degrees- Yes- if this comment is on the GIA likely that the diamond will have a higher crown. I do not mind such stones because this is part of the antque style that makes cushions charming

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

It would be intersting to compare a really well cut diamond shot with your famous photo system David.

What I see when I compare that photo to some of yours, where all the stone is alive and sparkling, is that this stone is 1/2 as sparkly.

This is an example of what the ideal-scope can be used to show for a princess:
Edied to add for DL's assistance:
David they are good (top) and bad (bottom) looking princess cuts.
The red images are not what you see thru an H&A's scope - they are what you see through an Ideal-Scope (the two are completely different).

The left side is face up, and to the right are successive 10 degree titltings.

Where you see bright red, the stone photo shows bright light return.
Almost every case where there is a firey flash, it is from an area of palish pink.
Where ever there is pure white in the ideal-scope images, the stone is dark or dull in the corresponding photo.

Have you never seen an ideal-scope David?

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Garry- I really can't understand what those photos are supposed to depict.
Is it four different images of four diamonds?
Could you please explain what the photos show?

What those photos do not depict to me, and what really makes a fancy shaped desirable diamond is the personality. Sure- in many cases dark areas in a stone can be unattractive- yet in some cases the contrast makes the diamond fascinating.

The Daniel K Cushion at the top which clearly seems to have 40+ crown angles is probably a knockout stone in person.
As far as the 4.09 Fancy Light Yellow- it also had it's own charm.
If the cutter had veiwed the crown angles as a problem he might never have explored the course he followed. We all know that finanaces play a big role in the decision of exactly how to cut a diamond. Here too, the depth of the crown probably helped the intensity of the color.

I love when cutters use the realites of money, and an artistic eye to produce wonderful stones which follow no mold- yet are extremely desirable.

 

[moremoremore]

cushioncut...what exactly is it that you are looking for (in terms of look)? I think you said you want an old fashioned look? Do you also want a very steep crown in addition? Can I ask why? I think that the best way to go about a search is to just see tons of them...I don't know if the #s will really tell you much

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

David they are good (top) and bad (bottom) looking princess cuts.
The red images are not what you see thru an H&A's scope - they are what you see through an Ideal-Scope (the two are completely different).

The left side is face up, and to the right are successive 10 degree titltings.

Where you see bright red, the stone photo shows bright light return.
Almost every case where there is a firey flash, it is from an area of palish pink.
Where ever there is pure white in the ideal-scope images, the stone is dark or dull in the corresponding photo.

Have you never seen an ideal-scope David?

 

[cushioncut]

Thanks everyone for your thoughts, interesting pictures, and information.

MMM, I'd love to find a stone with an antique look -- many antique cushions seem to have higher crowns. I've seen a lot of stones in person, but I'm also trying to pick stones from the virtual inventory so I'm trying to learn as much as I can to help narrow the search...

I see this tag on a lot of cushion GIAs and I was just curious if it would likely mean a steeper crown -- it seems like it may from what everyone is saying.

Thanks again!

 

[moremoremore]

Cushion- were you looking for a 2 or 3ct? Mark emailed me a pic of a beautiful square antique cushion. I think it was a G ...clarity was either vs1 or vs2...it was beautiful, but I wanted a more modern look...I would definitely call him...

 

[reena]

----------------
On 10/14/2004 7:31:08 AM moremoremore wrote:





Cushion- were you looking for a 2 or 3ct? Mark emailed me a pic of a beautiful square antique cushion. I think it was a G ...clarity was either vs1 or vs2...it was beautiful, but I wanted a more modern look...I would definitely call him...
----------------

yeah i've seen that one too i think . . . it's niiiiiiiiice! speaking of steep crown angles check out the puppy in this ring. i think leon told me that that's an antique cushion but it's hard to tell in the picture. /idealbb/images/smilies/1.gif i think it's perty.

 

[moremoremore]

AH, found it. Here it is. I don't think you can see the true fire in the pic.

 

[cushioncut]

Yes MMM -- I PMed you about that stone. I've seen that stone and it is just what I'm looking for, sadly it's just too EXPENSIVE!!! Anyone else have any photos like that up their sleeve? I know most people prefer the more modern/brilliant cushions. Maybe you guys are all finding the old looking ones that I can't!

Reena, I do like that cushion in your ring too... Maybe that one is a liiiiittle steeper than I'd like to go... But still very pretty.

Thanks again.

 

[reena]

yeah i agree with you; leon said it was one of the steepest he'd seen. pretty cool to look at, tho.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

thanks for the explaination Garry- it's TWO diamonds, yes.
No, I've never felt the need to use such tools- and this thread shows exactly why.
The images you posted do nothing to show the nature of the diamonds.
I'd much rather see a photo showing what the diamonds look like- and I realize this is difficult, and not always possible.
BUT- I don't see how the ideal scope images would help someone in lieu of a good photo.

