Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Recommended PriceScope RBC proportions - project to establish some guidelines

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
15,670
I lost it a few times when proportion recommendations were very narrow. The seem to have been based on super ideal branded #'s.
(I am not intending this as guide for those companies - if you are buying from our esteemed branded vendors you do not need HCA or guides like these)
So I thought it would be good to put together a chart to help helpers of newbies.

These are no way final numbers and everything is open to debate and discussion.
This may not even be the best way to present such info.
I have left off depth % - we can debate it - but my PoV is that a VG Tolkowsky with a thick girdle is a great way to get a 1ct RBC and save some money - and apart from a small diameter it makes little difference to the beauty of the diamond.

1598932457137.png
When I imported the table it messed up a bit:
Visual type:Less fire
Bright
More BrightnessBright balancedAll round
(Tolkowsky)
Firey BalancedMore Fire & scintillation
Crown Angle31°- 32°32°- 33°33° - 34°34° - 35°35°- 36°36. 5°
Pavilion Angle41.4°41.2°41.0°40.8°40.6°40.5°
< Risk chipping in rings Suggested Table size range for Carat Weight Small for weight >​
< 0.50ct55-61%55-61%55-61%55-61%55-60%55-60%
0.50 – 0.99ct58-60%58-60%55-60%55-60%55-60%55-60%
1.00-1.99ct57-60%57-60%54-59%54-59%54-59%54-59%
+2ct56-59%56-59%55-58%54-58%54-58%54-58%
Best for:Earrings and Pendants
Bigger Spread – Rings – Smaller Spread​
 
Last edited:

Karl_K

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
10,342
I only recommend what I would buy. I would not generally recommend pretty much everything in
Less fire
Bright
More Brightness
categories.

These categories are highly dependent on the minor facets being in the right range.
Firey BalancedMore Fire & scintillation
 

Karl_K

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
10,342
The nice thing about the near modern tolk range is the wide range of minor facets that work well with them.
Once you move out of that range you end up having to specify the minors and table% to a narrower range to avoid marginal combinations.
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,273
Garry,
Could you explain your statement about thick girdles?

"I have left off depth % - we can debate it - but my PoV is that a VG Tolkowsky with a thick girdle is a great way to get a 1ct RBC and save some money - and apart from a small diameter it makes little difference to the beauty of the diamond."

This seems to contradict one of the underpinnings of your HCA tool that tends to reward spready stones with better scores and/or ratings.

For instance, last time I checked super ideals rarely get an 'excellent' on you spread rating.
 

diamondseeker2006

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
56,002
Garry this is good and I will print it out and keep it handy. But like Karl, I would likely only recommend a range that I am comfortable with: Bright balanced, Towlkowsky, and Firey balanced. Once I looked at a bunch of stones that were 36/40.6 (with IS or ASET) and almost all of them had a ring of light leakage. So that's why I need ASET or IS if the crown angle is more than 35.5 with a 40.6 pa. That would be true on the other side of Towlkowsky, as well.

I think a great idea would be if you could do a video for us to show us 2-3 diamonds from each category with magnified face up image and ASET image. Then we would be able to associate how these numbers look in a stone. An in person training would have been fantastic back in the day when we were in Vegas (although I imagine most vendors didn't travel with a large number of diamonds)! I will tell you one thing I hate due to first hand experience, and that is a very flat crown with a large table. Those don't look good in a ring, IMO.
 

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
15,670
The nice thing about the near modern tolk range is the wide range of minor facets that work well with them.
Once you move out of that range you end up having to specify the minors and table% to a narrower range to avoid marginal combinations.
I agree and I like the idea of adding that Karl.
Any suggestions?
 

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
15,670
Garry,
Could you explain your statement about thick girdles?

"I have left off depth % - we can debate it - but my PoV is that a VG Tolkowsky with a thick girdle is a great way to get a 1ct RBC and save some money - and apart from a small diameter it makes little difference to the beauty of the diamond."

This seems to contradict one of the underpinnings of your HCA tool that tends to reward spready stones with better scores and/or ratings.

For instance, last time I checked super ideals rarely get an 'excellent' on you spread rating.
Hi Bryan,
Yes that is true Bryan.
At https://diamond-cut.com.au/ there are several factors
https://diamond-cut.com.au/17_girdle.htm explains the penalty system for girdle thickness (the text warning is not engaged any more)
And at https://diamond-cut.com.au/14_spread.htm this is the rule:
We choose to give a zero penalty for a diamond with a 40° pavilion, 32.5° crown, 58% table and a 1% girdle, diamonds with better spreads also rate zero. The worst score of 2.0 is given to a diamond with a 10% girdle, 40° crown, 54% table and 43° pavilion. Stones with even worse spreads are not further penalized.
That works out that your beautifully proportioned diamonds would be about on the cusp of VG and Excellent for spread. the main variant would be girdle thickness. Thin would rate excellent. Slightly Thick would drop to VG spread. You can debate my method.

