- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 5,096
8-fold symmetry - just some theory
- Thread starter Paul-Antwerp
- Start date
- Status
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 5,096
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
How many people actualy know enough about it too ask?Date: 2/10/2008 4:19:13 PM
Author: DiaGem
The funny thing..., I spoke to the cutter/owner of the Co. today..., and they said that they have the least request for the ones with the 24%+/- corner breaks!
I guess consumers are creature of habits too...
Whats the most common one asked for?
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 5,096
Due to the fact for easier matching for pairs, lines and layouts...Date: 2/10/2008 4:26:10 PM
Author: strmrdr
How many people actualy know enough about it too ask?Date: 2/10/2008 4:19:13 PM
Author: DiaGem
The funny thing..., I spoke to the cutter/owner of the Co. today..., and they said that they have the least request for the ones with the 24%+/- corner breaks!
I guess consumers are creature of habits too...
Whats the most common one asked for?
The most common used are:
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
18s and 20s kinda figured.Date: 2/10/2008 4:57:27 PM
Author: DiaGem
Due to the fact for easier matching for pairs, lines and layouts...Date: 2/10/2008 4:26:10 PM
Author: strmrdr
How many people actualy know enough about it too ask?Date: 2/10/2008 4:19:13 PM
Author: DiaGem
The funny thing..., I spoke to the cutter/owner of the Co. today..., and they said that they have the least request for the ones with the 24%+/- corner breaks!
I guess consumers are creature of habits too...
Whats the most common one asked for?
The most common used are:
What size are you talking about?
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 5,096
1/3 carats and up...Date: 2/10/2008 6:25:27 PM
Author: strmrdr
18s and 20s kinda figured.Date: 2/10/2008 4:57:27 PM
Author: DiaGem
Due to the fact for easier matching for pairs, lines and layouts...Date: 2/10/2008 4:26:10 PM
Author: strmrdr
How many people actualy know enough about it too ask?Date: 2/10/2008 4:19:13 PM
Author: DiaGem
The funny thing..., I spoke to the cutter/owner of the Co. today..., and they said that they have the least request for the ones with the 24%+/- corner breaks!
I guess consumers are creature of habits too...
Whats the most common one asked for?
The most common used are:
What size are you talking about?
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2002
- Messages
- 2,859
There are very important points that you are all forgetting. Consumer-power and interpreting their desires are strategies with serious limitations.
To start, the rough that cutters are buying, is very expensive. Like Diagem puts it, it reduces the cutter''s propensity to experiment.
One of the reasons why rough diamonds are expensive, is because too many consumers are indeed, Garry, still buying diamonds as a commodity, without any regard on quality whichever way you want to express quality. It is because of this basic demand for ''whatever'' diamond, that huge cutting houses can afford to cut ''whatever'', and use their economies of scale to generate profits. We have a huge task ahead of us of marketing ''quality'' in diamonds, not only to the PS-public, of which more than half is already converted to quality, but to the public in general. In order to achieve this, quality-people should work together, and stay away from the bickering about ''my quality-product'' is slightly better than your ''quality-product''.
At this point in time, almost no consumer is willing to pay considerably more for a quality-diamond. Even while we are talking that certain ''quality-products'' command a premium, in fact, coming from the same rough, most cutters are very happy if they bring in the same money as a general low-quality diamond. It is because consumers do not grasp that weight, colour and clarity are not actual describers of a diamond, they perceive cut-quality as an indicator of a higher price, while this is often not true.
As for consumer-input, Storm, I really respect your efforts in Diamcalc-designing, but when this has no relation with actual rough, it is meaningless. To start, one cannot design without considering the weight-loss.
Second, in DC, one is always designing absolute symmetry. Now, I fully agree that this contributes to overall performance, but the more sophisticated the design, and the more into small details a design is, the more limitations in cutting-technology make it difficult to impossible to achieve this design.
Finally, looking at these specific DC-designs, they look great at first sight, on a stone with a diameter of 60 mm. But we should reduce each design to its real size, and then, I fear that too many small virtual facets will take away from the performance of these designs. In a sense, a majority of diamond-cutters make this same mistake, based upon tradition, by creating faceting-patterns with more facets, thinking (even claiming) that this results in better light-performance. In reality, unless it is a really, really BIG rock, the only result is too many and too small virtual facets, where fire becomes difficult to observe, and where one has no big-size scintillation.
Live long,
To start, the rough that cutters are buying, is very expensive. Like Diagem puts it, it reduces the cutter''s propensity to experiment.
