is a stone with a pavil angle of > 41'' that bad? i know the HCA ...

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 3/23/2005 1:11:55 PM
Author: Rhino
Gary, your chart illustrates exactly why I prefer pav angles of 40.6(7) or lower when the crown angles hit 35 or higher.

DF ... if you summarize the info on this thread it is only in smaller goods (under .5xct) where you''ll find good combo''s including 41-41.1 combined with crown angles around 35. In larger goods I generally avoid these and stand in 100% agreement with Gary.

Rhino
why this steep/deep combo only works with the smaller stones?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Yes I would like to know why leakage is OK in smaller stones too?

Rhino are you saying that people can not see a ring of death smaller than 0.5mm wide? This would equate to a I3 inclusion size? Or a 1.0mm culet (20%)?

Can you please explain?

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 3/21/2005 4:40:25 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
They will look great loose in tweezers or in open backed mounts.

Seet them and get a little dirt on the back and see who is right

Garry
so.....dirt will have a different effect depending on the diamond specs

 

[Dancing Fire]

bump

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 3/24/2005 2:39:50 AM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 3/21/2005 4:40:25 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
They will look great loose in tweezers or in open backed mounts.

Seet them and get a little dirt on the back and see who is right

Garry
so.....dirt will have a different effect depending on the diamond specs

I believe so.
I have only done this small test which I wrote a week or 2 back.

These are Drena''s studs - they had not been cleaned for weeks and i took this photo.
One is too shallow according to all the pundits - but when dirty it easil out performs the so called better stone which is about 34.5C 41P.

Sergey has promised me that he will help with a computer study one day. I know this intuitively and from personal experiance - but have no scientific evidence.
Shallow stones rock!!

 

[Rhino]

Hi Gary,

To clarify...

Date: 3/23/2005 6:50:59 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Yes I would like to know why leakage is OK in smaller stones too?

Rhino are you saying that people can not see a ring of death smaller than 0.5mm wide? This would equate to a I3 inclusion size? Or a 1.0mm culet (20%)?

Can you please explain?

I''m not saying it''s not important , what I am saying is that it''s harder to distinguish in melee goods but stand out more in the engagement sized goods.

 

[Rhino]

Gary... in your last post here ... would this be a good example of what you were referring to when you have certain stones that have more fire at the expense of brilliance and more brilliance and the expense of fire?

If so, I WOULD AGREE, however this does not contradict my conviction about getting the perfect blend of both brilliance & fire.

In the examples you''ve given with these studs the stone on the left SHOULD be more brilliant at the expense of fire while the stone on the right (the shallow one) would be more fiery at the expense of brilliance. Is this what you mean when you speak of BIC''s and FIC''s?

Peace,

 

[Lord Summerisle]

Date: 3/25/2005 5:43:34 PM
Author: Rhino
Gary... in your last post here ... would this be a good example of what you were referring to when you have certain stones that have more fire at the expense of brilliance and more brilliance and the expense of fire?


If so, I WOULD AGREE, however this does not contradict my conviction about getting the perfect blend of both brilliance & fire.


In the examples you''ve given with these studs the stone on the left SHOULD be more brilliant at the expense of fire while the stone on the right (the shallow one) would be more fiery at the expense of brilliance. Is this what you mean when you speak of BIC''s and FIC''s?


Peace,

Jon, if i remember Garrys previous post on the matter (i havent gone back to look)
Garry swapped one of the stones in Drena''s earrings for a shallower stone - believing, and putting to the test - that a shallower stone may remain a better performer then the more ''conventionally'' proportioned stone after they have become dirty through wear.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

the Lord is correct Rhino.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Small stones perform well even with slightly steeper angles for the same reason you will perceive more life from a disco ball with 1" x 1" mirrors than if the disco ball had 1 foot x 1 foot mirrors.

The same logic is why stones in large sizes do well with more facets - 10-cuts like Solasfera, etc in 2ct and above are very lively.

This is a practical, real-world occurance. Computer modeling is all well and good, but does not always capture life as well as life.

 

[dyemonds2002]

so what we are all looking for is the best and the cut adviser before computing any numbers in it is set the way a perfect stone should come back ex ex ex ex 60-57 34 40.5 or 60-53545556 34.3 4 5 6 or 40.5 6 7 8 this would all return 4 ex`s right

 

[Mara]

Date: 3/27/2005 11

2:32 PM
Author: dyemonds2002
so what we are all looking for is the best and the cut adviser before computing any numbers in it is set the way a perfect stone should come back ex ex ex ex 60-57 34 40.5 or 60-53545556 34.3 4 5 6 or 40.5 6 7 8 this would all return 4 ex`s right

You can enter a variety of number combinations into the HCA to find out what gives all EX's....but there is no 'perfect' stone..and just because a score comes back with all EX's does not mean that's the stone for you.

Viewing and preferences are very subjective, the numbers are one way to weed out good stones from bad, but just because a stone gets all EX on the HCA does not mean you will love the way it looks. Your eye may prefer a shallower BIC or a deeper FIC over the TIC. Assuming a TIC is what you really want, then other information on the stone would confirm or deny what the HCA tells you.

Unfortunately there is no one size fits all when it comes to diamonds. But if what you are looking for is that 4 EX score, play around with some numbers--there are various combinations that return it.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 3/23/2005 1:11:55 PM
Author: Rhino



DF ... if you summarize the info on this thread it is only in smaller goods (under .5xct) where you''ll find good combo''s including 41-41.1 combined with crown angles around 35. In larger goods I generally avoid these and stand in 100% agreement with Gary.

yesterday,Brian from WF told me the same thing, he prefers 41 pavil in smaller goods.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I can agree to larger tables, but no idea why deeper pavilions could be accepatable?
Accept that many smalls are cut from sawn tops and can have much deeper pavilions along with big tables and low crown angles.