- Joined
- Mar 28, 2001
- Messages
- 6,340
If I may pose another question pertaining to proportions which may challenge your thinking.
In the trade we tend to look at the traditions passed onto us from on high and never question it.
Traditionally, total depth has been determined by dividing the depth to the width with no consideration whatsoever to the length. Why not divide the depth by the length? What makes one right and the other wrong?
In Sergey's example the Ideal cut has
80.1% depth according to width alone
57.5% depth according to length alone
66.9% total depth % based on average diameter
The standard oval brilliant ...
61.6% depth based on width alone
44.8% depth based on length alone
51.9% total depth % based on average diameter.
The question we need to ask ourselves is ... what do the optics suggest?
Do oval brilliants with 61.6% total depth percent behave like rounds with 61.6% total depth? OR Do oval brilliants with 61.6% total depth behave more like rounds with 51.9% total depth?
Think about it.
With all respect,
Rhino
In the trade we tend to look at the traditions passed onto us from on high and never question it.
Traditionally, total depth has been determined by dividing the depth to the width with no consideration whatsoever to the length. Why not divide the depth by the length? What makes one right and the other wrong?
In Sergey's example the Ideal cut has
80.1% depth according to width alone
57.5% depth according to length alone
66.9% total depth % based on average diameter
The standard oval brilliant ...
61.6% depth based on width alone
44.8% depth based on length alone
51.9% total depth % based on average diameter.
The question we need to ask ourselves is ... what do the optics suggest?
Do oval brilliants with 61.6% total depth percent behave like rounds with 61.6% total depth? OR Do oval brilliants with 61.6% total depth behave more like rounds with 51.9% total depth?
Think about it.
With all respect,
Rhino