41 degree pavillion angle

[strmrdr]

Here they are side by side.
The only difference I''m seeing is the jaggedness of the center and the slightly larger reflection between the arrows which I expected but the jaggedness I didn''t.

 

[michaelgem]

Date: 7/15/2007 12:11:42 PM
Author: strmrdr
Here they are side by side.
The only difference I''m seeing is the jaggedness of the center and the slightly larger reflection between the arrows which I expected but the jaggedness I didn''t.

Not to worry, Strmrdr,

A slight reduction in lower half length is all that is needed to correct the "jaggedness". A side benefit will be wider mains = larger flashes of brilliance and fire.

Michael

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/15/2007 12:18:26 PM
Author: michaelgem

Date: 7/15/2007 12:11:42 PM
Author: strmrdr
Here they are side by side.
The only difference I'm seeing is the jaggedness of the center and the slightly larger reflection between the arrows which I expected but the jaggedness I didn't.

Not to worry, Strmrdr,

A slight reduction in lower half length is all that is needed to correct the 'jaggedness'. A side benefit will be wider mains = larger flashes of brilliance and fire.

Michael

Im not worried about it, just wasnt expecting it.
hmmm I just thought of something be right back.
NM. tried using the average tool in photoshop to find the average color of the images but they came out the same, cant say if its not accurate enough to show the difference or if the average is really the same.

 

[He Scores]

Re:

So if you want to split hairs, and we all do, I can say with confidence and a large body of evidence, that this 1.90ct with a 41 pavilion in combination with the appropriate crown angle close to 34 is equal to and, in a hair splitting but observable way, superior to Tolkowsky’s theoretical 40.75 and 34.5.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


What Brian and I consider "properly" cut diamonds is vastly different that those of you who study cut. A less well cut two carater of the same color and clarity will be more valuable and more saleable than the 1.90.

The consumer who can afford the dollars to buy a two carat diamond of decent quality doesn''t want to buy an "almost 2 ct."

Why do you think you see so few in the 1.80 -1.99 range.

It''s human nature. The 1.90 is for a very small market of consumers.

What is one of the first things an observer comments when they see a person wearing a new diamond ring? Especially in America?


"how big is it?"



Bill Bray
Diamond Cutter

 

[He Scores]

Re: Date: 7/12/2007 3:37:37 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
There is not one specific stone with an average 34/41-combination, there are a high number of different stones with this average. If you try to emulate it with Diamcalc, you are assuming a perfectly symmetrical stone, and this is basically impossible to cut. All stones deviate in some way from their average measurements, and this has certain effects.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Aha...once again, someone who understands diamonds. Another cutter.

Here''s a wrench to throw in the mix. Compare two stones that average 34/41. Both have similar certs. However... One has a BrayScore about 12% higher say a 825 vs 925. This would be a very different comparision than two in the 900 range.

Now you have something worthwhile to compare.


Bill Bray
Diamond Cutter

 

[He Scores]

Date: 7/14/2007 7:19:03 PM
Author: Pyramid

Date: 7/12/2007 7:56:42 PM
Author: He Scores


Once the bottom main angles go over 41 degrees the center of the stone ( between the table reflection around the culet and the stars) begins to darken.

The greater the error over 40.75, the more evident it is to the naked eye.

Since most conumers don''t have the redfield images to compare to when they''re shopping in a store.


Bill Bray
Diamond Cutter

This is the Idealscope image, does it show any darkness around the culet between the stars?

I''m not in the business of cutting or looking at pictures.

However, to you, do the arrows portions that lay in the table area look more shaded than those portions from the stars to the girdle area?

There''s your answer.


Bill Bray
Diamond Cutter

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/15/2007 12:37:21 PM
Author: He Scores



I''m not in the business of cutting or looking at pictures.

However, to you, do the arrows portions that lay in the table area look more shaded than those portions from the stars to the girdle area?

There''s your answer.


