41 degree pavillion angle

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/16/2007 7:45:46 PM
Author: dhk8880

Alright I just got done reading through all 9 pages.

I found a stone locally at a B&M store. Here are the specs.

it is a AGS Ideal 0. Color H Cut VS2. 2.31 carat

Table 61.6 depth 56 It has a crown and pavaillin angle of 41 and 35.

HCA rates a 2.2.

What do you guys think about this combo? I requested a Sarin report and should receive that tommorow.

I am very close to buying a ring. I have 2 questions.

1. I looked at some of the vendors on PS. They have a comparable stone. What to do? I am confused

2. How do I get a Diam Calc image made?

Thanks

This post has me scared/confused/worried about this combo.''

DHK - you might just disregard everything I say here because I am not an expert.

but I can say that you don''t need a diam calc image to buy a diamond. You don''t need to have numbers that are debated for pages or even simply verified by *anyone*.

Use your eyes and make the best choice. An AGS 0 is going to be at the pinacle of diamonds - fretting about which *side* of the pinacle or how high *up* the pinacle you are is just OVERKILL. This thread has gotten very deep into the minutia of cutting - you after 3 days are in over your head LOL Me after a year am in over my head (but I''ll keep dog paddling anyway hehe)

 

[dhk8880]

Yeah I figured much, I saw the diamond it looks good but right now all the ideal cuts are startin to look the same.

 

[WinkHPD]

LOL! Just spend a couple of months here and it will all make sense.

Or, go buy a rock that looks wonderful to you and enjoy it.

Wik

 

[dhk8880]

Thanks Wink. I am in tighter time bind so I I dont have a couple months only a couple weeks.

I will start a new thread to get some opinions on 2 stones. Your opions will be appreciated, thanks

 

[pyramid]

I have decided I am keeping the diamond.

 

[pyramid]

Okay I have been scrutenizing this diamond and I have decided it is what I want. The thing with the 41 pavillion and myself confusing it with a smaller table did make me feel I didn't love it. However as I said after I saw that it was the table size and I am certain about that, I see it especially in the Pearlman's advert which is show at the top of Pricescope, the flashing adverts, I see it with the Whiteflash stones people have posted and there is no such thing as this cone I was describing that is just how I saw the pavillion narrowing differently from I have been used to seeing in the UK with larger tables where the pavillion is larger in view.

I have always felt I liked the white brilliance more than too much colour, I still like colour. Years ago I used to look at the Billianscope pictures on GoodoldGold and I always liked the ones which yellow, pink, blue but the orange ones I didn't as much. I have seen people post pictures of fire in their diamonds and when I saw the orange fire, personal preference how I see it, I would see the diamond as looking darker, more brownier, although I don't think to do with body colour. I have even thought I didn't like to much colour because to me it looked like a coloured gemstone, and I see diamonds as white, WHITE DIAMONDS for those who remember

. I can add here and most people would say I am mad, but I have never really liked fancy diamonds, I see people going goo goo over pink diamonds and they do nothing for me, or blue, any colour. I remember saying to my sister, at least that is something I don't aspire to want, I think I see them as gemstones, although I love sapphires, emeralds and rubies. I recall seeing a television programme onetime about diamonds and they were filming in Harry Winstons and they showed this display of very large colourless diamonds and I remember thinking wow and then they went onto a purple or blue diamond and pink and yellow diamonds and I clearly remember thinking I loved those D or E or F colour white white diamonds, well I assume they were colourless because of where it was and the size of them.

I have tried to see any colour entrapment and I just see this diamond as very colourless, although it is an H, I notice it very icy white from the top and just white from the side and it is in a stuller mount very open, I see no yellow, I have held it against a white envelope and I can hardly see any, yet I know I have seen colour from the sides in diamonds before. But one of the things I really love is against this white white, when the arrows are darkened they are black as can be, not overpowering the diamond because they don't. I was worried about the HCA only giving VG for Fire and Scintillation. Well there is definitely lots of scintillation to my eyes, it seems to go on and off and seems to be very evenly across the stone including under the table like sparkly silver lights and colour but the best bit about the colour is when I do see it I see Teal and cerise and it is so strong and maybe to do with the Ideal polish but it looks like metallic paint it is so vibrant. I see the beige walls of my living room shining off the surface of the facets but I can see it is not in the stone just reflections, I have held the stone every which way in front of the window in daylight in evenining light and I see no darkness under the table at all and no shade of colour. The stone is H but I thought I should maybe see a cream maybe but it is just WHITE WHITE

