nytemist
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2005
- Messages
- 962
I just read this on MSN...
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15195458/?GT1=8618
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15195458/?GT1=8618
I''m sure the shape chosen was simply to retain the most weight after cutting.Date: 10/9/2006 4:34:43 PM
Author: ~*Alexis*~
Its a shame they are wasting the cut on a heart shape, i would have gone with an emerald if it would have allowed it....
I wish I had 12 mil to spend on that!
Yeah I know. Its to bad though. That shape in not that popular I dont think and I would have loved to see it in an emerald or an assher if the inclusions would have allowed it.Date: 10/9/2006 4:39:02 PM
Author: FireGoddess
I''m sure the shape chosen was simply to retain the most weight after cutting.Date: 10/9/2006 4:34:43 PM
Author: ~*Alexis*~
Its a shame they are wasting the cut on a heart shape, i would have gone with an emerald if it would have allowed it....
I wish I had 12 mil to spend on that!
Oh I''m sure of that. Just wonder if over time after studying it some more, what are the chances they will go for a different shape?? Just curious...Date: 10/9/2006 11:26:35 PM
Author: RockDoc
When you have a 12 million dollar piece of rough, you can bet your ''A double scribble'', the plan for cutting it was very throughly studied.
Just studying that piece of rough for cutting may take months, and if a difficult stone, years, before it gets near the cutter''s wheel.
Depends how it crystalized, strain and yield is studied on a stone like this with every conceivable direction of orientation.
Rockdoc