Bill Bray
Diamond Cutter

tone of the arrows cant be judged from IS images the lighting and camera setup will make them look totaly different.

 

[Serg]

Michael,

P40.75 Cr34.5 T57 Average1.368

 

[He Scores]

Date: 7/15/2007 12:45:49 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 7/15/2007 12:37:21 PM
Author: He Scores



I''m not in the business of cutting or looking at pictures.

However, to you, do the arrows portions that lay in the table area look more shaded than those portions from the stars to the girdle area?

There''s your answer.


Bill Bray
Diamond Cutter

tone of the arrows cant be judged from IS images the lighting and camera setup will make them look totaly different.

Strm...I simply commented on the pic he posted.

What you brought up though is something very important. The machines, the software, the lighthing, the setup, are all prone to various "mistakes". I cut H&A using Gary''s Ideal scope and another loupe with a color ring around it. There is no one defined look. A cutter can make the things look like he wants by various focal lenghts, and tipping of the stones. We''re cutting with 8-10 power....not blowing the pictures up to 5X7" and shooting them under higher power.

But then why do those portions of the arrows that I pointed out look darker then?

My whole contribution to this thread is that is all this nit picking of cut....does it help or hurt the day to day commerce of selling diamonds? Does it help make the seller''s job easier? Does it make it easier for the consumer to make a decision or does this informational minutae cloud his thinking?

I think the answer to that has already been posted.


Bill Bray
Diamond Cutter

 

[He Scores]

sergey,
Let me try to understand your photos.

Is a real stone of 1.34 lighter or darker than a 1.65?

Bill Bray
Diamond Cutter

 

[pyramid]

HeScores

I see what you wrote about most people would want a 2 carat and I whole heartedly agree, as I said to Lorelei the reason I went for this is because I could get an H but an I if I went over 2 carats and I wanted VS1 clarity and I know most people would go for an H SI1 if it came to that over 2 carats. So I know I am not getting what most people would want and since I am in the UK the size I got is more than enough for me and bigger than I thought I could get when I was going to go G VS1. So I know it is right for me but more people would probably have a I SI1 over 2 carat even but as I have taken years to plan this, that part doesn't bother me because I know that is my choice I want same clarity and would rather have H than I and under 2 carat than over to get that H. I am writing this just incase someone comes on to say anything about HeScores saying that. I am happy with my choice there and I can see where he is coming from too and would tell someone else to go for 2 carat lower in Clarity or lower in Colour if I was advising someone else. Yes the money does constrain things and this is by no means to me a cheap diamond, if I had the money I would have a D VS1, I wouldn't go VVS unless I was not going to wear it and then it would be Flawless I suppose or probably a 3 carat Flawless who knows what I would be like if I was a different person with oodles of cash, maybe I would want a D flawless half carat or no diamond at all.

I have looked at the diamond just now in light at the window, it is 6.15pm here I cannot honestly say I see any shading under the table, I see dark arrows, but I have dark brown hair and fair skin, I am wearing light blue if that makes any difference. I thought I saw darker tone (from that post mentioning the barion cut John wrote' last night as in black to white if that is what tone is), I thought I saw a light grey at the table but my walls are beige and I think now that was reflection from the table in the night light. I do have this cone feeling I think I see when I look into the stone from above but that may be the smaller table that I am not used to. Don't know what tables are on my smaller diamonds they were uncertified. There is some sun out now in the evening and I saw lovely colours of red, turquoise and white moving around in the diamond. There seemed to be plenty of movement, don't know if that is scintillation. I will look again but I do see the dark arrows and then I move my head but keep the diamond still and the darkness goes so I don't think there is darkness under the table unless that is this cone thing I speak about. I thought the diamond was maybe deep when I first got it but coloured with my perception of the 41 degree pavillion but then it is only 61.43 so I need to look at some photos of diamonds on the other part of the forum. However face on at 45 degrees, like we see diamond photos on the forum, I see nothing it is only when looking down into the diamond and maybe that is my shadow from my hair again and my head blocking light.

