Does this crown/pavillion angle combo work?

[Speedbump]

I''m going crazy over diamonds--losing sleep and all. Please help me. I like this diamond but I''m just worried about the angles and pavillion depth.

Crown angle 34.1 (34.0-34.3)
Crown height 14.6%
Pavillion angle 41.0 (40.9-41.2)
Pavillion depth 43.4
Total depth 60.9%
Spread 7.79-7.82
Table 57.2%
Girdle medium (thin-medium)
Upper girdle angle 42.7 (41.8-43.5)
Stars 60.6 (58.7-61.9)
Lower facet depth 80.3%
Lower facet length 78.7%

It gets a 1.4 on the HCA and 1A on AGA (pavillion depth is 1B, though-is this a concern?) Thanks for looking for me.

 

[strmrdr]

yep it works.

low 34 combined with high 40s and in some cases just niping 41 is one of my favorite combos.
Something like 34.3/40.9 may be one of the best combos ever.
This one is very close to that and has a tight range and that speaks well on its workmanship.
Large stars and an LGf% in the sweet zone.
I say yummy.
Do you have an ideal-scope image or h&a images?

 

[Mara]

I'm going to disagree slightly with strm and say that for me that's not a combo I'd be SUPER interested in. I'm more of a 34.5-34.7 and 40.6-40.8 girl. But that's just what my eye likes in an engagement ring stone. 41 is kind of my cutoff for a no-no for the hand.

Do you have a link with pictures or scope images etc?

My specs are very picky and I bet many diamonds don't fall within there, but it doesn't mean that this diamond won't be stunning. I also would be less picky on earrings or a pendant.

 

[strmrdr]

Im going to have to come back and agree with mara for her favorite crown angles 41 is a no-go.

The lgf% is going to have a bigger difference than between a 34.3/40.9 and a 34.6/40.8 however.
Both can make awesome diamonds because both are in the sweet zone.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

You are wrong to be so perscriptive
http://www.diamond-cut.com.au/03_inverse_relationship.htm

Also MSU, GIA''s WLR study, Jasper Paulsen''s Tolkowsky review, and AGS made the same findings.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

The link on that previous post is 5 or 6 years old and uses GilbertsonScope DiamCalc, which was a tool I used to design HCA.
Here is a modern DiamCalc with light return and AGS ASET for stones with the same 6.5 degree crown angle range (30, 34.5 and 36.5)

Mara my dear, your BIC had a very big table, so it had a lot less contrast and fire than a stone that had a smaller table.
FIC''s do have more fire, and plenty of brilliance too, when they are well cut.

And they will never be cut if people in leading environments keep saying they are not good.

I would respectfully suggest until you have all seen well cut FIC''s and BIC''s, that you consider the type of advice you present.

 

[Mara]

Garry, I wasn't referring at all specifically to a BIC or FIC in this thread...

I simply said "for me that's not a combo I'd be SUPER interested in"...which is true. I also said "that's just what my eye likes in an engagement ring stone"...

Then I finished with saying that this stone could be stunning...I'm just giving my own opinion, one out of many..and I'm definitely not an expert.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Actually Mara, wether you like it or not, you have become an expert

thru lots of reading and interest.

All i am suggesting is that if you can find and examine some of these unusual proportioned diamonds, that there will be more of now AGS and GIA (to some extent) sanction them.

I have bought and sold them and find there is a real market for them. And the fact they will be less costly untill they are accepted, by you leading edge people first, and then by the trade. But they will be accepted because when people walk into a sotre and make their own selections, these stones look good.
They will also become accepted because the scientific tests confer, and even the Brillianscope likes some of them. Remeber that DT post of Brad and Jan where they suggested a 25 degree crown angle diamond disproved all systems that relied on numbers? They actually proved HCA works

 

[Mara]

Garry, I would love to see that 25 crown angle stone in person or one like it to see if my eye really prefers it...I do remember that it looked interesting virtually...but where do people go to see things like that? That's the rub. No one specializes in stones that are cut exceptionally well that fall outside of the ideal ranges, and to try to find them in the local stores....

