Newly Patented Princess Cut with very high light performance

[oldminer]

In the early 1990’s the AGA/NAJA Diamond Cut Class system I had been working on for a number of years since the mid-1980’s was reasonably complete. For over a decade the parameters of what I considered the best possible combination of cut parameters for a princess was published in these charts, but nearly every vendor and dealer continues to insist there are “no numbers which would assure performance” although I equate cut quality closely with parameters potentially work very well. Knowing a cutter will not go out of the way to make an ugly diamond when the parameters allow for great beauty is a safe bet with rough diamond costs so high. Sure, you can’t judge totally by numbers, but you can know a great deal about the total picture.

Here are the top AGA/NAJA Cut Class grade parameters for Princess of 1A Cut Class:
Table % 62% to 68%
Crown Height % 10% to 15%
Total Depth % 64% to 75%


Now, a well respected diamond cutting house has patented and branded a princess cut with high light return, using GCAL performance equipment, which they have named “The FireMark®”
This table is the published FireMark cut parameter data:
Table % 65% to 68%
Crown Height % 9.5% to 13.5%
Total Depth % 68% to 70.9%
Due to the total depth being less than typically cut princess cut diamonds they state as a feature of this cut, “A FireMark® diamond will appear about 10% larger than a typical Princess Cut of the same carat weight.”

I hope you will compare the two tables to see how similar they are.

Those of you who have seen many of my posts along these same lines over the years will appreciate that now what I held primarily as an opinion has become a patented design in a product that has factually high light performance created very much along the lines of what my theoretical thoughts had been since the late part of the 1980’s. I had hoped to see such a diamond cut come along and here it is… ..Right now, this diamond will not be offered on-line, but only through retail stores. Eventually there will be similar stones cut with or without permission of the patent holder. That’s the nature of the diamond business. I’d love to see a few examples of these stones compared to the AGS000 model of Ideal Princess cut because the AGS000 are great looking stones, but definitely cut with a different faceting and proportion model.

I have no financial interest in this new patented diamond cut, so this is not advertising. This is purely informational. It is going to be increasingly difficult to say that parameters don’t matter as it becomes more and more clear that they can play an important role in the screening and selection process.

 

[VRBeauty]

Re: Newly Patented Princess Cut with very high light perform

Oldminer - I'm looking forward to seeing pics of these finished stones. Wouldn't it be fun to see a 3- or 5-stone ring (semi-eternity band) made up of super-high performance princess cuts? Light show!!! (I'm guessing the patented stones come with a premium price though, so it's not likely in the cards for me... for now)

Congrats to you on calling the proportions correctly!

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Newly Patented Princess Cut with very high light perform

HI Dave,
How is this NOT an ad for a branded diamond you seem to cross promote with your charts?

Also- manufacturer's claims of "my diamond is 100% brighter, looks bigger, etc" are generally hype. Certainly so in this case. A professional purported to be impartial repeating these false claims is bad form IMO.
Many well cut princess cuts will look larger than the ones you're promoting here.

 

[oldminer]

Re: Newly Patented Princess Cut with very high light perform

This is a cut branded by Hasenfeld-Stein. I am not an ad agent for them and I don't sell the cut grading tool I created. It is free. How in the world do you interpret this as a commercial. Are you just looking to make trouble? I always look for news that proves that parameters do count and we all recognize you look to say the opposite, but without any evidence to back it up. Now, the patent office agrees with one of us. I suppose that means they disagree with the other.

Your constant drone of "look and see" and "don't concern yourself with cut parameters or quality grading" is old fashioned, a failure to disclose important factual aspects of quality and is just a traditional sales tactic that has always been short on facts. I like the romantic notion of selecting a diamond because you simply like it, but that approach is far from popular these days. "Let it lie" would be good advice. Your reponses are a poor commercial for your other wise good and dedicated business efforts.

GCAL equipment is being used on these diamonds and that is a great firm with no axe to grind. In every respect GCAL is equal to GIA except in size and world recognition. Again, I have no financial interest in GCAL, either.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Newly Patented Princess Cut with very high light perform

Dave- I'd respectfully ask that you don't paraphrase my word, or opinions.

