EGL-I Tolkowsky Ideal & other specs

[yssie]

I was happy to see this in my inbox this morning, followup from the discussion a couple of days ago in Lula's thread on EGL's TIC notation.

Straight from the horse's mouth. I must also commend the quick response.

 

[stone-cold11]

So basically a box in the proportions and not skew along the inverse CA/PA relationship thus allowing for abuse in the steep/deep region.

Weird criteria in that EIC has a smaller range of depth allowable but a larger range of CA/PA allowable than a TC cut grade, so which is their better cut grade???

 

[Lula]

Thanks for following up on this, yssie. This is really useful information, and kudos to EGL for getting back to you so soon.

I had the same reaction that stone-cold did on the C/P angles -- yes, there's plenty of room for steep/deep stones under this rubric. I also agree with stone that it's strange that their excellent cut criteria are stricter than their criteria for the "Tolkowsky Ideal Cut." Really puts the burden on the buyer to educate him/herself about those terms. I'm wondering, too, if the Tolkowsky family has lost control of the use of their name -- i.e., that "Tolkowsky" is now a generic term, rather than a protected brand name, similar to "elevator" which is now generic, but I think used to be a brand name.

 

[yssie]

Just like GIA, only wider ranges - and reported such that you don't actually know what those angles are..


AGS, GCAL - the niche market is definitely onto something here, it's too bad politics gets in the way of expanding it.

 

[stone-cold11]

Actually worse than GIA as GIA still has a inverse PA/CA relationship in their cut grade.