I am somewhat taken with the Morse thing too, even before I wrote on the forum, I had said to Jonathan in an email was the 41 pavillion going away from Tolkowsky and more modern as I had read on the internet about cutters doing this in the 70s and he replied no infact the opposite because it was Henry Morse who did the first diamond cut design and it was his theory. I then read this a few days later on this thread from Michaelgem and I don't think it is in a romantic way but I just like history and I like the idea it has the cut of the first person to design them, nothing against Tolkowsky just that I like it. This would not have changed my view though at all if I didn't like the diamond.

I really think the main thing about it is that my preference is to see the white and black contrast in the diamond and I love these colours I see too. I think I would not like a diamond that was full of fire because to me I seem to see them as darker, more smokey (going from the orange fire again) and towards coloured stones. As I said I don't care for fancy coloured diamonds, I don't hate them I just have no real like for them. I like to see the OEC cut facet patterns with the large open culets but again I am not really into all the colours there. Oh and I have even looked at peoples diamonds who have posted lots of pictures with flowers and the colours and they are pretty but I have wondered to myself where is the white light. Ofcourse that may be the lighting outside the pictures were taken with depending upon the time of day.

I am definitely sure though that this is the diamond for me. So I have gone to join Michaelgem in company with his Scientific theory. Ofcourse I have no knowledge like Brian and the other cutters or like Serg and Michaelgem so it is true what various people have written Aljedewey, Wink that it is personal preference I think at the end of the day. I can wholeheartedly say also that this mind clean thing did affect me in a big way, the thought that 41 pavillion was somehow bad, that people said the other specs were 'cherry' and I had read that many times. That Garry's HCA was not showing at least 3 excellents but at the end of the day, I don't want the Excellent in Fire the Very Good is good enough for me because I want more white llight. So I think although the HCA is not for final selection, I think it did judge this diamond right.

I have come to this decision myself, I have not been contacted by Jonathan, as I said earlier he told me as far as this diamond went I was the boss, I had 30 days to return it for a refund and even after that I had 100% trade in price if I wanted to upgrade. I asked him about seeing the crown shallower from the profile view and he told me honestly that yes I would see it shallower, but the thing is it doesn't bother me at all now. He did a video I posted in another thread because I had bombarded him with emails and questions and he just said, look I am going to shoot this video, of a 34/41 (not my stone because it was already being set in the ring then, I had arranged this with Christen before I emailed Jonathan and he didn't know that) and a 34.8/40.8 stone and you can see what you think. The first thing I noticed was to me the 34/41 looked brighter, more whiter and I noticed when it was in diamond dock that I could see the eye of the pavillion reflection of the table and it looked a bit larger than the 34.8 diamond but not in a bad way just a bit larger, still looks third of the table to me because I have scrutenized that tonight for a little while in accordance with the article on Michaelgem's site.

So I feel relieved now that I have decided and I know it is the right choice for me.

I don't know if the stone was a lower colour I may have been put off with the body colour or if there is entrapment at these angles. I do know that I did not like a J I saw under my house lights, a non certificated diamond so maybe it was lower, I also have seen an EGL USA certificated 2 carat diamond although I did not ask to see the stone face down because I could see from the upright view a dark grey tone to me in the pavillion. This H is just very clear, I have tried to look for yellow, yellowish green, brown and I know something has to be there but from the side table facing up I just see white and pastel colours of fire reflecting in the pavillion when held at the window at 12noon and there is no sun here and what little is just a little behind the clouds sometimes. I have not had a sunny day since the stone came to really see the fire and although it may not be excellent I know there is tons of it, because I can see teals etc in the morning on a cloudy day.

Thank you to everyone who has replied here, and a big thank you to GoodoldGold, Jonathan and Christen, I could not have found a better vendor and I certainly could not have got this diamond even with the VAT and customs duty added on for lesser in the UK.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/16/2007 8:06:16 PM
Author: dhk8880
Yeah I figured much, I saw the diamond it looks good but right now all the ideal cuts are startin to look the same.

hehehe - that''s why some of us have chosen to buy diamonds FAR off the beaten path... and guess what? They''re still beautiful

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/16/2007 8:20:25 PM
Author: Pyramid
I have decided I am keeping the diamond.

