shape
carat
color
clarity
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Why cut asschers with small corners and windmills?

Discussion in 'RockyTalky' started by strmrdr, Feb 10, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
  1. strmrdr
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    23,295
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    by strmrdr » Feb 10, 2008
    Weight is the only reason.
    All of these are 6.4mmX6.4mm with a depth of 68.3% table 60%.
    The only difference is the size of the corners and windmills.


    With a 24% corner break percentage 1.44ct

    6424144.jpg
     
  2. strmrdr
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    23,295
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    by strmrdr » Feb 10, 2008
    22% and 1.47ct

    6422147.jpg
     
  3. strmrdr
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    23,295
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    by strmrdr » Feb 10, 2008
    20% bingo just hit the magic weight of 1.5ct the cutters boss isnt going too fire him!
    1.51ct

    6420151.jpg
     
  4. strmrdr
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    23,295
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    by strmrdr » Feb 10, 2008
    18% more money! 1.52ct

    6418152.jpg
     
  5. strmrdr
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    23,295
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    by strmrdr » Feb 10, 2008
    16% wooohooo 1.55ct someone is going to get a bonus on the next paycheck!

    6416155.jpg
     
  6. strmrdr
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    23,295
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    by strmrdr » Feb 10, 2008
    14% 1.56ct getting a raise and going to the race track!

    6414156.jpg
     
  7. Ellen
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    24,277
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2006
    by Ellen » Feb 10, 2008
    lmao This is hysterical. [​IMG]
     
  8. Rhea
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    6,193
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    by Rhea » Feb 10, 2008
    S, I don''t know much about asschers. I get the last few windmills are too small and don''t like them, but of the photos in this form I like the look of the second photo. The first photo windmills seem to large for me and the corners are cut too much for my liking.

    What, in your opinion, is the best windmill size?
     
  9. Garry H (Cut Nut)
    Super_Ideal_Rock
    Trade

    Messages:
    14,315
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2000
    by Garry H (Cut Nut) » Feb 10, 2008
    No one will aim for a plan that tight.
    Maybe a 1.55ct plan - a little bit of leeway helps in case there is a little variation in saw plane, and tother stuff that does nt go to plan
    http://images.google.com.au/images?hl=en&rls=GGLL,GGLL:2007-51,GGLL:en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=octahedra&spell=1
     
  10. strmrdr
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    23,295
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    by strmrdr » Feb 10, 2008
    There isnt really an optimal size there is too small and ok.
    24% is my favorite but rare.
    20-22% is likely the zone I'd target if cutting them.
    18% is one of the most common on the market
    16% is very common and on the too small side
    14% is just getting greedy to save weight and there are a whole lot of them out there.
    Most of the the PS list would likely fall into the 14%-18% for the ones that the rest of the numbers line up.
    Thats just another reason you cant buy using numbers on the cert.

    But the main thing is that given the right look any of these can make very pretty diamonds.
    Well 14% is really pushing it....
     
  11. diagem
    Ideal_Rock
    Trade

    Messages:
    4,852
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    by diagem » Feb 10, 2008
    Strm..., what CH do you have the 1.44ct. at?
     
  12. strmrdr
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    23,295
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    by strmrdr » Feb 10, 2008
    real world today it would likely be cut 16%-18%
    16% would make a 1.55 plan.
     
  13. lumpkin
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    2,491
    Joined:
    May 24, 2005
    by lumpkin » Feb 10, 2008
    Storm, I like the two extremes. I like the 1.56, too because for some reason the proportions please me. It looks like a square emerald cut and I like the play along the edges of the diamond. (ETA: It looks like a completely different cut type than the 1.44.) I like the 1.44 too, because the light return seems really even and the proportions are pleasing. The others, meh.
     
  14. diagem
    Ideal_Rock
    Trade

    Messages:
    4,852
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    by diagem » Feb 10, 2008
    Why does it appear like this Storm??
    See the red circles...

    AppearanceAsscher.JPG
     
  15. strmrdr
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    23,295
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    by strmrdr » Feb 10, 2008
    They are all at 21.6% crown height.

