Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

General Questions

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

phildominator

Rough_Rock
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
63
Hey everybody...been diligently reading and studying PS and GOG''s tutorial the past couple weeks. Have some general questions I thought the pundits might like to discuss!

1. Is it a general rule of thumb (there are exceptions, of course) that a stone with great optical symmetry will ''perform'' better than a stone with poor optical symmetry? Optical Symmetry leads to better diamond performance? Or is optical symmetry just a more desired pattern of performance that is more aesthetically-pleasing to the human eye, cognitively-speaking, since we are partial to structure and organization?

Sort of like a presentation of a meal at a fancy restaurant neatly arranged on a white plate as opposed to the same food being plopped on a paper plate in a hole in the wall...the food tastes the same but one presentation is more preferable...

Take two identical stones but one is a H&A, the other isn''t close to H&A. Will the H&A sparkle more or the same, just with a structured pattern?

2. Reading GOG''s tutorial, the ''checkerboard'' concept is discussed...However, I haven''t located any information that identifies what the diamond''s checkerboard is...Am I missing something in the ASET, IS, DiamXray, etc images or is checkerboard currently not measured?
I''m guessing that the thinner the arrows are, the more complex the checkerboard is, no?
Is there an accepted vocabulary for comparing checkerboard, ie basic/complicated or normal/above average or 1-10?

3. Solasfera''s and the modified diamonds...Just more complex checkerboards or they actually perform better than a true H&A/HOF/ACA?

YOU GUYS ROCK!
 

Lorelei

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
42,064
Date: 2/21/2009 1:23:34 PM
Author:phildominator

Hey everybody...been diligently reading and studying PS and GOG's tutorial the past couple weeks. Have some general questions I thought the pundits might like to discuss!

1. Is it a general rule of thumb (there are exceptions, of course) that a stone with great optical symmetry will 'perform' better than a stone with poor optical symmetry? Optical Symmetry leads to better diamond performance? Or is optical symmetry just a more desired pattern of performance that is more aesthetically-pleasing to the human eye, cognitively-speaking, since we are partial to structure and organization? It depends. Apparently the human eye gravitates towards patterns. As far as optical symmetry and performance, you can get diamonds which show great optical symmetry and h&a patterning which aren't the best performers. Conversely you can find diamonds with lesser optical symmetry which are excellent performers.

Sort of like a presentation of a meal at a fancy restaurant neatly arranged on a white plate as opposed to the same food being plopped on a paper plate in a hole in the wall...the food tastes the same but one presentation is more preferable...

Take two identical stones but one is a H&A, the other isn't close to H&A. Will the H&A sparkle more or the same, just with a structured pattern? As above it depends, the proportions and critical angles are the main engines which drive light return.

2. Reading GOG's tutorial, the 'checkerboard' concept is discussed...However, I haven't located any information that identifies what the diamond's checkerboard is...Am I missing something in the ASET, IS, DiamXray, etc images or is checkerboard currently not measured?
I'm guessing that the thinner the arrows are, the more complex the checkerboard is, no?
Is there an accepted vocabulary for comparing checkerboard, ie basic/complicated or normal/above average or 1-10?

3. Solasfera's and the modified diamonds...Just more complex checkerboards or they actually perform better than a true H&A/HOF/ACA?

YOU GUYS ROCK!
One of the experts may chime in and give you better information, you might also find the pages here very interesting reading.

http://www.highperformancediamonds.com/index.php?page=education-precision

http://diamonds.pricescope.com/hna.asp

http://diamonds.pricescope.com/brill.asp
 

oldminer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Sep 3, 2000
Messages
6,436
A distinct "pattern" is created by symmetrical facet arrangements. It ought to stand to reason that higher degrees of symmetry tend to create more distinct patterns.

A pattern "aesthetically-pleasing to the human eye" is based on two things. What all humans are hard wired to appreciate based on our mutual experiences over millenia and by our distinctly individual individual characteristics. We may all agree on patterns to an extent and then our individual natures take over on what we find prettiest.