Congratulations!!!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/16/2007 8:20:25 PM
Author: Pyramid
I have decided I am keeping the diamond.

kewl
How are you going to set it?

 

[He Scores]

Date: 7/16/2007 8:06:16 PM
Author: dhk8880
Yeah I figured much, I saw the diamond it looks good but right now all the ideal cuts are startin to look the same.

I''m sorry Sara...but.....

Looking at a diamond to judge the cut is like looking at a car from across the street and consider buying it....or standing in the street and looking at a house and judging the quality of construction. It can''t be done. You may like what you see, but what you see may not be what you expect.

If we were to buy things for the way they looked, we would all be wearing knock off Rolex watches...I mean even the knockoffs are hard for people in the trade to spot anymore .

What we pay for a Rolex for is for things inside that we can''t see. The passing of the chronograph tests. Known quality.

Same thing with diamonds. It''s important to know what your buying and not what you think you''re buying.

Looks can be decieving. Even with fancy scopes and pictures. Cutters are masters of deception the same as artists on canvas are. Remember the four types of grading reports:

Good on paper. Good to the eye
Bad on paper. Good to the eye
Bad on paper Bad to the eye.
Good on paper. Bad to the eye.


Bill Bray
Diamond Cutter

 

[pyramid]

Date: 7/16/2007 9:03:53 PM
Author: Cehrabehra

Date: 7/16/2007 8:20:25 PM
Author: Pyramid
I have decided I am keeping the diamond.

Congratulations!!!

Thank you Sara

 

[pyramid]

Date: 7/16/2007 9:41:03 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 7/16/2007 8:20:25 PM
Author: Pyramid
I have decided I am keeping the diamond.

kewl
How are you going to set it?

I got it set before it was sent at GoodoldGold in their cheapest Platinum Stuller Tiffany, that is the look I like and I wanted to put the money all in the stone anyway. I can always change the setting later, but I like it plain and narrow because my fingers are quite short and 4 and 3/4, so not to maximise the stone but to maximise the finger length. I like yellow gold too but did not pick yellow or white gold because I was not sure if nickel was used, in the UK/Europe it is banned as far as I know in jewellery. I have never had a nickel allergy but just incase I decided to go with the platinum ring. I didn''t even ask GoodoldGold what the alloys in their gold were. I thought from the pictures on the site that the ring would be set too high for me but it isn''t and I never asked for it to be set lower. I think the angle of the picture on the Stuller sample makes the prongs look taller although they are not short and probably are tall.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/16/2007 9:50:17 PM
Author: He Scores

Date: 7/16/2007 8:06:16 PM
Author: dhk8880
Yeah I figured much, I saw the diamond it looks good but right now all the ideal cuts are startin to look the same.

I''m sorry Sara...but.....

Looking at a diamond to judge the cut is like looking at a car from across the street and consider buying it....or standing in the street and looking at a house and judging the quality of construction. It can''t be done. You may like what you see, but what you see may not be what you expect.

If we were to buy things for the way they looked, we would all be wearing knock off Rolex watches...I mean even the knockoffs are hard for people in the trade to spot anymore .

What we pay for a Rolex for is for things inside that we can''t see. The passing of the chronograph tests. Known quality.

Same thing with diamonds. It''s important to know what your buying and not what you think you''re buying.

Looks can be decieving. Even with fancy scopes and pictures. Cutters are masters of deception the same as artists on canvas are. Remember the four types of grading reports:

Good on paper. Good to the eye
Bad on paper. Good to the eye
Bad on paper Bad to the eye.
Good on paper. Bad to the eye.


Bill Bray
Diamond Cutter

I''m sorry Bill.... but..... I don''t care what the paper says if the stone is beautiful. I don''t care what the cut grade is. Sure, it can be useful info, but if you''re saying that it is more useful than the eyes then I''m going to disagree with you.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 7/16/2007 7:45:46 PM
Author: dhk8880

Alright I just got done reading through all 9 pages.

I found a stone locally at a B&M store. Here are the specs.

it is a AGS Ideal 0. Color H Cut VS2. 2.31 carat

Table 61.6 depth 56 It has a crown and pavaillin angle of 41 and 35.

HCA rates a 2.2.