There is a science to cutting to achieve certain goals. Very precise. To interpret the results of cutters efforts to meet certain goals, tools like ASET/IS and others- are extremely helpful to consumers, and tradespeople alike.
There is an agreed upon set of parameters within the trade as to what constitutes the "best". That is GIA's cut grade- and AGSL cut grade.
If we're advising consumers in an impartial, yet ethical, transparent manner, those are the "rules".
Then we can debate within those rules.
GIA's cut grade is too wide, etc.

ANY other chart, or grade - no matter how well intentioned or thought out- is irrelevant to a diamond's market value, or desirability.
It may be relevant to folks who have learned what the optical and visual implications are.
For example- someone has looked at both "regular" GIA EX cut grade, and compared to a "super ideal" AGS 0 cut grade scoring under 2 on HCA.
Say they LOVE the Super Ideal. Many people will.Then sticking to chart, HCA, IS/ ASET- all of it makes sense.

But what about the percentage that chooses the "regular" GIA EX cut grade, 4 on the HCA?
These are stones that are far less easily categorized using the tools that work so well for the Super Ideal Cut stones.

It's not going to be an insignificant percentage that goes for the less organized , non H&A look.
My entire problem with the terminology that sometimes gets thrown around is that it leaves little room for personal preference.
If we're looking at fancy shapes, it's a far more wide open arena.
There are certainly branded stones that can be shown scientifically to meet certain optical goals- however the variation between them, and other stones considered to be well cut by experts is a mile wide. This compared to a foot wide if we're looking at rounds. Basically there's far less variation possible in a well cut round, as compared to ANY other shape.
So that's the problem with people looking at a chart that makes it seem there's some sort of visual delineation between a 1a and a 2b or whatever.

In terms of an appraiser repeating promotional claims of a cutter, or highlighting a particular brand, - I honestly feel that's ....well, questionable.


I don't ever mean or want to cause trouble but I am very committed to transparency in discussions.
Discuss branded princess cuts- or branded antique cushions-- but them mention them all- or none, if we want it to be a true impartial discussion.

ETA- regarding patents- they really prove nothing. Many other people can be doing exactly the same thing- and may be doing it better- yet never file a patent.
Part of the reason is that this type of patent is very hard if not impossible to enforce.
There's a company that has a patent on the term "Chocolate diamonds"- would you think they're the only ones with brown diamonds?

 

[TitanCi]

Re: Newly Patented Princess Cut with very high light perform

Mr Atlas,

I just took your post as a means to inform the PS'ers that there is something new on the horizon other than the AGS Ideal Princesses and that someone is producing stones that closely resemble what you've figured to be a set of parameters that allow for a nice looking princess. Nothing more than that. Thanks for the info, kind sir!

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Newly Patented Princess Cut with very high light perform

Thanks Titan,
Yes. New like "Chocolate Diamonds"
I'll be interested to see photos of something that has not been done before, if that's what this is.

If a consumer posted what Dave did, it's a totally different thing.
IMO a professional posting here should not repeat, endorse, or sanctify commercial claims of a seller

but hey, JMO

 

[yssie]

Re: Newly Patented Princess Cut with very high light perform

They aren't new - there's a thread from 2008 on here - but I hadn't heard of them before today.
Good to learn about a branded 4chevron option for those who want the perks but don't like the Solasfera-esque sub-3chevron look.

Does anyone have any more info on these? This vendor has posted the GCAL & GIA reports for a 2ct http://www.bengarelick.com/designer/firemark-princess-cut-diamonds/2-04-carat-firemark-princess-cut-diamond

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Newly Patented Princess Cut with very high light perform

I agree that it is great to show new things Yssie- I am about assisting consumers, not that you implied I was not.
I can't comment on another sellers stone- but is this similar to the facet pattern in question?

 

[oldminer]

Re: Newly Patented Princess Cut with very high light perform

I can post pretty much anything that meets the standards of Pricescope. I was not endorsing a product, but just notifying readers here that a different approach, one worthy of patent protection, was being offered by a well respected cutting firm through retailers. The fact that it comes close to parameters that I have long ago suggested as realistic ones for potentially high performing diamonds was an opportunity I couldn't resist. You know, it was going fishing with just the right bait, and don't you know, I quickly caught the fish. TitanC got the message that most others will get from my unbiased and non-financial posting. It was educational, unbiased and not meant to enrich me. I get rich by contributing back, not taking.