Ofcourse I am not trained so HeScores maybe it is there and I cannot see it. No knowing unless Jonathan can say from a diamond he has in store as he is a gemmologist.

 

[pyramid]

When I look at Serg's image for the 34/41 I feel I see that cone thing there too, then when I looked at another I didn't see it but I noticed that the other although 40.75 pavillion was a 60 table, this also makes me think maybe it is the table size that I am not used to seeing.

I have just looked at Serg's image directly above on this page and see that cone thing there too with the 34.5/40.75 table 57 so I am thinking it is my large table diamonds that are different from this ideal cut one re the cone thing as I call it.

 

[michaelgem]

Pyramid,

I hope you realize that you are being treated to “real time”, cut study research by perhaps the premier researcher and institution for diamond cut study. Sergey and his staff of scientists are another case like we discussed of those deserving of greater recognition than they are likely to receive, especially in the US.

So there you have it. Except for a minor increase in the table reflection/ pupil of the eye of the diamond, these two diamonds, one with Tolkowsky angles of 40.75 and 34.5 and the other ”smack dab” in the middle of the Ideal sweet spot at 41 and 34 are indistinguishable. They are both equally beautiful with equivalent light performance. Which is what I and the GIA, AGS and MSU charts have been saying all along.

If you let this super ideal get away, you will be searching in vain to find one with better beauty.

I don’t know why I care, except it probably goes back to our discussion of those who deserve recognition but often do not get it.

This 41 34 diamond deserves recognition as a super ideal perhaps more than the 40.75 and 34.5.

GIA, AGS, many cutters and I have recognized this.

Those wedded to the “myth of the American/Tolkowsky Ideal” (Al Gilbertson’s new book “The American Cut, the first 100 years”) will probably never acknowledge this in spite of obvious scientific demonstrations like Sergey’s and in spite of obvious a/b comparisons in various, typical illumination circumstances like those that Jonathan, I and many others have done.

And so it goes

Ideal regards,

Michael

 

[pyramid]

Thanks Michaelgem, oh I have always realised that Sergey here is brainy and certainly something that most people could never obtain in their lifetime, I also know that you know a lot about the subject yourself as does Brian and all the Cutters. I am reading and appreciating and know that you are all getting something from this too, it is not just about one diamond, this one, but about Pricescope and the information that those who know about it can get from each other, and those consumers like myself can learn a bit about it, if we are interested, even though we will never know the intracies without education in the subject at a higher level and maybe even a level we could never obtain.

I appreciate what everyone has written here, very very much, and that is from both sides of the fence. Maybe there is no right like many things in life.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/15/2007 8:26:19 AM
Author: Pyramid
Thanks Lorelei.

Yes and as I said before I don''t really know what I am looking for, so I just wanted to say incase anymore amateur people read this, that this deeper cone thing I said about the diamond that I think I see (not tone or colour) just the shape, maybe the size of the stone I said, I have also thought that it could as likely be that the table is 56 and I am sure the tables on my smaller stones are not that and probably over 57.5% the ideal table size (from the old grading systems).

Yes I need to make up my mind really for me if I want to keep the diamond or not and nothing to do with the conversation going on amongst the experts. It was interesting though to see Serg''s graphs too. I hope Brian, John or Michaelgem or Garry H, HeScores, Jonathan or Storm (who says he is not an expert but knows a lot more than me) or any of the experts, who posted I have missed out, will talk a little bit further about that from their different sides of the fence so to speak.

what is the LGF on the stone? that is another thing that can change the personality quite drastically imo.

And I am not sure I meant the light travels longer as much as farther. The quality of looking under the table and seeing the pavillions in a 3D sort of way isn''t something you really do with smaller stones - and the bigger the stone the more it has that quality IME.