What do you guys think about this combo? I requested a Sarin report and should receive that tommorow.

I am very close to buying a ring. I have 2 questions.

1. I looked at some of the vendors on PS. They have a comparable stone. What to do? I am confused

2. How do I get a Diam Calc image made?

Thanks

This post has me scared/confused/worried about this combo.''

Is this report one that mentions light performance?
what was the date and format of the report?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/16/2007 10:01:09 PM
Author: Pyramid

Date: 7/16/2007 9:41:03 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 7/16/2007 8:20:25 PM
Author: Pyramid
I have decided I am keeping the diamond.

kewl
How are you going to set it?

I got it set before it was sent at GoodoldGold in their cheapest Platinum Stuller Tiffany, that is the look I like and I wanted to put the money all in the stone anyway. I can always change the setting later, but I like it plain and narrow because my fingers are quite short and 4 and 3/4, so not to maximise the stone but to maximise the finger length. I like yellow gold too but did not pick yellow or white gold because I was not sure if nickel was used, in the UK/Europe it is banned as far as I know in jewellery. I have never had a nickel allergy but just incase I decided to go with the platinum ring. I didn''t even ask GoodoldGold what the alloys in their gold were. I thought from the pictures on the site that the ring would be set too high for me but it isn''t and I never asked for it to be set lower. I think the angle of the picture on the Stuller sample makes the prongs look taller although they are not short and probably are tall.

thats kewl the classic tiff is one of my favorite settings.
Congrates!

 

[Lorelei]

Yay for WHITE DIAMONDS and your great decision Pyramid!!!!!! AND the classic Tiff setting, PERFECTION!

 

[He Scores]

RE: but if you''re saying that it is more useful than the eyes then I''m going to disagree with you.



Sarah.....

of course I don''t mean to say that paper is more important than looks....on the contrary. However, for those that want the very best, they will want optical symetry AND physical symetry.

Buying based on looking with your naked eye is risky business, especially if you''re in the business.

But certainly, as a consumer, you should enjoy the look of your stone as you do yours.


Bill Bray
Diamond Cutter

 

[Ellen]

Date: 7/16/2007 8:20:25 PM
Author: Pyramid
I have decided I am keeping the diamond.

Congrats Pyramid!

I loved reading your lengthier post, because it illustrates why I and others had prompted you to take a step back and just get to know the stone. After allllll the numbers talk, it is best to forget them, and just look at the diamond. In the end, it really doesn''t matter (to a certain degree) what the numbers are, it''s how the diamond looks to you.

I am so excited for you, as you are just beginning to see the beauty of such an awesomely cut diamond. Trust me, it just gets better and better.

 

[pyramid]

Thanks Ellen. Yes I wrote that quite late last night and the spelling mistakes and grammar is terrible. I think I just had to get it out and feel now I am happy I have made the decision.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 7/17/2007 9:34:02 AM
Author: Pyramid
Thanks Ellen. Yes I wrote that quite late last night and the spelling mistakes and grammar is terrible. I think I just had to get it out and feel now I am happy I have made the decision.

Oh don''t feel bad, I spell words wrong in the middle of the day.

And really, I''m just so happy YOU are happy!



Now, get that camera!

 

[hoorray]

Congrats Pyramid! It sounds as if you sort this all out so that you really can feel great about your decision. Now go enjoy your new ring!

 

[pyramid]

Thanks Lop.

Ellen, I need to buy a camera first

 

[belle]

10 pages!!!???

well, it sounds like from the congrats that you have a diamond that you are happy with!

so....congrats!

 

[Ellen]

Date: 7/17/2007 11:40:32 AM
Author: Pyramid


Ellen, I need to buy a camera first

I know, that''s what I meant.

*waiting*

 

[pyramid]

I really feel as though I have had the best time making an individual choice. Although some said about talking about this stone when someone is making the decision about it, and some said about people tearing it apart. It was the best thing for me, otherwise I would have gone with the crowd of what everyone on this forum is buying and I would have been happy but it would not have been an individual choice as much. I really think that people need to make that choice for themselves and even if they get advice on the specs don't get into the thinking that the best numbers are the best diamond for them. After all I went with VS1 because that is what I need, so why should I go with the Cut that most go with when I am not doing it with the Clarity grade.