If a person in the trade can post that "no parameters make a difference" type messages over and over, then it behooves those who think or understand otherwise to counter that opinion with our own. In this way people reading the forum will understand there are two schools of thought prevalent in the industry. One way is the old way and the other is the newer way. As generations change, I have seen newer ways take hold. It is my belief that newer methods of diamond cutting, diamond grading, diamond selection and even appreciation of beauty all will be changing as the years continue.

Most people here want to know about new ideas, new patents, new Brands, new technology, new anything that relates to diamonds. When I see such an event that is a legitimate addition, I believe it is good to post such things. This one just happened to make my day since I do have a distinct connection to the Cut Class grading that I created and which is often criticized by a minority who want things to be otherwise. Now, my day is complete. My fishing was a success, too. Fun, fun fun on Pricescope.

NOTE: The table size on the GIA report above is overly large for this cut. Facet pattern may or may not be correct. Up to now, there have been virtually no AGA/NAJA Cut Class 1A princess cuts for consumers to check out. Now, maybe there will be an additional viable alternative for shoppers.

We all encourage the trade to offer many choices and for consumers to shop thoroughly. I never predict what an individual will prefer. It often is surprising.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Newly Patented Princess Cut with very high light perform

And exactly who is saying parameters make no difference Dave?
I've never written that on Pricescope, and I certainly don't believe that.
If a person does not understand the implications of those parameters- and they're presented with biased information to "assist" them in understanding the parameters, we have a problem.
I honestly believe that consumers are far better informed by less biased professional posting.
I'm sure you do as well- and I had a lovely scooter ride this morning- so we're all good.

If you thought my problem with this type of thing has to do with monetary enrichment, that's off base as well.
Providing balanced info- or non balanced info may be about totally different motivations.
We all have reasons for posting.
It can not be ignored that ANY trades-person that posts has a greater obligation as there is going to be a presumed bias.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Newly Patented Princess Cut with very high light perform

I can post pretty much anything that meets the standards of Pricescope. I was not endorsing a product, but just notifying readers here that a different approach, one worthy of patent protection, was being offered by a well respected cutting firm through retailers. The fact that it comes close to parameters that I have long ago suggested as realistic ones for potentially high performing diamonds was an opportunity I couldn't resist. You know, it was going fishing with just the right bait, and don't you know, I quickly caught the fish. TitanC got the message that most others will get from my unbiased and non-financial posting. It was educational, unbiased and not meant to enrich me. I get rich by contributing back, not taking.

If a person in the trade can post that "no parameters make a difference" type messages over and over, then it behooves those who think or understand otherwise to counter that opinion with our own. In this way people reading the forum will understand there are two schools of thought prevalent in the industry. One way is the old way and the other is the newer way. As generations change, I have seen newer ways take hold. It is my belief that newer methods of diamond cutting, diamond grading, diamond selection and even appreciation of beauty all will be changing as the years continue.

Most people here want to know about new ideas, new patents, new Brands, new technology, new anything that relates to diamonds. When I see such an event that is a legitimate addition, I believe it is good to post such things. This one just happened to make my day since I do have a distinct connection to the Cut Class grading that I created and which is often criticized by a minority who want things to be otherwise. Now, my day is complete. My fishing was a success, too. Fun, fun fun on Pricescope.

NOTE: The table size on the GIA report above is overly large for this cut. Facet pattern may or may not be correct. Up to now, there have been virtually no AGA/NAJA Cut Class 1A princess cuts for consumers to check out. Now, maybe there will be an additional viable alternative for shoppers.

We all encourage the trade to offer many choices and for consumers to shop thoroughly. I never predict what an individual will prefer. It often is surprising.

Dave, what's the implications of this "overly large" table?

BTW- I LOVE Super ideal Cut diamonds. But this isn't about my preference.

 

[oldminer]

Re: Newly Patented Princess Cut with very high light perform

Looked to me that you were suggesting the GIA report you pictured was equivalent to the patented parameters of this FireMark diamond, but the table on the GIA report is larger than the limits of this Branded cut. That's what I meant, if there was any confusion.

