Why cut asschers with small corners and windmills?

[strmrdr]

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

 

[strmrdr]

22% and 1.47ct

 

[strmrdr]

20% bingo just hit the magic weight of 1.5ct the cutters boss isnt going too fire him!
1.51ct

 

[strmrdr]

18% more money! 1.52ct

 

[strmrdr]

16% wooohooo 1.55ct someone is going to get a bonus on the next paycheck!

 

[strmrdr]

14% 1.56ct getting a raise and going to the race track!

 

[Ellen]

lmao This is hysterical.

 

[Rhea]

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?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 2/10/2008 1:15:04 PM
Author: strmrdr
20% bingo just hit the magic weight of 1.5ct the cutters boss isnt going too fire him!
1.51ct

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

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 2/10/2008 1:39:30 PM
Author: Addy
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?

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....

 

[diagem]

Date: 2/10/2008 12:59:29 PM
Author:strmrdr
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

Strm..., what CH do you have the 1.44ct. at?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 2/10/2008 1:50:40 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 2/10/2008 1:15:04 PM
Author: strmrdr
20% bingo just hit the magic weight of 1.5ct the cutters boss isnt going too fire him!
1.51ct

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

real world today it would likely be cut 16%-18%
16% would make a 1.55 plan.

 

[lumpkin]

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.

 

[diagem]

Why does it appear like this Storm??
See the red circles...

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 2/10/2008 2:54:36 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 2/10/2008 12:59:29 PM
Author:strmrdr
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

Strm..., what CH do you have the 1.44ct. at?

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.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 2/10/2008 3:03:47 PM
Author: DiaGem
Why does it appear like this Storm??
See the red circles...

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.

 

[diagem]

Date: 2/10/2008 3:04:54 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 2/10/2008 2:54:36 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 2/10/2008 12:59:29 PM
Author:strmrdr
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

Strm..., what CH do you have the 1.44ct. at?

They are all at 21.6% crown height.

The angle combo for this one is interesting:
c:
56 To steep..., try 48
45 Try 39
30
21.6 height

P
46
41
34
43.2 depth

t: 60% Smaller table based on above changes

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 hard too get perfect spacing.

Let see the virtual look...

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 2/10/2008 3:13:55 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 2/10/2008 3:04:54 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 2/10/2008 2:54:36 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 2/10/2008 12:59:29 PM
Author:strmrdr
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

Strm..., what CH do you have the 1.44ct. at?

They are all at 21.6% crown height.

The angle combo for this one is interesting:
c:
56 To steep..., try 48
45 Try 39
30
21.6 height

P
46
41
34
43.2 depth

t: 60% Smaller table based on above changes

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 hard too get perfect spacing.

Let see the virtual look...

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.

 

[diagem]

Date: 2/10/2008 3:13:55 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 2/10/2008 3:04:54 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 2/10/2008 2:54:36 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 2/10/2008 12:59:29 PM
Author:strmrdr
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

Strm..., what CH do you have the 1.44ct. at?

They are all at 21.6% crown height.

The angle combo for this one is interesting:
c:
56 To steep..., try 48
45 Try 39
30
21.6 height

P
46
41
34
43.2 depth

t: 60% Smaller table based on above changes

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 hard too get perfect spacing.

Let see the virtual look...

Based on 56 c1 and 45 c2 you will get this effect..., try going a bit shallower...

 

[diagem]

Date: 2/10/2008 3:17:03 PM
Author: strmrdr

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.

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...

 

[strmrdr]

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.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 2/10/2008 3:23:16 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 2/10/2008 3:17:03 PM
Author: strmrdr

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.

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...

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 :}

 

[diagem]

Date: 2/10/2008 3:29:52 PM
Author: strmrdr
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.

Now..., make the pav 1 a bit shorter in lenght..., are the three pav steps evenly devided in size?

 

[diagem]

Date: 2/10/2008 3:34:26 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 2/10/2008 3:23:16 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 2/10/2008 3:17:03 PM
Author: strmrdr

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.

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...

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 :}

Not if you are getting a drop dead gorgeous gem...., or better yet it shouldnt!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 2/10/2008 3:35:06 PM
Author: DiaGem
Now..., make the pav 1 a bit shorter in lenght..., are the three pav steps evenly devided in size?

as viewed from the bottom AGS style yes from the side no.

 

[diagem]

Date: 2/10/2008 3:38:56 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 2/10/2008 3:35:06 PM
Author: DiaGem
Now..., make the pav 1 a bit shorter in lenght..., are the three pav steps evenly devided in size?

as viewed from the bottom AGS style yes from the side no.

Face-up..., realistically are the pav steps even in size?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 2/10/2008 3:37:21 PM
Author: DiaGem
Not if you are getting a drop dead gorgeous gem...., or better yet it shouldnt!

meet the moster
79.3% depth
27.5% crown height
27.8 table size
23.5 corner break percentage

 

[strmrdr]

someday I want too have this puppy cut maybe if I ever win the lottery lol

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 2/10/2008 3:44:54 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 2/10/2008 3:38:56 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 2/10/2008 3:35:06 PM
Author: DiaGem
Now..., make the pav 1 a bit shorter in lenght..., are the three pav steps evenly devided in size?

as viewed from the bottom AGS style yes from the side no.

Face-up..., realistically are the pav steps even in size?

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 :}

 

[diagem]

Date: 2/10/2008 3:49:09 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 2/10/2008 3:37:21 PM
Author: DiaGem
Not if you are getting a drop dead gorgeous gem...., or better yet it shouldnt!

meet the moster
79.3% depth
27.5% crown height
27.8 table size
23.5 corner break percentage

Looking good...

What are the Pav angles? they dont seem to have to much contrast/range between them?