Holloway Cut Adviser

by pricescope » Sep 12, 2002

Tolkowsky specified a single set of proportions:

53% table size
34.5° crown angle
40.75° pavilion angle
Knife edge girdle.

Some people are using "Tolkowsky" term rather freely.

Nonetheless, there are many combinations of crown and pavilion angles other than Tolkowsky that produce excellent results. However, 43.6% pavilion depth is rather deep and the stone is not ideal cut.

Can you also post the measurements for your stone?

 

by Garry H (Cut Nut) » Sep 12, 2002

This image (if it worked) show what your diamond would look like with the proportions you posted through an ideal-scope. The white area inside the table would appear a little dull and lifleless because the diamond is 1/2 a degree deeper and steeper than Tolkowsky suggested. Recently we have discovered that Tolkowsky's maths predict a shallower rather than deeper combination of crown and pavilion angles.
http://www.folds.net/diamond/index.html
check this out if you wnt to know more

The good news is that at 1.83ct if you ever want to recut it you will loose only a few points and sttill have a 1 and 3/4ct.

 

by pricescope » Sep 12, 2002

1.83 crt diamond with 58% table, 34.50° crown and 40.75° pavilion angles should have 8.01 mm in diameter, not 7.81 mm as this one.

I just wanted to demonstrate that deep cut stone looks smaller for its carat weight.

Try to do a search from Pricescope.com front page for the same carat-color-clarity to figure out a price range for the similar diamonds

 

by fire&ice » Sep 12, 2002

O.K....this conversation is up my alley today.

Finally retrived my cert. Just plugged it into your HCA. No surprises as I have always known the cut to be very good/good and not ideal - the price reflecting such. Score 2.4 - w/very good in all your categories. Also, I know the measurements are smaller - but it's plenty big on my little hands!

3.01
d - 62.1
t - 59
crown - 14.4%
Pav - 43.5%

measurements 9.24 - 9.19 x 5.72
Girdle is med-th
cutlet - none
polish - good
symmetry - very good
I (("per jeweler" good I - closer to H)
SI1 ("" closer to SI2)
med blue fluor ("" closer to strong)

Stone is set w/ 3 stone (baguette) vatche ring.

I bought one of your ideal-scopes from Dave (although my husband is refering to it as the "cool" thingamajig). The above pic does not look like my diamond. I wonder how much the setting allows light in the pav. - those Vatches are pretty hefty and tight and is that showing me something different than if the stone is unset- I see hot pinks in the table. The look is more similair to the FIC pic. The "radiants" of the stars extend all the way to the end of the stone and are quite pronounced.

I guess my question is "how does the setting effect what the ideal scope reads. I had great fun looking at my diamond bracelet in the scope - playing a guessing game as I went from stone to stone - trying to predict what I would see - each stone is about .20-.25c. To add even more to the fun confusion - I prefered a stone that looked closer to what my 3c looks like next to one w/ significantly more hot pink. But, I have to say - the ones w/ considerably less pink were rather flat and lifeless looking.

I do not have a trained diamond eye - but my stone has tons of sparkeles. Does the flour have an effect on that and the fact that the sym. is very good have an effect on the sparkle. Or, is it just that my untrained eye can't tell a difference?

And last question, I have a friend who is getting ready to purchase two pears - will the ideal scope work for that shape?

Sorry to be so wordy - just enjoying all this.