 

[TitanCi]

Re: Newly Patented Princess Cut with very high light perform

Thanks Titan,
Yes. New like "Chocolate Diamonds"
I'll be interested to see photos of something that has not been done before, if that's what this is.

If a consumer posted what Dave did, it's a totally different thing.
IMO a professional posting here should not repeat, endorse, or sanctify commercial claims of a seller

but hey, JMO

RD - I am assuming you're referring to the bit in my last post before I erased it, but yes I meant all I said respectfully. I just deleted my comment because I, in NO way, want you to read my comment as being offensive; and I re-read your post and saw that you somewhat tied your argument back to the original post. If that's not what you're thanking me for, then nevermind!

Gentlemen, in all honesty, I do not think Mr. Atlas was endorsing this product or trying to sell this product at all. I see it as a mere "Finally!", an "A-HA! Someone listened to me", sort of deal. I think Mr. Atlas is genuinely showing the whole PS community that there is simply a new cut to look out for. I really don't get the feeling that he is linking the actual branded cut to himself.

 

[yssie]

Re: Newly Patented Princess Cut with very high light perform

David - similar, looks like there's more stuff going on in the crown too? Your pic is super small on my screen, I can't tell.

I wonder if there are any PSers who own one? Would be interesting to hear some thoughts from someone who's lived with one for some time. The website is, well, right about what I expected

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Newly Patented Princess Cut with very high light perform

DAVE- I got it, and good point.
I did not look at the table- only the facet pattern.
It's also well outside the best class in the AGA charts as well.

I would not suggest it's an Ideal cut by any means- just the opposite.
If someone is looking for what we can identify as "optimum light performance" this is not a good candidate.

I think that a broad statement that this type of light performance is "worse" - or grading it so with a chart outside GIA and AGSL standards can confuse the issue sometimes.
I picked that report because it looked like it had a similar facet pattern- but it shows something else besides the table size that's important as well.
The larger table does allow the cutter to preserve a larger footprint for the carat weight- a "spreadier" stone.
If you check the measurements, this stone disproves the increased size claim.
It's a "typical" non ideal which spreads to a larger visual size than a "typical" ideal.
Which is a perfectly valid trade off in either case.

I really respect you Dave. You do what you do very well, I know this.
We just have very different outlooks on how to most transparently advise consumers.

Titan- thanks for clarifying.
I'd love to see one of the stones in person- in terms of claims ( especially those promising numeric results) made by companies promoting brands, I will always be a skeptic

ETA- Yssie- I did notice the difference in the crown pattern- one additional break in the branded design. However I only looked for a moment- who knows if there's other stones with the identical crown pattern as well.
Not that having the same pattern will produce identical results anyway.....

 

[Karl_K]

Re: Newly Patented Princess Cut with very high light perform

Yes Dave's post reads like a press release, however his heart is in the right place.
As a long time contributor for free here he deserves a little break here.

I do not agree for a lot of reasons that you can define a well cut princess with so little data.
The # of chevrons and the ratio(angle, size and placement) of one to the next has a huge effect on the performance of a princess cut to just name one of 1000 difference factors the simple numbers on a chart don't take into account.

 

[denverappraiser]

Re: Newly Patented Princess Cut with very high light perform

Interesting stuff Dave.

Thanks for the update. Firemark has been around for quite a while and has long promoted themselves as experts in cutting princesses. I haven't been following them with any level of attention but the stones I've seen have indeed been lovely. Have they made a change in their product, their marketing or both?

For those who want to take a look, here's the patent.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week21/OG/html/1378-4/US08181482-20120522.html

 

[diagem]

Re: Newly Patented Princess Cut with very high light perform

Hi PS'ers.
On June 10th I asked on the "Diamond research" forum the following: (unfortunately no direct answers).

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/can-someone-explain-what-was-patented.176464/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/can-someone-explain-what-was-patented.176464/[/URL]

Dave A., perhaps you can explain better as I honestly have no idea what is not considered prior art? The extra step facet on the crown?
Or some kind of measurable LP?

I would love to hear? Finally.