...but when I come to AU one day, I will search you out and spend more hours than you can stomach...having you show me those very elusive creatures!! (And the 14c H&A!)

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Great Mara, we will put some bubbly on ice

It is a chicken and egg thingy

because no one will buy them, cutters who make nice goods are too frightened to make them.

You need to stop using that terminology

outside of the ideal ranges

If you are going to use the term "ideal" then any diamond that sparkles as well as any other diamond that is ideal should also get that title.

AGS have 47% to 61% ideal table sizes - so whats ideal?
They go down to 30.0001 crown angles and up to 37.7 degrees.

So since AGS own the term "ideal", who gave anyone else the right to claim what the "ideal range" is?

At the risk of being boring:

If you are going to use the term "ideal" then any diamond that sparkles as well as any other diamond that is in the "ideal range" should also get that title.

Some sparkle with a bit more fire and bit less brightness

Some sparkle with a bit more brightness that drowns out some fire

But you cant see them because you dont want to see them because you only want to see diamonds in the ideal range.

Sad

What are WE going to do about it?
We have improved the cut quality of diamonds - we on Pricescope have done more than any other entity.
Are we going to help people with choice too?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 10/9/2005 6:31:18 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

What are WE going to do about it?
We have improved the cut quality of diamonds - we on Pricescope have done more than any other entity.
Are we going to help people with choice too?

Garry, is that a rhetorical question?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Ana I am:
1. Sober
2. Serious

 

[valeria101]

Date: 10/9/2005 6:51:22 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Ana I am:
1. Sober
2. Serious

Arrgh... sometimes I miss a good old real-time chat on this forum

 

[strmrdr]

Garry,
The problem is that learning and teaching look for this combo with this look under this scope is easy, wrapping ones head around the new research and new information based on performance and personality is hard.
It is even harder to teach.
Which comes back to the vendors and experts here having to teach us.
We dont have access to 1000''s of different combos to see which is the best so we have rely on you guys to teach us what to look for in an understandable manner.
For a long time the teaching has been look for certain combos with different teachers having us look at different things with various complexity levels.
The new research/grading/teaching is harder than ever.
Iv been putting hours and hours into it and have just barely started to wrap my head around it and until I have it down and can explain it in simple terms its far less useful than the old system.

In some ways PS has created its own monsters stuck in the old way of thinking as the rules are changing.
I think some of our teachers here aren''t to the point of understanding it enough to make it easier to understand much less the average pricescope consumer.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

imagine 10

You can get 10 by adding 5+5. Say tolkowsky is 5+5

But you can make 10 with 2 + 8

I have been saying that for a very long time.

You and Mara are well aware of the range of candidate proportions for the new AGS 0.

Did you think they were wrong?
Why not explore and look for these diamonds?

Why just keep directing consumers that 41 or 40.6 pav and 34.3 or 34.6 crown is best?

Storm you and Ana have DiamCalc. You can easily experiment with it.
You can all use the hCA now and see the range of AGS 0 candidates for each table size.

Mara you owned a shallow crown deep pavilion stone that was probably only fair to good symmetry and a biggish table - and it was better than it was supposed to be. Imagine if it had a <60 table and great optical symmetry? I think you had an ideal-scope photo and some diameter depth info? Can you share it with us?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 10/9/2005 8:13:25 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Storm you and Ana have DiamCalc. You can easily experiment with it.

He he! 'Easily' you say ? Well... I would not use that word. No matter how great the software, I am not aware of the practical pitfalls between its output and tangible reality. Without that, any observation from the models alone remains a pipe dream. A very nice one though

It doesn't feel right to post that even as a that usual '0.2 worth IMO'.

 

[strmrdr]

Yes I got diamcalc and I have learned a lot from it.
But its next to useless on the forum because even when I verified what it was telling me with real diamonds I was hammered into silence about it because certain parties didnt want the information out here.