One of the reasons why rough diamonds are expensive, is because too many consumers are indeed, Garry, still buying diamonds as a commodity, without any regard on quality whichever way you want to express quality. It is because of this basic demand for ''whatever'' diamond, that huge cutting houses can afford to cut ''whatever'', and use their economies of scale to generate profits. We have a huge task ahead of us of marketing ''quality'' in diamonds, not only to the PS-public, of which more than half is already converted to quality, but to the public in general. In order to achieve this, quality-people should work together, and stay away from the bickering about ''my quality-product'' is slightly better than your ''quality-product''.
At this point in time, almost no consumer is willing to pay considerably more for a quality-diamond. Even while we are talking that certain ''quality-products'' command a premium, in fact, coming from the same rough, most cutters are very happy if they bring in the same money as a general low-quality diamond. It is because consumers do not grasp that weight, colour and clarity are not actual describers of a diamond, they perceive cut-quality as an indicator of a higher price, while this is often not true.
As for consumer-input, Storm, I really respect your efforts in Diamcalc-designing, but when this has no relation with actual rough, it is meaningless. To start, one cannot design without considering the weight-loss.
Second, in DC, one is always designing absolute symmetry. Now, I fully agree that this contributes to overall performance, but the more sophisticated the design, and the more into small details a design is, the more limitations in cutting-technology make it difficult to impossible to achieve this design.
Finally, looking at these specific DC-designs, they look great at first sight, on a stone with a diameter of 60 mm. But we should reduce each design to its real size, and then, I fear that too many small virtual facets will take away from the performance of these designs. In a sense, a majority of diamond-cutters make this same mistake, based upon tradition, by creating faceting-patterns with more facets, thinking (even claiming) that this results in better light-performance. In reality, unless it is a really, really BIG rock, the only result is too many and too small virtual facets, where fire becomes difficult to observe, and where one has no big-size scintillation.
Live long,
niceice
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2003
- Messages
- 1,792
A quick glance at something like the Rapaport "guide to fancy shapes" demonstrates that there have been many innovative cutters over the years who have tried their hand at creativity, but how many of these new and innovative cuts have enjoyed even a glimmer of interest from the diamond buying public? As a collective group, we may ooh and aah at them when we pass by the sales booth at a trade show, but how many of us are willing to invest actul working capital into buying a new diamond shape for stock and invest the time and money needed to build up a new concept? Not many. The reality is that most people shopping for a diamond are searching for something that their friends will recognize without an explanation. How popular are jewelry designers who do not spend tens of thousands of dollars per month in advertising? Not very. The industry survives on selling a few staples, just as every other market does, there are very few people with the type of discresionary income required to develop a new cut and leave a pile of diamond dust on the floor to be swept off in a pile marked R&D. The money seems to be made by those in our industry who improve upon an existing concept, an existing market. The age old advice of find something that needs improving and improve upon it definitely seems to hold true in our industry. The quest to continually improve upon the cut quality and visual performance of the modern round brilliant (ideal cut) diamond is a business plan that has worked well for many of us. Cutters who have expanded into fine tuning the ever popular princess cut diamond are experiencing equal success. The recent popularity of Asscher and Cushion cut diamonds seems to be a market of slower, but steady profits for those who have entered into that arena. But we don''t see much progress in the realm of less popular cuts such as the marquise, oval, pear shape, etc. and I''m guessing that it''s because we don''t see those shapes appearing as much in the tabloid press as we did in the eighties (?). Leaf through popular magazines which show recent engagements of Hollywood starlets and such and the rings mostly feature Rounds, Asschers, Cushions and the occasional - very occasional marquise or pear. I don''t think I can recall ever seeing a truly proprietary cut featured, just the classics.
When I proposed to Valerie (yes, I''m engaged for those who don''t know) I gave her the Rapaport Guide to Fancy Shapes to give her an idea of what was out there... It was an interesting challenge because Valerie prefers sapphires but wanted a diamond for her engagement ring because I''m in the business (there are sapphires on the side). Valerie carried the magazine around with her everwhere for two weeks and then proudly announced to me one day that she''d decided upon a shape... The Buddha Cut and I swear to God my response was something like "you''re flipping kidding me, right?!?!" and back to the drawing board she went for another couple of weeks, at which point she announced that she had settled upon an Asscher and I embarked on a quest (1.19 carat, E, VS-2 sourced through Daniel K, for those who want to know). I presented the diamond by dropping it in her hand and saying "take this outside for a spin" and she ran outside with Holly (who worked at our store) and there were a bunch of screams and OMG''s about the light play (there was actually some sun out in the Northwest that day) and fifteen minutes later I received a telephone call from Max at D. Vatche wanting "to discuss the alterations that Valerie wanted to make to their ring design" and I actually responded "what alterations, to what ring?" to which Max replied "uh, you do know that you''re getting engaged. Right?" which led me to the realization that Valerie (and Holly) had been working on this for longer than I''d anticipated.