I don't think you can equate finding a fine H&A pattern with sparkling that diamond necessarily sparkling more than some other finely cut diamond without a fine H&A effect. There may be more evident "pattern", but light return or sparkle may not be better just because of H&A. I always say that H&A is a fortunate accident and a good marketing tool. You can grade it, you can show it, you can talk about it. No harm is done by having it. Does it matter? That's up to the sellers and the purchasers and that's perfectly okay.

The entire subject about cutting and designing diamonds with a proper and balanced mixes of pattern, light return, sparkle, and contrast is a deep topic covered in hundreds or thousands of Pricescope postings. It is not one element over all others, but a moderation of mixed components to create something our eyes and mind accept as especially attractive. Diamonds with special facet arrangements can perform differently than standard 57 facet diamonds. Some of the performance changes depends on the size of the stone as the number of facets and the size of the diamond have a lot to do with creating the size of sparkle which our eyes prefer. Bigger diamonds like more facets. Tiny diamonds seem to do better with fewer facets. Again, this is subjective taste combined with our base human tendencies.
 

phildominator

Rough_Rock
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
63
Thanks for the feedback...Discovering PS, it''s become more than just finding a great diamond for my soon-to-be-fiance (hopefully)...I''ve actually become quite interested in the art of the industry itself!
 

Lorelei

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
42,064
Date: 2/22/2009 1:33:04 PM
Author: phildominator
Thanks for the feedback...Discovering PS, it''s become more than just finding a great diamond for my soon-to-be-fiance (hopefully)...I''ve actually become quite interested in the art of the industry itself!
You are most welcome and plenty of reading here to give you a good theoretical grounding of diamonds.
 

Paul-Antwerp

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
2,859
Hi Phil,

As far as your questions go, there are basically two tendencies here on PS. One is a group that says that optical symmetry indeed improves the sparkle, the other is a group that claims it has little to no effect. I am a member of that first group.

There are a number of reasons why we cannot completely convince that second group. Let me try to explain.

1. In this age of science apparently knowing and understanding every little detail of life, the study of diamond-cut and its effect on light return, light performance and sparkle is actually still in its infancy. Of the three aspects of light return, brightness, fire and scintillation, most labs have only come up with a system that addresses brightness only. Fire has been studied and understood only by a small minority of labs. AGS has a virtual simulation of fire, which is predictive in nature. I do not even know if GIA actually succeeded in finishing their study of fire. Scintillation is still a big unknown. AGS has already communicated part of its ongoing scintillation study, but the study is not finished yet, and it is obviously not part of any grading-system yet.

Most of the effect of optical symmetry however is observed in scintillation. With science still working to prove this, it is very difficult to convince the non-believers.

2. A second reason is that optical symmetry is like whipped cream. You can have whipped cream on an average-quality cake, and the taste will be better than without the whipped cream, but the whole will still be only somewhat average in taste. A great cake without whipped cream might taste a lot better. But add whipped cream to that great cake, and it will be even better.

Optical symmetry is the same, in the sense that you can have a stone with average basic proportions (where brightness and fire are not at the top) but with great optical symmetry. Scintillation will be better for that stone, but the basics are still average. No competition to a stone with great proportions (not the averages that we often talk about but the real angles of all facets). The best will be great proportions combined with optical symmetry. As such, non-believers often say that H&A does not do it for them, because they see and there are a lot of stones with average proportions and H&A.

As for the checkerboard and diamonds with more facets, this is size-related and taste-related. It is also part of the scintillation-studies. More is not always better. Optical symmetry basically improves the ''checkerboard'' since all borderlines between black and white will be clearly defined and crisp. More facets in too small a size will muddle the ''checkerboard'' again, and increases the risk of black-white being observed as overall grey.

I hope that this was not too confusing.

Live long,
 

jet2ks

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
2,022
Date: 2/22/2009 1:33:04 PM
Author: phildominator
Thanks for the feedback...Discovering PS, it''s become more than just finding a great diamond for my soon-to-be-fiance (hopefully)...I''ve actually become quite interested in the art of the industry itself!
I feel the same way about discovering the site.