But when I used it for asschers it was all the sudden way kewl and a good presentation.
blah!
Not worth my time iv got better things to do than put up with it.

 

[Mara]

Garry, I do have an idealscope of it but is on my old computer (haven't switched all files over yet) so I will have to see if I can find it in old posts on here.

Specs of the stone were 29.9 crown angle, 41.1 pav angle, 59.6% depth, 61.1% table (I think). HCA Score was 2.8 after the modifications made that year (2003?)

The idealscope of this stone looked good to me, but then again I don't know if I was using the right lighting at the time, I was new with the IS. I thought it was good but the stone itself didn't look as good to me in person as the IS did.

But when I saw my 1.29 H SI Expert Selection stone with cherry numbers (FOR ME)....I realized that my old stone REALLY HAD been lacking. By no means was it an ugly stone, but I really could see in that new stone what I had been missing in my old one. Actually we saw this even earlier with Greg's .38c ACA that we had..and that disparity in the two stones beauty is what convinced Greg, MrSentimental at the time, that it was right to get a new stone.

I would buy my stone for a pendant. Hands down. But finding those stones is hard, and online with newbies who just want an amazing stone for a good price, what is easier on them from a research and "I've got two weeks to propose with a beautiful stone" perspective? To direct them to the many vendors on here who have in-house inventory with triple-ideals and great scope images where you KNOW they will look good? To tell them to shop offline with certain specs to stay within to help them narrow it down? Or to try to educate them on the nuances of BIC and FIC and getting a different look for your money? After having seen my BIC...and being dissatisfied with it BUT NOT KNOWING WHY...and then seeing an 'ideal' (or TIC or whatever we want to call it)...I can only say that I would probably only buy those TIC cuts for my hands. I am so picky now when I think about my hand stones.

But if we could see more of those standout stones 'out of the typical range' stones on here..we haven't seen very many in the last few years. That 25 crown angle stone was an anomaly. So how do you teach a newbie about the nuances in a week? It took me THREE MONTHS on Pricescope to even learn the basics and we still went on an impulse purchase with an offline stone that didn't make either of us happy in the long-term. And I'm not exactly the dunce of the class. Well maybe compared to some.

 

[RoundMe]

So.. Question for Garry:


You've established that there is more than one way to reach a "perfect 10" cut diamond. I'd like to ask what combination, in your opinion, is the best buy?

I have been doing research in preparing to buy an engagement ring for a month or so and have been looking for a diamond as close to the TIC proportions (in your example, 5+5) as possible. However, if you feel there is another way to get to that ideal cut stone for less money, I'd very much like to know about it. Is the industry so obsessed with 5+5 right now that I can get an 8+2 for less?

Thanks,
Tim

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Mara your table was too big and the pavilion too shallow for that crown angle.
And my recolection was the symmetry was not great.

If you bought a ACA and recut it to make the pavilion too shallow and the table too big (for that combo) so that it went from HCA 1 to HCA 2.8, and then you also messed up the sym - then that would make for a real toss up - then you probably would have had a hard time choosing between the 2.

Tim, I have a slight preference for FIC in a ring, and a strong preference for a BIC on the shallow side for ear-rings and pendants.
Your preference may be different. your ladies different again. And it might change as your eyes get older.

 

[Mara]

Interesting re: the recut ACA Garry. On my old stone, the symmetry was okay, ''Good'' and I saw thin symmetrical arrows in the IS..but in the stone the symmetry looked mismash with the naked eye.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 10/9/2005 1:29:57 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Actually Mara, wether you like it or not, you have become an expert

thru lots of reading and interest.

Garry, even an expert can have a *personal* preference or opinion. Doing so doesn''t discredit any other preference, nor does it suggest an expert is "discouraging" other choices.

My mechanic happens to prefer Hondas. It doesn''t mean he doesn''t have high regard for Toyotas or Nissans or many other brands.....nor does it mean those brands aren''t as good as Honda. It just means HE personally prefers Hondas.

