Pure Fire Diamonds

[lucky177]

I was wondering if anyone has ever heard of these or have any thoughts on the angles they provide. They conflict with the angles and numbers that are generally posted on here.
Link

Depth: 59.5-63.5
Table: 57-61.9
Crown Angle: 32.5-36.5
Pavilion Angle: 40-42

As compared to what Lorelei posted
"depth - 60 - 62% - although my personal preference is to allow up to 62.4%
table - 54- 57%
crown angle - 34- 35 degrees
pavilion angle - 40.6- 41 degrees
girdle - avoid extremes, look for thin to slightly thick, thin to medium etc
polish and symmetry - very good and above"

It seems like there could be some overlap, but I just wanted to know some expert opinions on these numbers.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Date: 8/4/2009 11:48:50 PM
Author:lucky177
I was wondering if anyone has ever heard of these or have any thoughts on the angles they provide. They conflict with the angles and numbers that are generally posted on here.
Link

Depth: 59.5-63.5
Table: 57-61.9
Crown Angle: 32.5-36.5
Pavilion Angle: 40-42

There's a lot of beautiful diamonds contained within these numbers.

I like what they say here, "Most importantly, the diamond should be pretty. The reason cut is not quantifiable is that we buy diamonds that are beautiful and sometimes science and art are truly separate. When you purchase a diamond, purchase it because it is beautiful. Trust your eyes."

A lot of people here will regard that as pure malarky, but in truth it is correct.

 

[Regular Guy]

I can''t give expert opinion to argue with Rich, nor with those numbers, but I believe I can tell you that they strain their credibility by failing to update the data in their own web site. For example, at the link you post, they write:

"IMG is the exclusive distributor of Pure Fire diamonds. One of the most hotly contested views on diamonds in the jewelry industry is the term "ideal cut" as it refers to round brilliant cut diamonds. A 19 year old mathematics student, Marcel Tolkowsky, wrote a theory on paper of what he believed could be the most effective way to cut a round diamond. Nearly 100 years later, the GIA is in the 2nd part of a 3 part study to determine the best way to cut a round diamond. Thus far, using computer technology that wasn''t available in 1919, they have found that the Tolkowsky version is off. Recently, in the February 2002 issue of "Modern Jeweler" Magazine, William Boyajian, the President of GIA was quoted as saying, "Let''s just say it''s probably a meaningless word," when asked about the term "ideal cut."
The GIA, the foremost authority on diamond grading in the world, does not grade cut. Dr. James E. Shigley, research director at the GIA Carlsburg California lab has said that the terms and measurements that define and prescribe cut and its effect are so far from being understood and quantifiable as to make cut grades meaningless. "We are all using the same words, brilliance, fire, radiance, dispersion, scintillation, but we''re not speaking the same language." "

So, the likelihood is that there was at least a convenient story to be told near 2003 with respect to their diamond design...perhaps the last time they updated their website...but near 2005 that 3 part study they referred to got completed, and the GIA now DO assign grades to the cut of a diamond. So, not only do Lorelie''s review of John''s review of the pattern of ideal numbers get conflicted against, but so do GIA''s current presentation of numbers, which are presently embedded in Garry''s HCA chart you can run any time online here.

This doesn''t go against the substance of their work, and if in the vicinity of either Ohio, where this particular store is, or elsewhere, where they may distribute these diamonds, their actual product may be lovely. But...I do think their marketing presentation is a problem, right off the bat.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/4/2009 11:48:50 PM
Author:lucky177
I was wondering if anyone has ever heard of these or have any thoughts on the angles they provide. They conflict with the angles and numbers that are generally posted on here.
Link

Depth: 59.5-63.5
Table: 57-61.9
Crown Angle: 32.5-36.5
Pavilion Angle: 40-42

As compared to what Lorelei posted
'depth - 60 - 62% - although my personal preference is to allow up to 62.4%
table - 54- 57%
crown angle - 34- 35 degrees
pavilion angle - 40.6- 41 degrees
girdle - avoid extremes, look for thin to slightly thick, thin to medium etc
polish and symmetry - very good and above'

It seems like there could be some overlap, but I just wanted to know some expert opinions on these numbers.

The numbers above are tight and fall within what should be very ' safe' range, with the ones you added going to either extreme on the steeper side you can end up with severely leaky steep deeps or on the reverse side obstruction and other issues. If buying online then the use of images are therefore extremely important and also if buying in person your own eyes plus a good test drive away from the store lighting! Bear in mind that diamonds with the above steeper and shallower proportions might have issues and be on the lookout for them. Those which hit more in the middle range or opposite angle ranges within reason could be perfectly fine.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 8/5/2009 12:19:21 AM
Author: Richard Sherwood

Date: 8/4/2009 11:48:50 PM
Author:lucky177
I was wondering if anyone has ever heard of these or have any thoughts on the angles they provide. They conflict with the angles and numbers that are generally posted on here.
Link

Depth: 59.5-63.5
Table: 57-61.9
Crown Angle: 32.5-36.5
Pavilion Angle: 40-42

There''s a lot of beautiful diamonds contained within these numbers.

I like what they say here, ''Most importantly, the diamond should be pretty. The reason cut is not quantifiable is that we buy diamonds that are beautiful and sometimes science and art are truly separate. When you purchase a diamond, purchase it because it is beautiful. Trust your eyes.''

A lot of people here will regard that as pure malarky, but in truth it is correct.

Rich...i rather trust yours.