Thanks,

 

[oldminer]

Re: Newly Patented Princess Cut with very high light perform

Their claim has to do with different angles on the crown to an extent. Also, one cannot simply judge a diamond by a simple set of three measured parameters. We have far more sophisticated equipment and models these days to go a lot further down the path to what are is the best and most beautiful in the majority opinion. What I was pointing out was the convergence of the rather simple set of parameters that I used decades ago in my own work to uncover the code to defining a well cut, high performance stone in most every shape. Remember, I had just hand tools and a paper list of what worked and what didn't. There was no Sarin in my office in the beginning and there were no ray tracing models or computers at my disposal. I did what I was able to do with logic, record keeping and with my own eyes. When I read what amounted to a press release on IDEX yesterday it was a pleasant surprise because no one had gone out of their way, to my knowledge, to make a princess within the simple ranges I had proposed and to develop it sufficiently to make a beautiful diamond. There it was and it was something that I wanted to share.

For sure, there are details of this cut which people can get from a good scanner that change an ordinary princess into an extraordinary one. I don't know the secret to the stone's performance, but I always held the opinion that within the simple boundaries I had recognized there was a high potential for a superior princess cut that no one had yet cut.

No doubt, there will be other surprises like this one in the future as it becomes less costly to experiment with parameters of cutting via computer programming rather than wasting rough diamonds to potentially get a great or poor result. I would wonder how a FireMark princess would grade under current AGSL methodology? If it is a strong performer like the ACA or Infinity brands, would AGSL consider amending their grading to give this cut a superior grade, too? Does anyone have any experience with that data on FireMark or the knowledge to predict AGSL grading on a diamond of FireMark's proportions cut to "perfection" in all other respects?

 

[Karl_K]

Re: Newly Patented Princess Cut with very high light perform

No doubt, there will be other surprises like this one in the future as it becomes less costly to experiment with parameters of cutting via computer programming rather than wasting rough diamonds to potentially get a great or poor result. I would wonder how a FireMark princess would grade under current AGSL methodology? If it is a strong performer like the ACA or Infinity brands, would AGSL consider amending their grading to give this cut a superior grade, too? Does anyone have any experience with that data on FireMark or the knowledge to predict AGSL grading on a diamond of FireMark's proportions cut to "perfection" in all other respects?

If the LP and spread meet the standard of an AGS0 princess then it would be easy and AGS would do so.
With a totally unique cut they would compare it to others in the ags0 family to make the decision but I think on this one they would have to fit the princess LP criteria.

It would be impossible with any certainty what AGS LP grade it would get without running it through them but getting 0 for LP is not that hard on an optimized design so I would expect it would.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Newly Patented Princess Cut with very high light perform

IMO the patent system , designed to promote innovation has been horribly perverted
Companies buy up patents of ideas and simply wait for someone to invent it and become successful - then sue
This costs all of us a lot of money
Or- a company patents an advertising idea and exploits it
"chocolate diamonds" is the perfect example - does anyone reading this believe only one seller has diamonds that color?
Given that there are already 0 cut grade princes cuts, this seems to be similar to the chocolate diamond patent

 

[diagem]

Re: Newly Patented Princess Cut with very high light perform

Their claim has to do with different angles on the crown to an extent.

Sounds pretty thin..., getting a patent for an extra step facet and perhaps different "crown" angles with no pavilion mention? Actualy ridiculous!
I agree with you 110% that there more cutting options for Princess cuts to achieve beauty and good light performance! But are generic faceting designs patentable?
I think it shows alot on the patent examiners search abilities.

When I read the words "CUT GEMSTONE EXHIBITING EXCELLENT OPTICAL BRILLIANCE" on the patent sheet, I was actualy trying to find out if light performance or what they call "excellent optical brilliance" was what is patentable?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Newly Patented Princess Cut with very high light perform

Yoram- all of your designs are totally patent worthy by this standard- and from what we see so far, you've really broken a lot more "new ground " than the subject of this thread.
Still- I think the only value in a diamond patent is advertising.
Henry Grossbard proved that protecting a patent for a diamonds cut is not practical-
In other words one cutter can not effectively prevent others from cutting the same design

 

[smitcompton]