Here's some more eye candy for Cushioncut
A 1.30 D/VVS1 old mine brilliant

A 2.51 G/VS1 Cushion Brilliant with crown angles greater than 40degrees

Side View

 

[oldminer]

The DiamondsByLauren photos show the qualitative appearance of some very attractive diamonds. It isn't easy to get such nice photos in normal lighting, so the lighting being employed does raise some question in my mind as to what these diamonds look like in more normal lighting. I don't doubt they look very nice since the author is a diamond person who knows what makes a pretty stone.....




Garry"s photos are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to quantitative anlaysis of light behavior, performance and diamond appearance. In a quantitative environment the visuals we get may not look like a diamond at all in regular lighting, but the light is a constant and used to compare one diamond to another in a consistent manner. We need our eyes still to make an interpretation of the images displayed, but we can figure out that more red means more light return, more white means light leakage, and more black means more head shadow between the light source and the diamond. The tilting of the diamond is an additional feature that shows how light performance falls off as the angle of view and/or incident light is altered. This is complex, but simply seen with the examples.




Both qualitative and quantitiative systems have their own level of merit and usefulness to consumers and to other dealers. Diamond dealers do not buy diamonds from regular photographs, no matter how nice and clear they are. Garry and a few dealers may well be able to buy from Ideal-Scope photographs because something definite is being shown by these red, white and black images which is missing from regular pictures.




I like both photos and Ideal-Scope images. Each has their place here. I see no pont in either side becoming defensive as both have a degree of validity to different levels of readers. Some cushion cuts have a great visual look that does not equate to superb light performance. Fancy shaped diamonds have a natural beauty that does not require maximum light return efficiency or the highest scintillation possible. Diamonds are just like people, no one can agree on which is the most desirable. This remains subjective even when we have tons of data.

 

[moremoremore]

David (DBL)- have you ever tried to use some other methods of photography? I think that your photos might be really hard on the stones (they look better in person). I agree that it's very hard to capture beauty in a photog...I'd like to see some other snap shots..maybe switch it up...

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Very good points Dave- and diplomatic too!- are you in the UN????? Actually, you're doing a far better job then them!!!!hahaha

It's true, my photos do distinguish themselves due to the way they look.
Of course many people have asked exactly how I take the photos, and I never answer them. It's part of the way we do business.

After having shipped literally thousands of diamonds based on my photos, I can honestly state that we've NEVER had a return based on someone saying the photo did not look like the diamond. They pick other reasons to return things, but not "misrepresentation"

It's likely that given the exact same conditions and equipment, another photographer's work would look totally different- and I've acutally tested this.
As in any artistic endevour, the eye of the artist is the filter thru which the veiwer sees the image.
No, I'm not piling on the pastrami here- but as a person who spent a lot of years with a loupe to his eye, I use my experience when I pick up a camera- and it shows.

Your point about diamond dealers not being able to buy based on a photograph is toally correct. But I doubt that any serious dealers buy based on Brilliat Scope, Ideal Scope or HCA either.

Of course, my methods do not allow for the consistency of the more "scientific" ideal scope. Thankfully a lot of folks find value in my photos- and I'm sure many also find value in the ideal scope. There IS room for both my "artistic" photos as well as the more clinical type that Garry suggests.

Moremoremore- thanks for the compliment- if my stones DO look better in person, then I am doing exactly the right thing.
I am not afraid of making the stones look bad- just the opposite.
I'd rather folks look at the diamond when it arrives, and call to say it looks BETTER than the photo,
The alternative is people being dissapointed when they see the stone in person- as I've said, we've dissapointed folks ( nobody's perfect)- but not because the photo looked too good.
I have tried other methods and prefer the way I do it now.

 

[moremoremore]

but wouldn't it be better to try to have the pic accurately reflect the stone? ..not better or worse...

 

[oldminer]

David (DBL);




Your photos are very clear and show super depth of field. Obviously there is not a lot of light coming in from the top or the camera image would suffer from too much reflection. Your images sufficiently dampen light performance and allow an observer to see into the stone, even to the extent of clearly seeing some inclusions. Just getting diamond clean enough to take those photos is a piece of work in itself. I would agree that few consumers would find a diamond they initially saw in one of your photos disappointing in person because your photos show the body and shape of the stone very clearly, but don't exaggerate brilliancy. When someone opens up a package and actually sees such a stone with their own eyes, how could they be anything but pleased with the added brilliant appearance? It is a fair way to work and smart, too....




