some reading

[Stephan]

If you like to read, I''ve found this patent on internet.
http://patents.ic.gc.ca/cipo/cpd/en/patent/2426864/summary.html
The drawings caught my attention.
Interesting if you take the time.

 

[aveda6]

This is actually pretty interesting albeit a tough read if you''re not into patents....

 

[Stephan]

If I understood: a high crown is not necessarily a sign of a lot of fire, it''s more a question of ranges.

 

[strmrdr]

That is from the GIA first attempt at a cut study that was totally discredited and abandoned.
I wouldn''t give much weight to anything contained in it.

 

[Stephan]

Interesting.
Do you remember why this study, that seems to give shallow diamond good scores, was discredited?
I wonder why the actual grading system, that accepts very deep stones as ideal, is not discredited at yet.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/14/2009 7:03:07 PM
Author: QueenMum
Interesting.

Do you remember why this study, that seems to give shallow diamond good scores, was discredited?

I wonder why the actual grading system, that accepts very deep stones as ideal, is not discredited at yet.

they just said take it or leave it with the current system and since it suits the cutters just fine it got used.
There are some threads around about the older study in the archives.
It was before my time on PS by about a year.

 

[Diamond Explorer]

There is alot of data there for sure. Too much to give a concise picture. No wonder why its discredited.

 

[Stephan]

Date: 4/14/2009 7:08:55 PM
Author: strmrdr
they just said take it or leave it with the current system and since it suits the cutters just fine it got used.

I''m with you!

 

[Stephan]

Date: 4/14/2009 8:02:02 PM
Author: Diamond Explorer
There is alot of data there for sure. Too much to give a concise picture. No wonder why its discredited.

The new system is it not much more concise.
Yet it is still there.
This patent mainly deals with the fire found in round diamonds.
Is that not why it was abandoned?

I find this patent exciting if one takes the time to read it.
I do not think it lacks concision, but unfortunately it is not exhaustive.
It only mentions a fraction of all possible combinations, and I would not dare to blame the patent owner.