I have come to the conclusion that amongst PS''ers, some lean toward the artistic side and others lean toward the scientific side--you''ve probably figured out from reading posts which people lean which way. The combination of the two types here on PS allows for great advice (and a few "interesting" discussions).

I guess a true diamond lover is part visual artist, part physicist and all crazy!
 

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295
Date: 2/22/2009 4:52:45 PM
Author: jet2ks

I guess a true diamond lover is part visual artist, part physicist and all crazy!
I resemble that remark lol
 

Rockdiamond

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
8,356
I think it''s a great question!
Paul so very eloquently described one aspect of this.

I agreee that if you want a diamond to perform well on reflector tests, better optical symmetry will produce better results.

I am one of the few here on PS that belongs in the second group Paul describes. I don''t feel that machines used to quantify light return accurately pick out what I find beautiful in a diamond.
To accept the science, you''d have to want a diamond that does well on relector tests.
For example- generally speaking a smaller table will do better in these tests- providing all the other aspects are there. Just as a rough example, use 57% table, and 61.5% depth.
Providing all the crown and pavillon angles, and all the other faceting is proprly done, this can be what is called an "Ideal" cut, or Near Tolk diamond. Hearts on Fire, H&A, all use a smaller table and slightly higher depth to focus the light in a diamond in such a way that it produces a lot of fire.
If we compare this to a slightly shallower diamond, larger of table, say, 60 table 60 depth, it''s likely not going to do as well on these tests.
Still. when looking at these stones, some people will see the slightly shallower and more open tabled diamond as having something different, but just as good as the smaller tabled stone.
Basically, there are stones that won;t perform well "scientifically" that to me, look better than others that do well on the scietific tests.
Which , for me, calls the ultimate relavence of the science into question.

If ultimate "brilliance" is the goal, then we need never bother with anything but a round brilliant.
Forget emerald cuts, or Asschers. Fancy colors? Way less "brilliant" if we''re using the premise of reflector technology.

Regardless, many people- especially in the age of internet diamond sales do feel the tests are useful- and there are certainly a lot of evidence on that side to prove they are indeed effective if you love the H&A type of look.

I think that my opinion is a rare one here on PS- but it does at least show there is another side to this....
It''s really a matter of taste.......
 

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295

John P

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
3,563
Date: 2/22/2009 5:09:13 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

To accept the science, you'd have to want a diamond that does well on relector tests.
For example- generally speaking a smaller table will do better in these tests- providing all the other aspects are there. Just as a rough example, use 57% table, and 61.5% depth.
Providing all the crown and pavillon angles, and all the other faceting is proprly done, this can be what is called an 'Ideal' cut, or Near Tolk diamond. Hearts on Fire, H&A, all use a smaller table and slightly higher depth to focus the light in a diamond in such a way that it produces a lot of fire.
If we compare this to a slightly shallower diamond, larger of table, say, 60 table 60 depth, it's likely not going to do as well on these tests.
Sorry, but this is incorrect David. To accept the science you only have to understand it.

I fear you're selling 60/60 makes short. Below are sims of a near-Tolk and a 60/60 make showing that optimum light return is possible in both. It just takes good cutting to a narrower window of angles in the larger table size to return as much light to the viewer's eye.

near-tolk-6060-optimum.jpg
 

Lorelei

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
42,064
Date: 2/22/2009 4:52:45 PM
Author: jet2ks

Date: 2/22/2009 1:33:04 PM
Author: phildominator
Thanks for the feedback...Discovering PS, it''s become more than just finding a great diamond for my soon-to-be-fiance (hopefully)...I''ve actually become quite interested in the art of the industry itself!
I feel the same way about discovering the site.


I have come to the conclusion that amongst PS''ers, some lean toward the artistic side and others lean toward the scientific side--you''ve probably figured out from reading posts which people lean which way. The combination of the two types here on PS allows for great advice (and a few ''interesting'' discussions).

