"Precision cut" - what does this mean?

[yssie]

DiaGem, RD - makes sense. And now I know what you are talking about when you refer to "even distribution" in a non-FCD
Thanks.

 

[Karl_K]

re: If, for example, Octavia took off- would you expect to see others cutting it?

Not now

It is a total pita to cut and it took a master cutter 100s of hours to develop the method to cut it at the quality level it needs to work.
Could someone create a knock off.. yes .. at the same quality level, highly doubtful.
With rough prices being what they are I don't see anyone being able to make money doing so.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I agree Karl- but if a design becomes popular enough, it's practically guaranteed to be copied.
How effectively? That is , for sure, another question.
It's possible that Octavia is shaped on such a way that it's a far less practical use of rough- in addition to the difficulty in cutting that would discourage others from cutting it- but if they did, my belief is that it would only increase demand for the original.

 

[Karl_K]

but if they did, my belief is that it would only increase demand for the original.

My main area is electronics/computers and I have seen that happen but have also seen the copy overshadow the original.
There is no guarantee it would increase demand for the original.
I do however think that 2 strong competitors will create a larger market than one strong company alone.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I think that goes directly to the point Karl.
If someone copies an idea- but adds something new, sometimes a brand new product is the result.
Sometimes the newer version is not as good as the original, sometimes it's better.
When it comes to artistic ideas, such as diamond cutting styles- pretty much everything is "borrowed" or inspired by an earlier idea.
For example, when you envisioned the Octavia, it seems as though you were influenced by the design of the Asscher Cut.
IN fact, knowing your history, it would have been impossible for you to design something and NOT have your prior experience influence the resulting design.

When Yoram designs Old Mine Brilliant variations the inspiration is also quite clear.

 

[Karl_K]

I think that goes directly to the point Karl.
If someone copies an idea- but adds something new, sometimes a brand new product is the result.
Sometimes the newer version is not as good as the original, sometimes it's better.
When it comes to artistic ideas, such as diamond cutting styles- pretty much everything is "borrowed" or inspired by an earlier idea.
For example, when you envisioned the Octavia, it seems as though you were influenced by the design of the Asscher Cut.
IN fact, knowing your history, it would have been impossible for you to design something and NOT have your prior experience influence the resulting design.

When Yoram designs Old Mine Brilliant variations the inspiration is also quite clear.

I make no secret that Octavia is a variant of the Asscher cut which is an evolution of the emerald cut.
I have designs that I considered original that were not based on any previous designs I saw.
Then with many of them I looked into the cutting diagrams of the 50s and 60s and found them.
The odds of really finding/creating something new are very slim, there are an estimated 500000 published cutting diagrams for gemstones.
That is a huge reason patents for cutting designs are pretty useless.

 

[Rockdiamond]

What is that saying....
"there's nothing new under the sun"
But there are really kool variations!
Such as the Octavia- very cool design.....

 

[Serg]

David,

re:Yoram- or Serg- what would your position be if another enterprising cutter copied one of your designs?

inevitable harm
Really Serg? I disagree. If a cut is copied, it might actually help the inventor of the cut- as I see it, people will want "the original"- the Radiant Cut has shown this to be the case

reo you think it would be possible to prevent it?

not completely . It is real big problem. Patents are very expensive and not helpful
Agreed

re: Would you expect others to copy it?

Yes, I saw it for our cut( but can not proof it)

re: If, for example, Octavia took off- would you expect to see others cutting it?

Not now

Why?

re:Really Serg? I disagree. If a cut is copied, it might actually help the inventor of the cut- as I see it, people will want "the original"- the Radiant Cut has shown this to be the case

Just try develop and sell new Hight Performance Cut yourself.

You need spend :
1) for R&D:0.05M( if you just improve any current cut) -0.5M( if you ready create something new)
2) 0.5M-10M to Promote new cut, if you want sell more than 5-10 diamonds per month OR wait 10-30 years until you cut become popular( as Happened with Princess and Radiant)

If cut become popular copycats do not need compensate R&D and Promotion( as you need to do), so you can not compete with copycats in price.( Specially in China and India)

Of course you can just a little bit change cut( reduce your R&D expenses ), write big story, publish its in internet and pray about few sales per month. It could be profitable for you and copycats are not interesting.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

You welcome to add your new cushion to MSS list cushions with AGS PGS 0 Light performance grade.

see diamonds C1-С5

http://www.octonus.com/oct/mss/table.phtml

Why do diamonds C1-C6 have a listed PGS grade of 1 not 0?

discount for Durability. we graded Cushion in AGS PGS as round cut. I do not see any real problem with durability for these cushions

So the girdle thickness at the thick part is too thin <2.2% so it gets a deduction on all of them?

Hi Narrishkeit, The version of AGS rules that I have maintains that a deduction occurs when any part of the girdle is less that 0.5% or for durability if the crown angle is less than 30 degrees.
I do not believe any of the MSS cushions break any of those rules. In places of course the cushion girdles can be rather thick, but that is anything but a durability issue.

