Cleaning of Diamonds: Frequency in the Context of Cut Quality

[the_mother_thing]

Would be interesting to see some before and after cleaning pics. I wonder if cameras can pick up a difference though.

Good idea for a fun ‘show me’ thread; probably helpful too if posters also shared what they used/how they cleaned their diamonds. I would play along.

 

[Karl_K]

Per Garry's research that I tend to agree with a bit but it has not been proven enough to be a fact.
It might be true that a diamonds pavilion is coated with grease, a shallower more ideal pavilion or a to shallow for a ring pavilion will remain more effective than a deep pavilion stone.
But that means the steep/deep gia EX stones will be the least tolerant of grease on the pavilion.
That is not the reason however they fail in tests compared to better cut stones.
But really true or not....
Keep em clean!

 

[headlight]

Per Garry's research that I tend to agree with a bit but it has not been proven enough to be a fact.
It might be true that a diamonds pavilion is coated with grease, a shallower more ideal pavilion or a to shallow for a ring pavilion will remain more effective than a deep pavilion stone.
But that means the steep/deep gia EX stones will be the least tolerant of grease on the pavilion.
That is not the reason however they fail in tests compared to better cut stones.
But really true or not....
Keep em clean!

Karl, can you give examples of some crown/pavilion combos that would fall into this category?
Also, if not the "reason they fail in tests compared to better cut stones", what is?
Thanks!

 

[Karl_K]

Karl, can you give examples of some crown/pavilion combos that would fall into this category?

There are many different combos but to keep it simple "normal range" range for ideal cuts for rings is 40.6 to in some cases 41.
Shallow not for rings is in general 40.5 and under.
Steep is over 41 in most cases.
Crown angles being steep depend on table size for example 35 with a 56table is fine but 35 with a 60% table is steep.

So a steep deep for example would be a 57 table 35.5 crown and a 41.4 pavilion but there are a bunch of other possible combinations.
Lower the pavilion angle to 40.6 with the same crown and it has high potential again.

The hca is pretty good at weeding steep deep out but gives shallow stones that are not well suited for rings good scores.

 

[Karl_K]

Also, if not the "reason they fail in tests compared to better cut stones", what is?
Thanks!

Mainly in my opinion the lack of uniform light return across the stone in diffused lighting and over all brightness.
Here are virtual images of the combos above.
The only difference is the pavilion angle went from 40.6 to 41.4 same crown same table.

 

[sledge]

Mainly in my opinion the lack of uniform light return across the stone in diffused lighting and over all brightness.
Here are virtual images of the combos above.
The only difference is the pavilion angle went from 40.6 to 41.4 same crown same table.

What software do you use, and how do I get a copy?

I am interested to see how changing various variables affect a 35/40.8 combo. I'm still learning but that combo seems to be a hit and miss, as many ASET show leakage yet some are great even when other proportions would seem to work.

My guess is a similar event. Not all 8 actuals are 40.8 but creeping up and when paired with a larger table (57ish) and upper end of (normally) acceptable depth the same thing happens but on a less severe scale.

 

[Karl_K]

What software do you use, and how do I get a copy?

I am interested to see how changing various variables affect a 35/40.8 combo. I'm still learning but that combo seems to be a hit and miss, as many ASET show leakage yet some are great even when other proportions would seem to work.

My guess is a similar event. Not all 8 actuals are 40.8 but creeping up and when paired with a larger table (57ish) and upper end of (normally) acceptable depth the same thing happens but on a less severe scale.

The answer is the lgf angle, either over steep or twist.
https://www.pricescope.com/articles/do_pavilion_mains_drive_light_return_modern_round_brilliant

In my example above its actually the lgf angle causing the leakage but that gets complicated and from a layperson perspective avoid 41.4 is a good idea for many reasons..

 

[headlight]

What software do you use, and how do I get a copy?

I am interested to see how changing various variables affect a 35/40.8 combo. I'm still learning but that combo seems to be a hit and miss, as many ASET show leakage yet some are great even when other proportions would seem to work.

My guess is a similar event. Not all 8 actuals are 40.8 but creeping up and when paired with a larger table (57ish) and upper end of (normally) acceptable depth the same thing happens but on a less severe scale.

I have that combo and all the charts (AGS, GIA, etc.) says that combo is in the top range. So what am I not understanding? Does it then go to table size? If so, mine is 55, so maybe that’s a good combo???

 

[Karl_K]

I have that combo and all the charts (AGS, GIA, etc.) says that combo is in the top range. So what am I not understanding? Does it then go ttable size kgf angle o table size? If so, mine is 55, so maybe that’s a good combo???

tabe size lgf angle actual angles

 

[Sunstorm]

It still beats me how people can go on wearing a dirty ring yet obviously wear clean clothing, take a shower, wash their hair pretty much daily... and hopefully wash their hands several times a day. Now clothes are worth a lot less on average than a beautiful diamond right? Ok the smell but don’t they think hmm sorry that bacteria accumulates on a dirty ring? Sorry but a dirty ring does not only look disgusting, it IS disgusting. Yet very clean people continue to wear diamonds with layer after layer of grime on them. And earrings? It is a fact that they collect bacteria and you can even get infected earlobes. I can never even get myself to even put my earrings back in their boxes in the evening. They go in the ultra over night and I run a cycle the next morning.