I guess a true diamond lover is part visual artist, part physicist and all crazy!
 

Paul-Antwerp

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
2,859
David,

On one side, you have light, which can exist in many different light-circumstances. On the other hand, you have a diamond, which can be of various qualities. Finally, there is the observer who observes the light-play caused by the light entering and exiting the diamond.

All this is physics, nothing else. Now, you can indeed choose to disregard physics, but I assure you that if you stand under a coconut-tree that I am shaking, that some coconut is going to land on your head and that it will not fly off into space.

You are not in the second group that I am talking about. You choose to be in a group of people that disregards any reality but your own. While everyone tries to be polite in reacting to you, you completely disregard all advise and education offered to you.

Again, you are threadjacking here by offering this unsubstantiated advise that is not related at all to the thread. You are like the old village fool, who lives in my neighbourhood. I regularly see him at a streetcorner, shouting out militaristic orders in German because he thinks that he still lives in occupied Belgium during the war.

Live long, while we either pass by shaking our head or working to have you put in an institution.
 

phildominator

Rough_Rock
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
63
Thanks...great answers regarding the optical symmetry...

Anybody know of a method/tool that measures the level of checkerboard complexity?

Has checkerboard complexity ever been a factor for anyone deciding between diamonds?

Almost akin to how many sprinkles do you want on your ice cream!!!
 

phildominator

Rough_Rock
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
63
Paul,

I imagine you and I eat a lot! haha...

Your whipped cream/cake and my ice cream/restaurant analogies...
 

Rockdiamond

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
8,356
Hi All,
Paul, you use an example of shaking a palm tree- which may be a good one.
Can you guarantee that if you shake that tree the coconut is going to hit me on the head?
What if it missed, and rolls away. In no way is it absolute that you shaking the tree will result in me getting hit.

As I see it reflector technology takes a photo of the diamond to ascertain it''s optical properties. Which is a snapshot in time.
But what if it''s viewed from a different angle? What if the light source is different?
What if the diamond is moving? What if someone does not like hearts and arrows in their diamond- which was part of the OP''s question.
All of these considerations may call the absolute nature of the results into question.

There''s plenty of "science" that is not absolute. Ever see the films of the Tacoma Narrows bridge failing? Saccharin was described as real answer to those who did not want to eat sugar. Until it was discovered it also causes cancer. Sometimes an answer called "scientific" does not take all perspectives into account.
The science of deciding if a diamond is beautiful involves tremendous subjective evaluation, It is not absolute.

Paul, if you think people on the side defending reflector technology have been "polite" please have a look at your own response.
I have NEVER said that the technology should not be used by anyone who sees value in it. Only that there are other was of looking at this.
I have never knocked your diamond, or any other diamond of a PS vendor.


Please notice that if anyone disagrees, they will be exposed to an incredible amount of intellectual intimidation.
I disagree so either I don''t understand, or I reject science. These are the most "polite" explainations of how anyone could see this differently- there are also many which are far worse.
I only can hope that we can all have more tolerance of other''s opinions.
I am but a guest here.
Clearly, discussing reflector technology seems really to create problems for some- so this is the last time I''ll discuss it.

Thanks!

Live long, and please be tolerant of others who see the world differently.
 

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295
Date: 2/23/2009 11:49:14 AM
Author: phildominator
Thanks...great answers regarding the optical symmetry...


Anybody know of a method/tool that measures the level of checkerboard complexity?


Has checkerboard complexity ever been a factor for anyone deciding between diamonds?


Almost akin to how many sprinkles do you want on your ice cream!!!
The best way it to scan the diamond and enter the results in diamcalc and look at the double reflection picture.