Re: Newly Patented Princess Cut with very high light perform

Hi Dave,

Thank you for the information. I in no way thought you were being self or otherwise self promoting. I also agree that RD does indeed look for trouble. Thanks Again,

Annette

 

[diagem]

Re: Newly Patented Princess Cut with very high light perform

Yoram- all of your designs are totally patent worthy by this standard- and from what we see so far, you've really broken a lot more "new ground " than the subject of this thread.
Still- I think the only value in a diamond patent is advertising.
Henry Grossbard proved that protecting a patent for a diamonds cut is not practical-
In other words one cutter can not effectively prevent others from cutting the same design

I agree it's not practical, but it does scare the scary cats away.
Even though..., today as the world gets smaller, patenting is possible when it's done right (and extremely expensive) by protecting it worldwide! And that is so complicated if even possible.
And then..., yep, you need to spen loads of money to enforce it.
A Diamond cut is not a medicine, the Diamond world is too tiny to make it economical.

But back to the OP, was the meaning "CUT GEMSTONE EXHIBITING EXCELLENT OPTICAL BRILLIANCE" the patentable innovation?

 

[Karl_K]

Re: Newly Patented Princess Cut with very high light perform

But back to the OP, was the meaning "CUT GEMSTONE EXHIBITING EXCELLENT OPTICAL BRILLIANCE" the patentable innovation?

The claims section is what is claimed as a patentable innovation:

1. A gemstone comprising: a substantially rectangular girdle; a crown extending in a first direction from the girdle, the crown having a table, four sides, and four bezel facets each positioned at a respective corner of the crown, each of the four sides of the crown including: a first break extending from the girdle toward the table; a second break extending from the first break toward the table; a third break extending from the second break to the table; and a first star facet provided between the third break and a first bezel facet of the four bezel facets; and a second star facet provided between the third break and a second bezel facet of the four bezel facets; and a pavilion extending in a second direction from the girdle, opposite the first direction, wherein a height of the crown is between 9 1/2 to 13 1/2% of a width of the gemstone, and wherein a width of the table is between 60-68% of the width of the gemstone, wherein the first break is at an angle of approximately 35-45.degree. relative to a first plane parallel to a surface of the table, the second break is at an angle of approximately 30-40.degree. relative to the first plane, the third break is at an angle of approximately 25-35.degree. relative to the first plane, and the bezel facets are at an angle of approximately 20-30.degree. relative to the first plane, wherein the pavilion includes a pavilion facet on each respective side of the gemstone, a main facet between each of the four pavilion facets, and four chevron facets between each main facet and each pavilion facet, wherein the four pavilion facets are each at an angle of approximately 53-65.degree. relative to a second plane parallel to a face of the girdle, and wherein the main facets are each at an angle of approximately 35-39.degree. relative to the second plane.

2. The gemstone according to claim 1, wherein the pair of star facets extend and cover an area from a center of the bezel facets to a center of the table.

3. The gemstone according to claim 1, wherein corners of the girdle are chamfered.

4. The gemstone according to claim 3, wherein the corners are chamfered to a degree that does not affect a brilliance of the gemstone.

5. The gemstone according to claim 3, wherein the corners are chamfered such that the chamfers are not perceptible with a human eye from a distance of at least 10 inches.

6. The gemstone according to claim 1, wherein the gemstone has a maximum length-to-width ratio of 1:1.05.

7. The gemstone according to claim 1, wherein a depth of the gemstone is between 63-70.9% of the width of the gemstone.

 

[diagem]

Re: Newly Patented Princess Cut with very high light perform

But back to the OP, was the meaning "CUT GEMSTONE EXHIBITING EXCELLENT OPTICAL BRILLIANCE" the patentable innovation?