Even when HeScores wrote about the stone being 1.90 (in retalliation to another remark made) and so not rare because the reason few are listed is most people would go to the 2 carat. He was correct but then that is also an individual choice of if you can afford the colour. clarity, cut in the 2 carat mark or are you happy to go down to another colour etc. If I went to VS2 I could have got a larger stone. The other stone I was considering was 1.76 G VS1 which Whiteflash has, the reason I went for this one was I could go larger and only have to go down to H, personal choice for me others would want the G or a totally different colour. I did not want to go down to I or J or I would have been able to go over the 2 carat. There are many no doubt who have stones in the 2-3 carat range and you could say the same then about 2.9 or 3.9 or 4.9 and so on. So there is no correct answer and there is no correct answer with cut.

It really is down to the individual.

I am really really glad it was when I was getting my diamond that this big thread took place. I have been able to search my soul in a way to go what is right for me. I liked the fact that there was the Cutters and the Scientist people giving different opinions. I really respect both, and I know they were both correct from their viewpoints. Cutters are in some respects artists and maybe they can see different things than us, in the same way Michaelgem sees something in his figures for another angle. Maybe what both see are at the extreme end of the scales and so finely tuned that the average Joe buying a diamond would not see it and the average rich person going for a priceless D Flawless would just take either of their opinions and believe it to be right, however unless he is as well educated or gifted naturally as they are he probably won't appreciate what they are seeing anyway.

As far as I am concerned I made the right choice for me, and not based really on either of their views but upon mine. I will not change my opinion now even if the diamond is torn apart with theories.

So I have I think had the best individual service here in picking a diamond of anyone on this forum I feel. I mean imagine going into a jewellers to look at a diamond and have 3 or more cutters, 2 or more gem scientists, and a jeweller over the space of more than one day and then have to make up your mind about a single stone where they had differing opinions about it which were complete opposites. I also feel if I was getting engaged and was younger, I would have probably turned the stone down and had no confidence to pick what I wanted and would have leaned to the forum members choice as it was independent of the other two highly qualified sides. The diamond would have been the opinion of one of the groups because it would have been an AGS0 but it would not have been my choice. I feel that through age I have been able to take this the bad and the good and make my own decision. I couldn't have got that at Cartier, Harry Winstons, or anywhere else.

So if any of the experts feel inclined do not let me and my stone stop them continuing with their debate on what is the best diamond cut.

I think there is no best because here there are two better cuts and you need to be a connoiseur of it to know the difference.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 7/16/2007 8:00:01 PM
Author: Cehrabehra


but I can say that you don't need a diam calc image to buy a diamond. You don't need to have numbers that are debated for pages or even simply verified by *anyone*.

Use your eyes and make the best choice. An AGS 0 is going to be at the pinacle of diamonds - fretting about which *side* of the pinacle or how high *up* the pinacle you are is just OVERKILL. This thread has gotten very deep into the minutia of cutting - you after 3 days are in over your head LOL Me after a year am in over my head (but I'll keep dog paddling anyway hehe)

This is the most meaningful, helpful post in this entire thread, and it's the best advice given, too.

I hope people heed the wisdom in it.

Bill B.: I think you're missing the point. The paper helps you know what a diamond is WORTH. It doesn't make it more or less beautiful to one's eye. They are separate and distinct evaluations.

In this case, the paper already narrowed down that it was a fantastic diamond. However, the buyer's EYE had to love the diamond, too. Two very different things.

 

[pyramid]

Ideally I would have had a 40.8 or so pavillion angle diamond to compare side by side with my diamond, but then I know I like the white brilliance a bit more than the fire.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/17/2007 6:08:04 AM
Author: He Scores


RE: but if you''re saying that it is more useful than the eyes then I''m going to disagree with you.



Sarah.....

of course I don''t mean to say that paper is more important than looks....on the contrary. However, for those that want the very best, they will want optical symetry AND physical symetry.

Buying based on looking with your naked eye is risky business, especially if you''re in the business.

But certainly, as a consumer, you should enjoy the look of your stone as you do yours.


Bill Bray
Diamond Cutter

I totally get what you''re saying, and a part of me even agrees with this... but another part of me thinks, who cares about "best". If every diamond were "best" how freaking boring would that be? They''d all look the same! Particularly when there is GREAT beauty to be found in the quirks. In fact I would dare say there is MORE beauty in the quirks, however much less the *performance* may be. Like faces - we might all want to have totally symetrical faces but there is great beauty to be found in a pair of eyes that aren''t identical to one another.