Imitation is a sincere form of flattery. Now, who else can figure it all out so well?




I think that Garry Holloway could buy diamonds over a distance with Ideal-Scope images from sources he relies upon. The concept of using such a cheap and compact tool to quantify light performance is much larger and important than many in the trade have yet to understand. With a small, hand-held device, we can readily predict what other higly complex industry devices measure or claim to confirm. These other tools cost tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.




Again, both ways of looking increase our awareness of the product in beneficial ways.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

HI Dave,
Thanks for the nice words.
It does seem likely that dealers selling branded stones like H&A or Hearts on Fire would consider the Ideal-Scope images when purchasing because that is part of the way they represent the diamond. But I still feel pretty sure no actual deals are done till the dealer has actually "eyeballed" the diamond.

I just want to add:
Both Garry and I are pretty passionate about what we do, and how we do it. even if we don't agree, I respect him and his work. If it seems like we're angry, well, I certainly feel no ill will between us- heck, I'd like to go skiing with the bum. Maybe he could get a bird to land on my hand........

 

[headlight]

----------------
On 10/13/2004 4:24:58 PM Garry H (Cut Nut) wrote:





Next year cutters will be cutting 47% table size rounds to get AGS 0
----------------

Are you serious, Garry??!!!

 

[windowshopper]

i am in search of a cushion cut--2 or so carats--a comments on a couple sellers that have alot of stones to choose from????????

thanks ws

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

hi all,

David I guess I like to try to turn tradionalists like your self from going the way of the dinasuars.

We have soo many wonderful new advances coming down the road at us on the cut front, yet there are folk in the trade out there who have never even seen a diamond through a red reflector. We regularly hear of consumers who enter jewel stores and pull out the little pink thing - and GIA trained staff are not even interested to look or see what it shows.

So David you represent one of the class of people who I am able to discuss such issues with. If I can understand more about you, and your motivations, then I have more chance to find out ways to bring new methods to your realm.

Headlight the answer is yes - next year you will be able to buy diamonds graded AGS 0 with table sizes from 47% to 61%. There are two current threads where we are discussing these issues, and the similarity of their new system to HCA.

 

[headlight]

----------------
On 10/14/2004 10:40:59 PM Garry H (Cut Nut) wrote:





Headlight the answer is yes - next year you will be able to buy diamonds graded AGS 0 with table sizes from 47% to 61%. ----------------

Wow -- 61%... my diamond could actually be a "contender" -- ha, ha!

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Does that mean we're not going skiing you young whippersnapper? I'm not old fashioned, but you'll never force me into one of them new fangled automobiles. heh

Garry, Garry, Garry.
I respect people who find value in using an ideal scope.
My arguments against it are not personal.
As far as being old fashioned, and my motivations-

I love what I do because ultimately, if I do my job, I make people happy.
I am a performer and like to think I look at things with an artist's eye. Diamonds, and the rings that hold them are artistic to me. The angles, proportions of the stones, and the way they fit together all make a piece of jewery which brings joy to the person wearing it, and those who look at it.

I think it's the molding of the things that have traditionally drawn people to diamonds, with modern technology that is currently driving progress in the diamond business. I know of cutters who currently cut old fashioned, open culet diamonds. This is kind of at odds with H&A diamonds, but variety is the spice of life- and this really holds true in diamonds.


I know you have been working with diamond cutting factories- and again- hats off!

Since I do not manufacture ( that is to say, cut) diamonds, I buy loose polished diamonds.
The way I make sure to have well cut diamonds is by using my discretion -choosing the right stones- and this is precisely what most people are trying to do when they want to buy a diamond. I understand why folks would like to have a machine to tell them if it's a well cut diamond. Some endorse this machine.
I rely on my eyes and my gut. IS this old fashioned young fella?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

What's its crown and pavilion angles?

 

[headlight]

----------------
On 10/15/2004 1:16:56 AM Garry H (Cut Nut) wrote:





What's its crown and pavilion angles?
----------------

Trust me, this is why I said "ha, ha" because I'm sure it wouldn't qualify. I actually don't have a Sarin, just the percentages which are Crown Height 14% and Pavillion Depth 44%. It thoroughly BOMBS on the HCA

but it really is VERY pretty in person and I have grown quite attached to it!

 

[reena]

i've seen it here and it's just beauuuuutiful, headlight.

 

[moremoremore]

Yeah- I was going to say..I don't care if it's a stink bomb on the HCA headlight, HELLO, take a look at that stone, your stone and ring are amazing!!! And dare I say that I just bought a new stone without any fancy analysis!

None needed. It was plainly visible to my eye that it was a beauty...I think your stone speaks for itself headlight!!!