The claims section is what is claimed as a patentable innovation:

1. A gemstone comprising: a substantially rectangular girdle; a crown extending in a first direction from the girdle, the crown having a table, four sides, and four bezel facets each positioned at a respective corner of the crown, each of the four sides of the crown including: a first break extending from the girdle toward the table; a second break extending from the first break toward the table; a third break extending from the second break to the table; and a first star facet provided between the third break and a first bezel facet of the four bezel facets; and a second star facet provided between the third break and a second bezel facet of the four bezel facets; and a pavilion extending in a second direction from the girdle, opposite the first direction, wherein a height of the crown is between 9 1/2 to 13 1/2% of a width of the gemstone, and wherein a width of the table is between 60-68% of the width of the gemstone, wherein the first break is at an angle of approximately 35-45.degree. relative to a first plane parallel to a surface of the table, the second break is at an angle of approximately 30-40.degree. relative to the first plane, the third break is at an angle of approximately 25-35.degree. relative to the first plane, and the bezel facets are at an angle of approximately 20-30.degree. relative to the first plane, wherein the pavilion includes a pavilion facet on each respective side of the gemstone, a main facet between each of the four pavilion facets, and four chevron facets between each main facet and each pavilion facet, wherein the four pavilion facets are each at an angle of approximately 53-65.degree. relative to a second plane parallel to a face of the girdle, and wherein the main facets are each at an angle of approximately 35-39.degree. relative to the second plane.

2. The gemstone according to claim 1, wherein the pair of star facets extend and cover an area from a center of the bezel facets to a center of the table.

3. The gemstone according to claim 1, wherein corners of the girdle are chamfered.

4. The gemstone according to claim 3, wherein the corners are chamfered to a degree that does not affect a brilliance of the gemstone.

5. The gemstone according to claim 3, wherein the corners are chamfered such that the chamfers are not perceptible with a human eye from a distance of at least 10 inches.

6. The gemstone according to claim 1, wherein the gemstone has a maximum length-to-width ratio of 1:1.05.

7. The gemstone according to claim 1, wherein a depth of the gemstone is between 63-70.9% of the width of the gemstone.

Karl, give me a bit more credit

The next paragraph: Field of invention
"The present invention relates to cut gemstones exhibiting excellent optical brilliance and method for manufacturing the same. In particular, the present invention relates to a Princess cut diamond with superior optical characteristics compared to that of industry standard Princess cut diamonds, and the method by which such diamond is cut."

What's the connection..., claims? Invention??
You realy mean you understand this?

 

[Karl_K]

Re: Newly Patented Princess Cut with very high light perform

Karl, give me a bit more credit

The next paragraph: Field of invention
"The present invention relates to cut gemstones exhibiting excellent optical brilliance and method for manufacturing the same. In particular, the present invention relates to a Princess cut diamond with superior optical characteristics compared to that of industry standard Princess cut diamonds, and the method by which such diamond is cut."

What's the connection..., claims? Invention??
You realy mean you understand this?

Sorry didn't mean to be insulting.
On any patent the claims are what is being patented.

Field of invention = what field the claims reside under.
"cut gemstones" is the key word in the marketing garbage.
I am rather surprised they allowed that wording.
The problem is with this patent it is intended to impress investors not diamond cutters/experts.

I somewhat understand it. The thing is that like this patent demonstrates is what they should be and what they are allowing in a patent is very far from the same thing.
I would call this a marketing prop rather than a real patent.

You or I could destroy this patent in 10 seconds in any court of law on several grounds.
But it isn't designed to stand up, it is designed for marketing.

 

[diagem]

Re: Newly Patented Princess Cut with very high light perform

Karl, give me a bit more credit

The next paragraph: Field of invention
"The present invention relates to cut gemstones exhibiting excellent optical brilliance and method for manufacturing the same. In particular, the present invention relates to a Princess cut diamond with superior optical characteristics compared to that of industry standard Princess cut diamonds, and the method by which such diamond is cut."

What's the connection..., claims? Invention??
You realy mean you understand this?

Sorry didn't mean to be insulting.
On any patent the claims are what is being patented.

Field of invention = what field the claims reside under.
"cut gemstones" is the key word in the marketing garbage.
I am rather surprised they allowed that wording.
The problem is with this patent it is intended to impress investors not diamond cutters/experts.

I somewhat understand it. The thing is that like this patent demonstrates is what they should be and what they are allowing in a patent is very far from the same thing.
I would call this a marketing prop rather than a real patent.

You or I could destroy this patent in 10 seconds in any court of law on several grounds.
But it isn't designed to stand up, it is designed for marketing.

Makes protecting someones truly innovative IP into a mockery not to mention the $$$ spent!