I appreciate the need for speed, need for perfection, but that is only ONE type of beauty.

And that artistic side to this keeps me from just agreeing with you full out.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/17/2007 12:12:42 PM
Author: aljdewey

This is the most meaningful, helpful post in this entire thread, and it''s the best advice given, too.

I hope people heed the wisdom in it.

Bill B.: I think you''re missing the point. The paper helps you know what a diamond is WORTH. It doesn''t make it more or less beautiful to one''s eye. They are separate and distinct evaluations.

In this case, the paper already narrowed down that it was a fantastic diamond. However, the buyer''s EYE had to love the diamond, too. Two very different things.

thank you alj This part to bill is what I was trying to say... I was using art and performance but I think value and beauty are better and more accurate.

 

[michaelgem]

Pyramid,

Okay I have been scrutinizing this diamond and I have decided it is what I want.

So I feel relieved now that I have decided and I know it is the right choice for me.

I am somewhat taken with the Morse thing too, even before I wrote on the forum, I then read this a few days later on this thread from Michaelgem and I don't think it is in a romantic way, but I just like history and I like the idea it has the cut of the first person to design them, nothing against Tolkowsky just that I like it.

I was worried about the HCA only giving VG for Fire and Scintillation. Well there is definitely lots of scintillation to my eyes, it seems to go on and off and seems to be very evenly across the stone including under the table like sparkly silver lights and colour but the best bit about the colour is when I do see it I see Teal and cerise and it is so strong and maybe to do with the Ideal polish but it looks like metallic paint it is so vibrant. I have held the stone every which way in front of the window in daylight in evening light and I see no darkness under the table at all and no shade of colour. The stone is H but I thought I should maybe see a cream maybe but it is just WHITE WHITE

I really think the main thing about it is that my preference is to see the white and black contrast in the diamond and I love these colours I see too. I think I would not like a diamond that was full of fire

I am definitely sure though that this is the diamond for me. So I have gone to join Michaelgem in company with his Scientific theory. That Garry's HCA was not showing at least 3 excellents but at the end of the day, I don't want the Excellent in Fire the Very Good is good enough for me because I want more white light. Pyramid

“You have learned well Grasshopper.“ (David Carradine)

“The worth of a measure of diamond beauty depends upon how well it agrees with human judgment."

My paraphrase of Gabi Tolkowsky --- "The Perception of beauty is everything."

That perception can be of craftsmanship ie. perfection of polish, facet meet points, facet alignment, symmetry, facet angles and proportions. The Bill Bray Score is based upon craftsmanship.

That perception is also of the beauty or light performance in terms of the quality of the diamond's brilliance (both brightness and contrast), its fire and its sparkle.

In my 1999 article, “Diamond Brilliance: Theories, Measurements and Judgement “, at

http://www.acagemlab.com/articles/Ideal.htm

I concluded: “A measure of brilliance must agree with human judgment. Observations of the effects of diamond proportions on brilliance by diamond cutters from Tolkowsky to Watermeyer, and observations by people in the diamond trade and consumers provide the litmus test for conclusions drawn from computer modeling of brilliance in diamonds.”

Your diamond has passed your very well informed, extremely tough litmus test with flying colors. That is testimony to the fact that it is in the heart of the Ideal sweet spot.

I hope you are not too disappointed when you find out that your diamond has as much ability to exhibit fire, spectral flashes of red, yellow and blue, in “fire friendly” illumination as any of the diamonds that have come to be called “Fiery Ideal Cuts”.

Sometime, in another thread, I will demonstrate the fallacy of the myth that you need higher crown angles to get the best fire. Suffice it for now to say that the fieriest Ideal Cut ever seen in EightStar diamonds, which are known for their fire, had crown angles that were shallower than Tolkowsky’s 34.5.

If you want to read why your super ideal cut diamond is as fiery in fire friendly illumination as it is brilliant in lighting favoring the brilliance attribute of Ideal, just go to

http://www.acagemlab.com/articles/FirePower.htm

Best wishes,

Michael

PS A read of this and other articles from acagemlab.com should convince you that the knowledge and understanding of Ideal that I try to impart is as much about the art of diamond beauty as it is about the science of diamond light performance.