There are several factors that contribute to whether we love our stones or not. It could be just a mind issue at this point for you, but that''s enough. It''s a pity you cannot see more stones side by side..... any way you could fit a trip to new york as part of your ring budget?

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 7/15/2007 1:42:13 PM
Author: michaelgem

Pyramid,

I hope you realize that you are being treated to “real time”, cut study research by perhaps the premier researcher and institution for diamond cut study. Sergey and his staff of scientists are another case like we discussed of those deserving of greater recognition than they are likely to receive, especially in the US.

So there you have it. Except for a minor increase in the table reflection/ pupil of the eye of the diamond, these two diamonds, one with Tolkowsky angles of 40.75 and 34.5 and the other ”smack dab” in the middle of the Ideal sweet spot at 41 and 34 are indistinguishable. They are both equally beautiful with equivalent light performance. Which is what I and the GIA, AGS and MSU charts have been saying all along.

If you let this super ideal get away, you will be searching in vain to find one with better beauty.

I don’t know why I care, except it probably goes back to our discussion of those who deserve recognition but often do not get it.

This 41 34 diamond deserves recognition as a super ideal perhaps more than the 40.75 and 34.5.

GIA, AGS, many cutters and I have recognized this.

Those wedded to the “myth of the American/Tolkowsky Ideal” (Al Gilbertson’s new book “The American Cut, the first 100 years”) will probably never acknowledge this in spite of obvious scientific demonstrations like Sergey’s and in spite of obvious a/b comparisons in various, typical illumination circumstances like those that Jonathan, I and many others have done.

And so it goes

Ideal regards,

Michael

Well, Michael, now that you think that you have proven this point, can you try and cut both these theoretical examples?

What you have proven is that a symmetrical 41/34 and a symmetrical Tolkowsky are closer brothers than an asymmetric 41/34 is to a symmetrical 41/34.

Live long,

 

[Serg]

Date: 7/15/2007 1:17:03 PM
Author: He Scores

sergey,
Let me try to understand your photos.

Is a real stone of 1.34 lighter or darker than a 1.65?

Bill Bray
Diamond Cutter

1.65 D could be darker than 1.34D( depends from type spectrum)

 

[He Scores]

Date: 7/15/2007 2:12:24 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 7/15/2007 1:17:03 PM
Author: He Scores

sergey,
Let me try to understand your photos.

Is a real stone of 1.34 lighter or darker than a 1.65?

Bill Bray
Diamond Cutter

1.65 D could be darker than 1.34D( depends from type spectrum)

So am I correct in thinking that what I had originally posted and what Brian and Paul also said was that the higher the angle the darker the stone, no?

I''m afraid I don''t understand the spectrum type and how it affects things.

Bill Bray
Diamond Cutter

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/15/2007 9:09:46 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 7/15/2007 8:32:54 AM
Author: michaelgem
I think it is really sad that someone with as much time and experience on PriceScope as Pyramid, can talk herself out of what is argueably an unbeatable beauty.

Ideal regards,

Michael

I guess that what happens when you have too much info. on such a micro difference...
It will naturally push consumers away...

But I do agree with you Michael..., the Diamond in subject sounds like a unbeatable beauty!!!

DG you just nailed what I''ve thought for a long time.... IMO (again, lowly consumer) there is a huge range of what is beautiful. As we''ve seen here, even top cutters can have disagreements about where the sweet spot is exactly. They may overlap, but their personal thresholds are different. And then what lies outside those thresholds isn''t necessarily bad. But of course each cutter will defend their carefully thought out parameters. I think to some extent this comes to trust. It is a pity to see it undermined.

 

[pyramid]

Date: 7/15/2007 2:07:05 PM
Author: Cehrabehra

Date: 7/15/2007 8:26:19 AM
Author: Pyramid
Thanks Lorelei.

Yes and as I said before I don't really know what I am looking for, so I just wanted to say incase anymore amateur people read this, that this deeper cone thing I said about the diamond that I think I see (not tone or colour) just the shape, maybe the size of the stone I said, I have also thought that it could as likely be that the table is 56 and I am sure the tables on my smaller stones are not that and probably over 57.5% the ideal table size (from the old grading systems).