    The angle combo for this one is interesting:
    c:
    56
    45
    30
    21.6 height

    P
    46
    41
    34
    43.2 depth

    t: 60%

    girdle 3.5%

    total depth: 68.3

    corner break angle: 45 degrees.

    wire frame side view:
    crown looks better from the top there is some limits in DC that make it impossible too get perfect spacing.

    sideviewva.jpg
     
  16. strmrdr
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    23,295
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    by strmrdr » Feb 10, 2008
    I designed it at 24 and then moved it, would tweak the angles to get rid of that if designing at 22.
    Slight angle interation I am thinking, could also be a DC thing too.
     
  17. diagem
    Ideal_Rock
    Trade

    Messages:
    4,852
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    by diagem » Feb 10, 2008
    Let see the virtual look...
     
  18. strmrdr
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    23,295
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    by strmrdr » Feb 10, 2008
    cant keep it under 70% with those numbers.
    Would come out around 72% or so....
    I went with 46 instead of 50 on the pavilion too make the angle relationship right.
     
  19. diagem
    Ideal_Rock
    Trade

    Messages:
    4,852
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    by diagem » Feb 10, 2008
    Based on 56 c1 and 45 c2 you will get this effect..., try going a bit shallower...

    castepstosteep.JPG
     
  20. diagem
    Ideal_Rock
    Trade

    Messages:
    4,852
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    by diagem » Feb 10, 2008
    See..., you are aligning yourself with numbers too..., just like the 1.50 carat magic number!!!

    Who said something is wrong with 72% td!!!! The beauty will definitely be there...
     
  21. strmrdr
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    23,295
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    by strmrdr » Feb 10, 2008
    had too bump the pavilion back up to 50 to get the light return back up.70.9% depth, 51.4% table CH 21.3.
    c:
    48
    39
    30

    p:
    50
    41
    34.9

    This one would have pretty lousy yield... I''d question being able too sell it at a reasonable price which is why I went 60 in the other one.

    709514depthangles.jpg
     
  22. strmrdr
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    23,295
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    by strmrdr » Feb 10, 2008
    yes but my design goal was high crown and 70% depth and under and reasonable yield.
    The 24% corners are already costing some weight so tried too keep some weight in the crown.
    And marketing over 70% can get rough pardon the pun :}
     
  23. diagem
    Ideal_Rock
    Trade

    Messages:
    4,852
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    by diagem » Feb 10, 2008
    Now..., make the pav 1 a bit shorter in lenght..., are the three pav steps evenly devided in size?
     
  24. diagem
    Ideal_Rock
    Trade

    Messages:
    4,852
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    by diagem » Feb 10, 2008
    Not if you are getting a drop dead gorgeous gem...., or better yet it shouldnt!
     
  25. strmrdr
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    23,295
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    by strmrdr » Feb 10, 2008
    as viewed from the bottom AGS style yes from the side no.
     
  26. diagem
    Ideal_Rock
    Trade

    Messages:
    4,852
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    by diagem » Feb 10, 2008
    Face-up..., realistically are the pav steps even in size?
     
  27. strmrdr
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    23,295
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    by strmrdr » Feb 10, 2008
    meet the moster
    79.3% depth
    27.5% crown height
    27.8 table size
    23.5 corner break percentage

    themonsterside.jpg
     
  28. strmrdr
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    23,295
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    by strmrdr » Feb 10, 2008
    someday I want too have this puppy cut maybe if I ever win the lottery lol

    themonstersback.jpg
     
  29. strmrdr
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    23,295
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    by strmrdr » Feb 10, 2008
    from the top p1 and p3 are even and p2 is slighly smaller.
    Since AGS has specified bottom view thats usualy what I go with.
    Personaly I dont think they shouldnt have too be even cuz I can design better asschers when they arent :}
     
  30. diagem
    Ideal_Rock
    Trade

    Messages:
    4,852
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    by diagem » Feb 10, 2008
    Looking good...[​IMG]

    What are the Pav angles? they dont seem to have to much contrast/range between them?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

Share This Page