 

[NARRISHKEIT]

You welcome to add your new cushion to MSS list cushions with AGS PGS 0 Light performance grade.

see diamonds C1-С5

http://www.octonus.com/oct/mss/table.phtml

Why do diamonds C1-C6 have a listed PGS grade of 1 not 0?

discount for Durability. we graded Cushion in AGS PGS as round cut. I do not see any real problem with durability for these cushions

So the girdle thickness at the thick part is too thin <2.2% so it gets a deduction on all of them?

Hi Narrishkeit, The version of AGS rules that I have maintains that a deduction occurs when any part of the girdle is less that 0.5% or for durability if the crown angle is less than 30 degrees.
I do not believe any of the MSS cushions break any of those rules. In places of course the cushion girdles can be rather thick, but that is anything but a durability issue.

Garry it would be most appreciated if you could read Serg's post from here in this thread https://www.pricescope.com/communit...this-mean.164265/page-2#post-2991223#p2991223 and come to a consensus with him.

All 6 specimens apparently received a 1 grade deduction for girdle variation please explain.
I was under the impression this was the scale (perhaps it is dated now I do not know).

AGS CUT AND GIRDLE GRADES -

AGS GRADE Description Girdle Thickness
3 Extremely Thin 0 at any spot
1 Very Thin 1.8-2.19%
0 Thin 2.2-2.99%
0 Medium 3.0-3.99%
0 Slightly Thick 4.0-4.99%
3 Thick 5.0-5.99%
5 Very Thick 6.0-6.99%
7 Extremely Thick 7.0-7.99%
8 Extremely Thick 8.0-8.99%
9 Extremely Thick 9.0-9.99%
10 Extremely Thick >10%


Which if I understand the scale properly can only occur for too thin a girdle not too thick.

 

[Serg]

You welcome to add your new cushion to MSS list cushions with AGS PGS 0 Light performance grade.

see diamonds C1-С5

http://www.octonus.com/oct/mss/table.phtml

Why do diamonds C1-C6 have a listed PGS grade of 1 not 0?

discount for Durability. we graded Cushion in AGS PGS as round cut. I do not see any real problem with durability for these cushions

So the girdle thickness at the thick part is too thin <2.2% so it gets a deduction on all of them?

Hi Narrishkeit, The version of AGS rules that I have maintains that a deduction occurs when any part of the girdle is less that 0.5% or for durability if the crown angle is less than 30 degrees.
I do not believe any of the MSS cushions break any of those rules. In places of course the cushion girdles can be rather thick, but that is anything but a durability issue.

Garry it would be most appreciated if you could read Serg's post from here in this thread https://www.pricescope.com/communit...this-mean.164265/page-2#post-2991223#p2991223 and come to a consensus with him.

All 6 specimens apparently received a 1 grade deduction for girdle variation please explain.
I was under the impression this was the scale (perhaps it is dated now I do not know).

AGS CUT AND GIRDLE GRADES -

AGS GRADE Description Girdle Thickness
3 Extremely Thin 0 at any spot
1 Very Thin 1.8-2.19%
0 Thin 2.2-2.99%
0 Medium 3.0-3.99%
0 Slightly Thick 4.0-4.99%
3 Thick 5.0-5.99%
5 Very Thick 6.0-6.99%
7 Extremely Thick 7.0-7.99%
8 Extremely Thick 8.0-8.99%
9 Extremely Thick 9.0-9.99%
10 Extremely Thick >10%


Which if I understand the scale properly can only occur for too thin a girdle not too thick.

re:
Garry it would be most appreciated if you could read Serg's post from here in this thread https://www.pricescope.com/communit...this-mean.164265/page-2#post-2991223#p2991223 and come to a consensus with him.


Garry Wrote same statement as I.

Garry: "I do not believe any of the MSS cushions break any of those rules. "

I:"I do not see any real problem with durability for these cushions"

 

[NARRISHKEIT]

You welcome to add your new cushion to MSS list cushions with AGS PGS 0 Light performance grade.

see diamonds C1-С5

http://www.octonus.com/oct/mss/table.phtml

Why do diamonds C1-C6 have a listed PGS grade of 1 not 0?

discount for Durability. we graded Cushion in AGS PGS as round cut. I do not see any real problem with durability for these cushions

So the girdle thickness at the thick part is too thin <2.2% so it gets a deduction on all of them?

Hi Narrishkeit, The version of AGS rules that I have maintains that a deduction occurs when any part of the girdle is less that 0.5% or for durability if the crown angle is less than 30 degrees.
I do not believe any of the MSS cushions break any of those rules. In places of course the cushion girdles can be rather thick, but that is anything but a durability issue.

Garry it would be most appreciated if you could read Serg's post from here in this thread https://www.pricescope.com/communit...this-mean.164265/page-2#post-2991223#p2991223 and come to a consensus with him.

All 6 specimens apparently received a 1 grade deduction for girdle variation please explain.
I was under the impression this was the scale (perhaps it is dated now I do not know).