I find it hard to believe that no other labs grading system rewards spread given that it is one of the most desirable consumer features.
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,273
Garry,
Thank you for the references and I will check them out as time allows.

Your last line, though, highlights the contradiction:

On one hand you say that spread is
" one of the most desirable consumer features"

At the same time you argue "a thick girdle is a great way to get a 1ct RBC and save some money - and apart from a small diameter it makes little difference to the beauty of the diamond."
 

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
15,670
36/40.6 (with IS or ASET) and almost all of them had a ring of light leakage.
I think a great idea would be if you could do a video for us to show us 2-3 diamonds from each category with magnified face up image and ASET image.
Good call-out DS
How is this for a start. But I am always reminded of my conversation when I first met Bruce Harding (who passed just over a year ago, sadly).
He argued that my proportions were a bit on the shallow side based on his 1970's head obstruction work and G&G article (still way under valued). But when we discussed it he got the contrast bang bang concept - the scintillation in a round diamond.
1599002516512.png
 

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
15,670
Garry,
Thank you for the references and I will check them out as time allows.

Your last line, though, highlights the contradiction:

On one hand you say that spread is
" one of the most desirable consumer features"

At the same time you argue "a thick girdle is a great way to get a 1ct RBC and save some money - and apart from a small diameter it makes little difference to the beauty of the diamond."
Of course it is a contradiction Bryan, but i would sooner a person who MUST impress with SIZE as the diamond industry has trained people rather than dimensions, or as Looks Like factors in - the apparent size.
Your diamonds do get a boost for apparent size based on the peripheral light return compared to diamonds a little bit deeper&steeper.
The 1ct Steeper Deeper can look like a 0.90ct So too does a Tolkowsky with a 5% girdle will look like your 0.95ct diamonds.
I am way happier for Joe and Jo to have that diamond with a GIA VXX and 20% cheaper than a GIA XXX that is dead and looks like a 0.90ct.
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,273
Garry,
I will have to ponder the logic in your foundational assumption for the HCA - that what “Joe and Jo” really want is a diamond that is very spready and costs less, even though a thin girdle may make the diamond more susceptible to chipping. And by extension, you would have the cutters of super ideals to start cutting thin girdles in order to get an Excellent on the HCA tool.

Yet, at the very same time you are now advocating for thick girdled Tolkowsky cuts as a way to (paraphrasing) get a 1 carat and save some money and have just as beautiful a diamond.

I can’t reconcile those two positions. They are diametrically opposed.
 

Karl_K

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
10,342
I think what Garry is getting at is that instead of cutters cutting steep/deep to force 1.0ct out of a rough that they cut a near tolk with a thicker girdle instead and consumers buy accordingly.
The thicker girdle near tolk will look bigger than the steep/deep despite having the same mm size.
I would rather see neither but agree with Gary that the thicker girdle is the lesser of 2 evils compared to being extremely steep/deep.
 

OoohShiny

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
7,899
I have nothing of great value to add to this excellent thread, other than to say Thank You to everyone for excellent and informative discussions that help us noobs! :))



EDIT: Actually, I'm going to ask a question that is probably of no relevance, but... :tongue:

Q: should there be some sort of metric for 'best for performance on-axis' vs 'best for performance off-axis'?

(ref: Serg's discussions about slightly deeper pavilions potentially providing different/better(?) performance when under binocular viewing, but exhibiting a touch of leakage under head-on and slight-tilt 'scope imaging?)
 

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
15,670
Q: should there be some sort of metric for 'best for performance on-axis' vs 'best for performance off-axis'? (ref: Serg's discussions about slightly deeper pavilions potentially providing different/better(?) performance when under binocular viewing, but exhibiting a touch of leakage under head-on and slight-tilt 'scope imaging?)
That is what I mentioned about Bruce Harding.
Sergey and I have long argued that point. I can agree with him on clean diamond to a point - i.e. there can be more fire, and there is less dark star = brighter on close examination.
But once a diamond has been worn for a day or two it will be dirty on the pavilion side. Diamond gets dirtier than any other known material.
That kills any slightly deeper benefit.
 

Halogirl1130

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Dec 10, 2019
Messages
191
Good call-out DS
How is this for a start. But I am always reminded of my conversation when I first met Bruce Harding (who passed just over a year ago, sadly).
He argued that my proportions were a bit on the shallow side based on his 1970's head obstruction work and G&G article (still way under valued). But when we discussed it he got the contrast bang bang concept - the scintillation in a round diamond.
1599002516512.png
My crown is 34 and pavilion is 41... I’m trying to learn about The ASET and IS and what the colors mean... do you have a link for where I could learn more about this in a simple way I will understand?
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,273
My crown is 34 and pavilion is 41... I’m trying to learn about The ASET and IS and what the colors mean... do you have a link for where I could learn more about this in a simple way I will understand?
There is a wealth of information on this forum. Here is a pretty good article discussing ASET and IS.
 