Yes I need to make up my mind really for me if I want to keep the diamond or not and nothing to do with the conversation going on amongst the experts. It was interesting though to see Serg's graphs too. I hope Brian, John or Michaelgem or Garry H, HeScores, Jonathan or Storm (who says he is not an expert but knows a lot more than me) or any of the experts, who posted I have missed out, will talk a little bit further about that from their different sides of the fence so to speak.

what is the LGF on the stone? that is another thing that can change the personality quite drastically imo.

And I am not sure I meant the light travels longer as much as farther. The quality of looking under the table and seeing the pavillions in a 3D sort of way isn't something you really do with smaller stones - and the bigger the stone the more it has that quality IME.

There are several factors that contribute to whether we love our stones or not. It could be just a mind issue at this point for you, but that's enough. It's a pity you cannot see more stones side by side..... any way you could fit a trip to new york as part of your ring budget?

LFG% is 76. I know Cehra that a lot is a mind issue, as well as the look from the profile view of the lower crown to what I have seen in large magnified images on the computer but also on a small diamond I have with a taller crown for its size. I really think though that this smaller table has thrown me off too, my other diamonds were from a store who I know buys in Antwerp or so they say in all their leaflets so the tables although not huge I don't think are bigger I think than ideal. I have read on the internet about the Antwerp cut, don't know if that is true or not because it was the same person who came to this site and put down ideal diamonds after someone else mentioned them on here. Then the stone is bigger so has more depth anyway.

 

[Serg]

Date: 7/15/2007 2:12:11 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

Date: 7/15/2007 1:42:13 PM
Author: michaelgem

Pyramid,

I hope you realize that you are being treated to “real time”, cut study research by perhaps the premier researcher and institution for diamond cut study. Sergey and his staff of scientists are another case like we discussed of those deserving of greater recognition than they are likely to receive, especially in the US.

So there you have it. Except for a minor increase in the table reflection/ pupil of the eye of the diamond, these two diamonds, one with Tolkowsky angles of 40.75 and 34.5 and the other ”smack dab” in the middle of the Ideal sweet spot at 41 and 34 are indistinguishable. They are both equally beautiful with equivalent light performance. Which is what I and the GIA, AGS and MSU charts have been saying all along.

If you let this super ideal get away, you will be searching in vain to find one with better beauty.

I don’t know why I care, except it probably goes back to our discussion of those who deserve recognition but often do not get it.

This 41 34 diamond deserves recognition as a super ideal perhaps more than the 40.75 and 34.5.

GIA, AGS, many cutters and I have recognized this.

Those wedded to the “myth of the American/Tolkowsky Ideal” (Al Gilbertson’s new book “The American Cut, the first 100 years”) will probably never acknowledge this in spite of obvious scientific demonstrations like Sergey’s and in spite of obvious a/b comparisons in various, typical illumination circumstances like those that Jonathan, I and many others have done.

And so it goes

Ideal regards,

Michael

Well, Michael, now that you think that you have proven this point, can you try and cut both these theoretical examples?

What you have proven is that a symmetrical 41/34 and a symmetrical Tolkowsky are closer brothers than an asymmetric 41/34 is to a symmetrical 41/34.

Live long,

Paul,
What is YOUR threshold between symmetrical and asymmetrical diamonds?
BTW. What is goal your post?
Is below diamond symmetrical or asymmetrical?

http://www.octonus.com/oct/mss/st11/Html_Report_Helium/Html_Polish_RBC_Standard.htm

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/15/2007 11:39:47 AM
Author: Wink

Date: 7/15/2007 9:09:46 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 7/15/2007 8:32:54 AM

Author: michaelgem

I think it is really sad that someone with as much time and experience on PriceScope as Pyramid, can talk herself out of what is argueably an unbeatable beauty.