AGS CUT AND GIRDLE GRADES -

AGS GRADE Description Girdle Thickness
3 Extremely Thin 0 at any spot
1 Very Thin 1.8-2.19%
0 Thin 2.2-2.99%
0 Medium 3.0-3.99%
0 Slightly Thick 4.0-4.99%
3 Thick 5.0-5.99%
5 Very Thick 6.0-6.99%
7 Extremely Thick 7.0-7.99%
8 Extremely Thick 8.0-8.99%
9 Extremely Thick 9.0-9.99%
10 Extremely Thick >10%


Which if I understand the scale properly can only occur for too thin a girdle not too thick.

re:
Garry it would be most appreciated if you could read Serg's post from here in this thread https://www.pricescope.com/communit...this-mean.164265/page-2#post-2991223#p2991223 and come to a consensus with him.


Garry Wrote same statement as I.

Garry: "I do not believe any of the MSS cushions break any of those rules. "

I:"I do not see any real problem with durability for these cushions"

Why then do you list them in the chart with PGS of 1 for girdle variation, is that a mistake then?

 

[Serg]

re:Why then do you list them in the chart with PGS of 1 for girdle variation, is that a mistake then?

I did not publish any PGS for girdle variation.
I Published AGS PGS report. Do you know what it is?

 

[NARRISHKEIT]

re:Why then do you list them in the chart with PGS of 1 for girdle variation, is that a mistake then?

I did not publish any PGS for girdle variation.
I Published AGS PGS report. Do you know what it is?

AGS PGS report I sure do. The chart that you cut and pasted shows a deduction of 1 for girdle variation. What are the girdle measurements on the 6 stones and why did AGS-PGS deduct 1 for this girdle.

I was under the impression that certain values (like symmetry and polish) and deductions are added manually to the AGS-PGS and some are taken directly from the sarin scan.

 

[Serg]

re:Why then do you list them in the chart with PGS of 1 for girdle variation, is that a mistake then?

I did not publish any PGS for girdle variation.
I Published AGS PGS report. Do you know what it is?

AGS PGS report I sure do. The chart that you cut and pasted shows a deduction of 1 for girdle variation. What are the girdle measurements on the 6 stones and why did AGS-PGS deduct 1 for this girdle.

I was under the impression that certain values (like symmetry and polish) and deductions are added manually to the AGS-PGS and some are taken directly from the sarin scan.

I have not any idea why AGS PGS deduct MSS Cushions for Durability and Girdle and I do not see any sense to discuss it because Round cut girdle rules is irrelevant for Cushion cuts( AGS PGS has not option for Cushion cut). Cutters can add any number and type additional facets near girdle in Cushion cut to receive any girdle thickness( any uniformity ).

Data ( what I Published )relevant only for Optical performance grade.
PS. we do not use Sarin scan, we do not add anything manually to AGS-PGS report

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

You welcome to add your new cushion to MSS list cushions with AGS PGS 0 Light performance grade.

see diamonds C1-С5

http://www.octonus.com/oct/mss/table.phtml

Why do diamonds C1-C6 have a listed PGS grade of 1 not 0?

discount for Durability. we graded Cushion in AGS PGS as round cut. I do not see any real problem with durability for these cushions

So the girdle thickness at the thick part is too thin <2.2% so it gets a deduction on all of them?

Hi Narrishkeit, The version of AGS rules that I have maintains that a deduction occurs when any part of the girdle is less that 0.5% or for durability if the crown angle is less than 30 degrees.
I do not believe any of the MSS cushions break any of those rules. In places of course the cushion girdles can be rather thick, but that is anything but a durability issue.

Garry it would be most appreciated if you could read Serg's post from here in this thread https://www.pricescope.com/communit...this-mean.164265/page-2#post-2991223#p2991223 and come to a consensus with him.

All 6 specimens apparently received a 1 grade deduction for girdle variation please explain.
I was under the impression this was the scale (perhaps it is dated now I do not know).

AGS CUT AND GIRDLE GRADES -

AGS GRADE Description Girdle Thickness
3 Extremely Thin 0 at any spot
1 Very Thin 1.8-2.19%
0 Thin 2.2-2.99%
0 Medium 3.0-3.99%
0 Slightly Thick 4.0-4.99%
3 Thick 5.0-5.99%
5 Very Thick 6.0-6.99%
7 Extremely Thick 7.0-7.99%
8 Extremely Thick 8.0-8.99%
9 Extremely Thick 9.0-9.99%
10 Extremely Thick >10%


Which if I understand the scale properly can only occur for too thin a girdle not too thick.

The data you have published is for the thick part of the girdle and would be based on round brilliants which are a bad indication of the girdle thickness at the thin part of a cushion.

This 'error' is based on on us choosing to use the AGS PGS for round diamonds because our cushions are as good or better than the lowest level of AGS's standard - which is a huge problem that will haunt AGS into the future.

It is an error because the total of the crown and the pavilion angles of the facets at the girdle are nearly twice as great as those for a round brilliant. So even if the stone had a knife edge girdle it would still be very hard if not impossible to chip.