Yes it is a huge factor I don''t care for princess cuts and radiants because of the small virtual facets(checkers board square size) and resulting tiny chunk look.
Even in the same cut there can be a large difference one to another depending on make:

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/princess-cuts-2-3-4-chevron-huh.106747/
 

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295
Here is the difference in virtual facet size between a 3 chevron princess and an asscher/SE

princessVFvsSEVF.gif
 

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295
OEC vs RB

oecVFvsRBVF.gif
 

Paul-Antwerp

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
2,859
Date: 2/23/2009 1:23:11 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Hi All,
Paul, you use an example of shaking a palm tree- which may be a good one.
Can you guarantee that if you shake that tree the coconut is going to hit me on the head?
What if it missed, and rolls away. In no way is it absolute that you shaking the tree will result in me getting hit.

As I see it reflector technology takes a photo of the diamond to ascertain it''s optical properties. Which is a snapshot in time.
But what if it''s viewed from a different angle? What if the light source is different?
What if the diamond is moving? What if someone does not like hearts and arrows in their diamond- which was part of the OP''s question.
All of these considerations may call the absolute nature of the results into question.

There''s plenty of ''science'' that is not absolute. Ever see the films of the Tacoma Narrows bridge failing? Saccharin was described as real answer to those who did not want to eat sugar. Until it was discovered it also causes cancer. Sometimes an answer called ''scientific'' does not take all perspectives into account.
The science of deciding if a diamond is beautiful involves tremendous subjective evaluation, It is not absolute.

Paul, if you think people on the side defending reflector technology have been ''polite'' please have a look at your own response.
I have NEVER said that the technology should not be used by anyone who sees value in it. Only that there are other was of looking at this.
I have never knocked your diamond, or any other diamond of a PS vendor.


Please notice that if anyone disagrees, they will be exposed to an incredible amount of intellectual intimidation.
I disagree so either I don''t understand, or I reject science. These are the most ''polite'' explainations of how anyone could see this differently- there are also many which are far worse.
I only can hope that we can all have more tolerance of other''s opinions.
I am but a guest here.
Clearly, discussing reflector technology seems really to create problems for some- so this is the last time I''ll discuss it.

Thanks!

Live long, and please be tolerant of others who see the world differently.
David,

You are indeed a guest here, just like I am. But you are willfully ignoring realities, and just shouting out without giving any ground to your claims.

Everybody has been extremely polite in trying to educate you, but you simply refuse to become more educated.

True, you have not knocked any stones of our production, neither did I knock any of yours. But I surely knock your threadjacking with undocumented claims that do not in any way take into consideration the education that others are offering you.

On a personal note, you have wasted at least two complete working days of my dear colleague John Pollard, who has worked his ass off trying to inform you. This turns out to have been a complete waste of time, since nothing changes in your attitude, you just keep on shouting out misinformation.

You may claim that you have remained polite. That may be true when one looks at the words you use. But you have been extremely impolite in your refusal to learn and in your continued unsubstantiated claims.

Like I said before, live long.
 

Rockdiamond

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
8,356
Thanks again Paul.
I have stated my reasons for feeling as I do while respectfully acknowledging others who may feel differently.
It really seems that what you''re saying is that someone either agrees with you, or had better learn to do so.
If not we can dismiss them as uneducated. This does not seem to allow for objective discussion.

Furthermore, discussing this clearly upsets you, so I''ll thank you for taking time to discuss it, and we can move on to other subjects.


Like I said before: Live long, and please exercise a little tolerance for ideas other than those you embrace.


To phildominator: my apologies if my participation brought the conversation in a different direction than intended. Hopefully, this has given you a view of a different part of the industry outside PS.
 

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295
David,
I am getting really really tired of this...
Hunt down one of those almost impossible to find HW 60/60s you keep going on about and a few other 60/60s and buy an ASET and IS and view them under the scopes then we will talk.
Till then stop thread crapping.
 