Ideal regards,


Michael

I guess that what happens when you have too much info. on such a micro difference...

It will naturally push consumers away...


But I do agree with you Michael..., the Diamond in subject sounds like a unbeatable beauty!!!

I also agree that the stone should be a beauty, but our supplicant states that it does not make her heart happy. That alone is why she asked for opinions, to see if she could figure out if it was the 41 degree or not.

I am not sure if she has decided why she does not like it, or if she ever will, or even if when the sun comes out she decides that she does, but her HER PERSONAL PREFERENCE is as valid as any one else''s.

In the end we all buy what we like, even if we do not know why we like it. All of us here try to quantify the reasons someone should like a stone, and what we believe make the best stones, but in the end, it is the client''s personal preference that must be respected by all of us vendors.

Wink

you know what though wink... if we''re out shopping with a girlfriend and we try on a pair of pants that we like but we fear it makes our butt look big so we ask our friend, "does my butt look big in these jeans" there are two responses that will LEAD the person to believe one or the other.... "Yes, your butt looks kinda big in those jeans" and "no, your butt doesn''t look at all big in those jeans." Of course having someone say, "for your butt size a pair of jeans like that *usually* makes someone''s butt look big, but not always" really isn''t encouraging even if THAT particular pair of jeans makes THAT particular butt look amazing.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/15/2007 11:47:44 AM
Author: Pyramid
Thanks Wink, but then again my judgement could be coloured because I was asking Jonathan about the 41 pavillion before I received the diamond so that was not after, I do know the H colour does not bother me one bit, I see this cone in the centre but maybe that is just me or maybe larger diamonds look like that because I have only had smaller ones before. I think I will go over to Show Me The Ring and look for the 2 carat thread and see what pictures people have posted, although I don''t see this when I hold the stone at 45 degrees to my eye, only when I look down into it and then there is not much sun/light here, my main room has beige walls so that may have something to do with it too.

Michaelgem, I would love for Garry to give his opinion but I am a bit afraid of it too, after all the VGs on the HCA. I also take it from what Garry wrote earlier that a diamond with 41 degree pavillion would look dirtier faster.

this could have a ton to do with it!! My diamond often has green and yellow in it... I know you said you wouldn''t wear it out unless you decided to keep it, but even if ONLY for future comparison with another stone, I would take it out to a few places and just get a feel.

 

[pyramid]

Date: 7/15/2007 2:33:46 PM
Author: Cehrabehra
you know what though wink... if we''re out shopping with a girlfriend and we try on a pair of pants that we like but we fear it makes our butt look big so we ask our friend, ''does my butt look big in these jeans'' there are two responses that will LEAD the person to believe one or the other.... ''Yes, your butt looks kinda big in those jeans'' and ''no, your butt doesn''t look at all big in those jeans.'' Of course having someone say, ''for your butt size a pair of jeans like that *usually* makes someone''s butt look big, but not always'' really isn''t encouraging even if THAT particular pair of jeans makes THAT particular butt look amazing.

From the woman''s perspective

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 7/15/2007 2:33:46 PM
Author: Cehrabehra
you know what though wink... if we''re out shopping with a girlfriend and we try on a pair of pants that we like but we fear it makes our butt look big so we ask our friend, ''does my butt look big in these jeans'' there are two responses that will LEAD the person to believe one or the other.... ''Yes, your butt looks kinda big in those jeans'' and ''no, your butt doesn''t look at all big in those jeans.'' Of course having someone say, ''for your butt size a pair of jeans like that *usually* makes someone''s butt look big, but not always'' really isn''t encouraging even if THAT particular pair of jeans makes THAT particular butt look amazing.

LOL, now that is an angle that NEVER would have occurred to me! Guess I should get out with the guys and do a little more shopping...

