Question for Michaelgem

[pyramid]

Michaelgem, in the other thread you gave your advice about the 41 pavillion, 34 crown diamond I have bought, I wanted to ask you a question. I know what you are saying about the performance of the stone and that this crown height is required for this pavillion angle, I was just wondering if whilst doing the studying about diamonds in the 7 dimensions, do you consider anything about the view asthetically from the profile? Does the 34 crown being lower than 34.5 or 34.8 get considered negatively in what makes an ideal diamond profile view or are your studies just strictly to do with the performance of the light return?

 

[michaelgem]

Date: 7/19/2007 9:54:02 AM
Author:Pyramid
Michaelgem, in the other thread you gave your advice about the 41 pavillion, 34 crown diamond I have bought, I wanted to ask you a question. I know what you are saying about the performance of the stone and that this crown height is required for this pavillion angle, I was just wondering if whilst doing the studying about diamonds in the 7 dimensions, do you consider anything about the view asthetically from the profile? Does the 34 crown being lower than 34.5 or 34.8 get considered negatively in what makes an ideal diamond profile view or are your studies just strictly to do with the performance of the light return?

Pyramid,

By the time of Wades book in 1916, diamond fashion had evolved to a crown of "scant one-third" and the pavilion to a "full two-thirds" of the total depth, with a knife-edge girdle.

By today''s standards, Tolkowskys crown with 53% table, which was 27.3% of the diamond depth, seems too heavy, since most diamonds today, while maintaining the angle, increase the table size resulting in a thinner crown.

So, let us compare your diamond with its larger 56.4 table, to a similar diamond, but with Tolkowsky''s angles. I am betting if I don''t tell you which of these diamonds is which, you will not notice the slight angular difference. Which one is which?

So the short answer is you have a crown every bit as correct in profile as one cut to Tolkowsky angles. There is not enough difference to notice.

Best wishes,

Michael

 

[pyramid]

Thanks Michaelgem. 34 degrees on the left I think?

 

[michaelgem]

Date: 7/19/2007 5:13:42 PM
Author: Pyramid
Thanks Michaelgem. 34 degrees on the left I think?

Let''s see if anyone else wants to guess. Then I''ll tell you.

Michael

 

[echelon6]

I vote shallower crown angle on the right

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 7/20/2007 3:55:22 AM
Author: echelon6
I vote shallower crown angle on the right

Yup

 

[michaelgem]

Date: 7/20/2007 6:51:56 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 7/20/2007 3:55:22 AM
Author: echelon6
I vote shallower crown angle on the right

Yup

With three votes in, the majority has it right. Pyramid''s diamond in the one on the right.

Hopefully, this makes the obvious point that the two are essentially indestinguishable in real life.

Best wishes,

Michael

 

[Lorelei]

Thanks for that Michael, it was a very interesting exercise and it was very hard to tell the difference between the 2!

 

[pyramid]

Thanks Michaelgem. So I was wrong. Would a 34.8/40.8 look much different to the eye than these two, would the crown appear higher?
Do you think the pavillion on the 34/41 would look a lot deeper from the profile view than tolkowsy 40.75?