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295
Date: 2/23/2009 1:56:17 PM
Author: strmrdr
Here is the difference in virtual facet size between a 3 chevron princess and an asscher/SE
Fixed typo,, the asscher is a hair smaller which gives the princess a slight advantage but it still shows the difference.

princessVFvsSEVF1.gif
 

Rockdiamond

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
8,356
Karl, if you feel this is a valid topic, I will gladly forward you the IS and ASET photos to allow you to make observations, and post them.
I will attempt to find a some 60/60''s.
Finding a near tolk to compare them to will be far easier.
I have not been able to look as of yet, but hopefully tomorrow I can.
I''ll gladly have the stone photographed on ASET and IS.


Shout out to John- I have nothing but respect for you.
I apologize things heated up as they did.
To Paul as well- I admire what you do. It is not my intention to lessen in any way the work you do.
I hope that we''ll be able to discuss other things about diamonds in spite of the fact we might not agree on every aspect.
 

DiamondFlame

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Feb 7, 2009
Messages
680
Phildominator, I''m with you on this one. Was searching for an engagement stone until I stumble upon the art & science of diamond appraisal. While I can appreciate the science behind diamond cut and light performance, I choose to go with the more subjective aesthetics ''cuz I know the missus isn''t going to give a damn about table size, pavillion angle and such. I belong to the small category of people who are into the beauty of the entire ring as opposed to the beauty of the centerstone.

With due respect to the more knowledgeable PS-ers, pls stop bickering and leave your ''shared history of animosity'' out of this thread. If you cannot discuss them like gentlemen, perhaps you shd take your argument somewhere else private. There''s always room for differences in opinion and we should all learn to respect that. Knowledge should make us more humble. ''nuff said.
 

Savvymon

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Sep 16, 2008
Messages
120
I was actually wondering about the GOG checker board also, I decided it must relate somewhat to the arrows of a diamond (in a RB stone), whether they're fat or thin??? and the contrast. What is the prefered 'fatness' of arrows in regards to light testing???

As much as I was finding the 60/60 battle of the PSr's interesting at first I'm definatly finding all this thread Jacking rather annoying.


I'll just state for the record that I'm on the Physics side.

Oh P.S. I super admire the oppinions of: strmrdr, Paul and John, I really think you guys are awesome and contribute a heck of alot to PS, I tip my hat to you!
 

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295
Date: 2/24/2009 2:37:19 AM
Author: Savvymon


I was actually wondering about the GOG checker board also, I decided it must relate somewhat to the arrows of a diamond (in a RB stone), whether they're fat or thin??? and the contrast. What is the prefered 'fatness' of arrows in regards to light testing???
Thank you for the kind words.
It depends on a lot of things.
If you want h&a then the answer is not to fat and not to thin to form what some people consider to be true hearts.

In an OEC you want them fat and sassy but not to dark.

In pavilions much over 41 you want them thin enough that the lower girdle facets don't leak or you want them wide enough that the lower girdles don't extent under the table. (my article on this is coming soon)

If you want an 8* then slightly shorter than h&a and cut the c/p combo to make them show more than most h&a diamonds.

Shallow pavilion RB's they need to be thinner to avoid contrast issues.

60/60s generally work better with slightly narrow arrows.

Since wider arrows give you larger virtual facets they will do better in lower soft lighting and narrow arrows in more direct lighting.
Leaving personal preference out of it for all around light performance not to short to not to thin, to slightly thin is preferred.
As indoor lighting changes over the next 3 to 15 years in a large manner that may change also. (the lighting change is mandated by law in the US)
 

DiamondFlame

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Feb 7, 2009
Messages
680
Wow. I don''t know how you did it, Karl but you sure know how to cut to the chase. I learn more from your last post than I had from some of the more technical essays. Great job!
 

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295
Date: 2/24/2009 5:22:09 AM
Author: strmrdr



If you want an 8* then slightly shorter than h&a and cut the c/p combo to make them show more than most h&a diamonds.
That should say slightly fatter arrows than h&a which is the same thing as shorter lower girdle facets.
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    An Excellent K Color Graded Diamond
    An Excellent K Color Graded Diamond
    Astounding AVR
    Astounding AVR
    Cushion Cut- Three Ways
    Cushion Cut- Three Ways

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top