Wink

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/15/2007 12:11:42 PM
Author: strmrdr
Here they are side by side.
The only difference I''m seeing is the jaggedness of the center and the slightly larger reflection between the arrows which I expected but the jaggedness I didn''t.

there''s a bit of diff around the outer edge as well...

 

[pyramid]

Serg

I think what Paul was referring to is that this particular diamond and this particular cutter Jonathan sometimes uses cuts very tight diamonds, which apparently can be seen from the Helium report which is available in the link in Jonathan''s post a few pages back.

 

[He Scores]

RE: Paul,
What is threshold between symmetrical and asymmetrical diamonds?
BTW. What is goal your post?
Is below diamond symmetrical or asymmetrical
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I''ll be glad to answer that. There are no symetrical diamonds. None. Impossible.

However, you can easily perform symetrical analysis based on BrayScore results.

Since BrayScore analyizes the elements of cutting that a cutter uses to make facets, the higher the BrayScore the greater the symetry is to perfection or your theoretical models.

Like I said before, cutgrades that use angle averaging and incorrect measurements that do not depict a cutter''s efforts are subject to fairly large errors and differences as to what the stone really looks like. I recently cut two diamonds that came back from GIA VG/VG. There was a 12.5% difference in the Brayscores on both these stones. On the old AGS system, in ten stones I noted a 30% error rate of rating cut.

In the financial world, which would you like to have...an anual percentage rate of 5% or 17.5%? In fairly tight cuts of premium stones I have displayed differences of four percent.

In answer to your question Sergei of what is symetrical and what isn''t, that would be up to trade usage. Some manufacturers and sellers would have different thresholds as established standards to their product. Most every industry has standards of quality that all manufacturers can manufacture to. For instance, auto glass. General Motors only uses a certain grade of auto glass, so that has become the standard for the industry. Less measurements of glass will not sell in the market place.

The key is to have a measurable and repeatable way to analyize cut. A system that ALL cutters and manufacturers (and not just a few who know/knew trade secrets) can work to achieve. My system works like FICA scores or SAT scores in academia(except there, perfection is achieved with 800 scores). I only rate the cutter''s workmanship. Where that score fits in various rubrics (read, excellent, ideal, very good, etc) is up to the trade. Just like an "A" student at Harvard is different than an "A" student at Bayonne Community College.

In addition, cutting to high BrayScores is easier for the manufacturer than cutting to patterned stones.

If I''m tooting my own horn, I apologize.

Bill Bray
Diamond Cutter

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/15/2007 12:34:42 PM
Author: He Scores

Re: Date: 7/12/2007 3:37:37 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

There is not one specific stone with an average 34/41-combination, there are a high number of different stones with this average. If you try to emulate it with Diamcalc, you are assuming a perfectly symmetrical stone, and this is basically impossible to cut. All stones deviate in some way from their average measurements, and this has certain effects.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Aha...once again, someone who understands diamonds. Another cutter.

Here''s a wrench to throw in the mix. Compare two stones that average 34/41. Both have similar certs. However... One has a BrayScore about 12% higher say a 825 vs 925. This would be a very different comparision than two in the 900 range.

Now you have something worthwhile to compare.


Bill Bray
Diamond Cutter

Personally I find the minutia of all of this quite interesting - but to what extent is this an eye visible issue to the consumer? I think the impression given here is that there truly is this cliff and everything is brilliant and fire and then whamo, over the cliff you go into dark tables and ugly stones.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/15/2007 12:59:46 PM
Author: He Scores

My whole contribution to this thread is that is all this nit picking of cut....does it help or hurt the day to day commerce of selling diamonds? Does it help make the seller''s job easier? Does it make it easier for the consumer to make a decision or does this informational minutae cloud his thinking?

Ha! I should have read ahead - I was just thinking this.... I think it is really interesting but some of the thinking here is so pinacle oriented it may neglect the fact that there are beautiful diamonds outside of those tight parameters. Ultimately when we wear our stones it is for what we see with our eyes and not what you guys spend your lives researching and debating.