Halogirl1130

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Dec 10, 2019
Messages
191
There is a wealth of information on this forum. Here is a pretty good article discussing ASET and IS.
Yes, I know there is a TON of info here. I just get really overwhelmed sometimes! I will look at that, thank you! I bought my diamond using the parameters suggested here but I just want to continue learning more!
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,273
Yes, I know there is a TON of info here. I just get really overwhelmed sometimes! I will look at that, thank you! I bought my diamond using the parameters suggested here but I just want to continue learning more!
The folks that stick around to learn more are the ones who end up helping newbies. And that is what makes this forum so special!
 

flyingpig

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
2,487
We can debate on shallow crown, girdle, etc..

But we can all agree on that steep/deep combo is bad (unless we are talking OEC-like VG/G cut with short LGH and smallish table).
 

prs

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 26, 2017
Messages
1,298
We can debate on shallow crown, girdle, etc..

But we can all agree on that steep/deep combo is bad (unless we are talking OEC-like VG/G cut with short LGH and smallish table).
So how would you change those proportions for OECs with, for example, a 50% table and 60% lower half length?
 

flyingpig

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
2,487
So how would you change those proportions for OECs with, for example, a 50% table and 60% lower half length?
OECs and Circular Brilliants are a completely topic. This thread is about Round Brilliants. Maybe I will join the OEC thread you created.
 

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
15,670
There is a
I worry about the PA only having one value as it seems it could be confusing. Could there be ranges in the PA row like there is in the CA row?
The order of importance in terms of affect on diamond proporfamnce:
Pavilion angle, Crown angle, table size, lower girdle, star facet length
A 1 degree variation in pavilion angle requires an inverse 5 degree crown angle variation.
So essentially the variation in crown angle seems more prcatical.
 

OoohShiny

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
7,899
That is what I mentioned about Bruce Harding.
Sergey and I have long argued that point. I can agree with him on clean diamond to a point - i.e. there can be more fire, and there is less dark star = brighter on close examination.
But once a diamond has been worn for a day or two it will be dirty on the pavilion side. Diamond gets dirtier than any other known material.
That kills any slightly deeper benefit.
Thank you for the reply! :))

It is cool that there is room for both viewpoints and a discussion about them - I think that's what makes PS great; it's not just an echo chamber of 'buy these MRB proportions only', even though we do tend to stick within a certain range generally... lol

I can certainly vouch for the dirty diamond issue - the good lady's is filthy 99 days out of 100 as she just doesn't bother cleaning it... :rolleyes:

(See also: her car...)



Tilted to show what your right eye sees
1599093156826.png
Tilted and rotated 22.5 degrees (360/8)
1599093209950.png
Oooooh, I like the Tilt ASET stuff :) I think it's useful for assessing 'real life' performance more thoroughly!

Personally speaking (of course!) I think that more can be made of it - that could also counter off some of the thoughts about ASET only being 'one dimensional' / monocular, for example, and could encourage design innovation in MMD rough cutting :)
 

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
15,670
Thank you for the reply! :))

It is cool that there is room for both viewpoints and a discussion about them - I think that's what makes PS great; it's not just an echo chamber of 'buy these MRB proportions only', even though we do tend to stick within a certain range generally... lol

I can certainly vouch for the dirty diamond issue - the good lady's is filthy 99 days out of 100 as she just doesn't bother cleaning it... :rolleyes:

(See also: her car...)





Oooooh, I like the Tilt ASET stuff :) I think it's useful for assessing 'real life' performance more thoroughly!

Personally speaking (of course!) I think that more can be made of it - that could also counter off some of the thoughts about ASET only being 'one dimensional' / monocular, for example, and could encourage design innovation in MMD rough cutting :)
Here is an overlay of left and right eye view (7 degree/14 degrees) with a twist

1599097655913.png
1599097686201.png
 

Mlh

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Dec 6, 2019
Messages
400
Here is an overlay of left and right eye view (7 degree/14 degrees) with a twist

1599097655913.png
1599097686201.png
Wow
That is great!! Which combo is this one?

@Garry H (Cut Nut) , I love these discussions! I have spent a good amount of time staring at these charts since joining PS...dizzying!! I see that the 33.5/41 looks as good as the 34.5/40.8, but then I recall @Karl_K , @sledge warning about the issue of GIA rounding and the dreaded 41.2 cliff for leakage and the 40.5 cliff in the other direction for obstruction. (Hope I got that right). That's when I go back to the safe zone. :)
 

OoohShiny

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
7,899
Here is an overlay of left and right eye view (7 degree/14 degrees) with a twist

1599097655913.png
1599097686201.png
That is cool! Thank you!

Shows how complex a 'simple' MRB ASET becomes when viewed binocularly :) and how areas of slight leakage (to one eye) might be able to be overcome with brightness (to the other eye)!

(Ha, I didn't even know binocularly was a word :D lol)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mlh
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    What is White Gold?
    What is White Gold?
    Push Present: Engagement Ring Upgrade
    Push Present: Engagement Ring Upgrade
    20th Anniversary Upgrade
    20th Anniversary Upgrade

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top