There can be more than one right answer.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 10/9/2005 1:11:12 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
FIC''s do have more fire, and plenty of brilliance too, when they are well cut.

Garry
what kind of specs should i be look for when seeking an FIC cut? what are the sweet specs? any IS pics ?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 10/10/2005 1:36:20 AM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 10/9/2005 1:11:12 AM

Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

FIC's do have more fire, and plenty of brilliance too, when they are well cut.

Garry

what kind of specs should i be look for when seeking an FIC cut? what are the sweet specs? any IS pics ?

Im not Garry but a 35.6 with a 40.6 pavilian will get you the kicken fic.

edit to remove 1am blooper:

Selected: 60.8% depth, 57% table, 35.6° crown angle, 40.6° pavilion angle
The result is for a symmetrical diamond with a medium girdle and very good polish
HCA scores were adjusted Dec. 15, 2001 and Feb. 6, 2003.


Factor Grade
Light Return Excellent
Fire Excellent
Scintillation Excellent
Spread or diameter for weight Very Good
Total Visual Performance 1.4 - Excellent
within FIC range

crown height 15.4

 

[strmrdr]

ignore image, specs are wrong will post currect image after some sleep.

 

[strmrdr]

ignore gem file

 

[strmrdr]

note to self never post at 1am

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 10/10/2005 1:48:58 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 10/10/2005 1:36:20 AM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 10/9/2005 1:11:12 AM

Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

FIC''s do have more fire, and plenty of brilliance too, when they are well cut.

Garry

what kind of specs should i be look for when seeking an FIC cut? what are the sweet specs? any IS pics ?

Im not Garry but a 35.6 with a 40.6 pavilian will get you the kicken fic.

Selected: 60.3% depth, 57% table, 35.6° crown angle, 40.6° pavilion angle
The result is for a symmetrical diamond with a medium girdle and very good polish
HCA scores were adjusted Dec. 15, 2001 and Feb. 6, 2003.


Factor Grade
Light Return Excellent
Fire Excellent
Scintillation Excellent
Spread or diameter for weight Excellent
Total Visual Performance 1.3 - Excellent
within FIC range

isn''t a 57% table too big for an FIC? i thought it would be more like 54%. what would be the crown height on teh above stone?

 

[strmrdr]

54% table gets you a fic also; crown height of 16.5%

Selected: 61.9% depth, 54% table, 35.6° crown angle, 40.6° pavilion angle
The result is for a symmetrical diamond with a medium girdle and very good polish
HCA scores were adjusted Dec. 15, 2001 and Feb. 6, 2003.


Factor Grade
Light Return Excellent
Fire Excellent
Scintillation Excellent
Spread or diameter for weight Very Good
Total Visual Performance 1.4 - Excellent
within FIC range

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 10/10/2005 2:03:42 AM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 10/10/2005 1:48:58 AM

Author: strmrdr

Date: 10/10/2005 1:36:20 AM

Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 10/9/2005 1:11:12 AM


Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)


FIC's do have more fire, and plenty of brilliance too, when they are well cut.

Garry


what kind of specs should i be look for when seeking an FIC cut? what are the sweet specs? any IS pics ?

Im not Garry but a 35.6 with a 40.6 pavilian will get you the kicken fic.


Selected: 60.3% depth, 57% table, 35.6° crown angle, 40.6° pavilion angle

The result is for a symmetrical diamond with a medium girdle and very good polish

HCA scores were adjusted Dec. 15, 2001 and Feb. 6, 2003.



Factor Grade

Light Return Excellent

Fire Excellent

Scintillation Excellent

Spread or diameter for weight Excellent

Total Visual Performance 1.3 - Excellent

within FIC range

isn't a 57% table too big for an FIC? i thought it would be more like 54%. what would be the crown height on teh above stone?

with those numbers it had a med culet which is what the is image and the gem file show.
The numbers are now corrected and i added the crown height.
Garry will have to answer the is 57% too big question for you.
35.6/40.6 makes fic with a wide range of table %.