Anyway, I''m not trying to hijack the thread with my proposal, my point is that with all of the options out there and the reality that I could source just about anything (including that Buddha cut) desired, we went forward with an Asscher because that is "different enough" to be unique (enough) but not so different that it needed to be explained, like "it''s a Buddha... yea a Buddha cut diamond. Uh, because it seemed cool, different, unique. Yea, it was a pain to set and doesn''t look anything like a Buddha now that it''s set which is why I have to run around and tell everybody what it is..."
Hindsight is 20/20. Valerie met Paul awhile back when we got together in San Francisco and after hearing about his quest to perfect the princess cut diamond it was announced that one of Paul''s princess cut diamonds was going to have to find it''s way on to Valerie''s neck (the ears have 3/4 carat round ideals in them) and then Paul was told that he was going to have to start working on other shapes because she "is going to need one of each shape as an example of what is out there to help (me) sell diamonds." Huh. When I met her she was all about sapphires and still is, but I think I might have made a mistake when I started introducing her to the cutters because now it''s "I like Paul, I''d like a diamond from Paul" and "I like Yossi, I''d like a diamond from Yossi" and so on. Oh yea, and Paul was "really" helpful with regards to this idea because he just looked at her and said "I think that is a great idea!" (thanks buddy) and Yossi mumbled some C**P about "That would be good, very, very good, and we could design a custom setting for it to set it off, maybe we''ll surround it with some fancy colored diamonds" (and I''m thinking, what did I do to you?!?!). No wonder these guys never introduce me to their wives.
When I proposed to Valerie (yes, I''m engaged for those who don''t know) I gave her the Rapaport Guide to Fancy Shapes to give her an idea of what was out there... It was an interesting challenge because Valerie prefers sapphires but wanted a diamond for her engagement ring because I''m in the business (there are sapphires on the side). Valerie carried the magazine around with her everwhere for two weeks and then proudly announced to me one day that she''d decided upon a shape... The Buddha Cut and I swear to God my response was something like "you''re flipping kidding me, right?!?!" and back to the drawing board she went for another couple of weeks, at which point she announced that she had settled upon an Asscher and I embarked on a quest (1.19 carat, E, VS-2 sourced through Daniel K, for those who want to know). I presented the diamond by dropping it in her hand and saying "take this outside for a spin" and she ran outside with Holly (who worked at our store) and there were a bunch of screams and OMG''s about the light play (there was actually some sun out in the Northwest that day) and fifteen minutes later I received a telephone call from Max at D. Vatche wanting "to discuss the alterations that Valerie wanted to make to their ring design" and I actually responded "what alterations, to what ring?" to which Max replied "uh, you do know that you''re getting engaged. Right?" which led me to the realization that Valerie (and Holly) had been working on this for longer than I''d anticipated.
Anyway, I''m not trying to hijack the thread with my proposal, my point is that with all of the options out there and the reality that I could source just about anything (including that Buddha cut) desired, we went forward with an Asscher because that is "different enough" to be unique (enough) but not so different that it needed to be explained, like "it''s a Buddha... yea a Buddha cut diamond. Uh, because it seemed cool, different, unique. Yea, it was a pain to set and doesn''t look anything like a Buddha now that it''s set which is why I have to run around and tell everybody what it is..."
Hindsight is 20/20. Valerie met Paul awhile back when we got together in San Francisco and after hearing about his quest to perfect the princess cut diamond it was announced that one of Paul''s princess cut diamonds was going to have to find it''s way on to Valerie''s neck (the ears have 3/4 carat round ideals in them) and then Paul was told that he was going to have to start working on other shapes because she "is going to need one of each shape as an example of what is out there to help (me) sell diamonds." Huh. When I met her she was all about sapphires and still is, but I think I might have made a mistake when I started introducing her to the cutters because now it''s "I like Paul, I''d like a diamond from Paul" and "I like Yossi, I''d like a diamond from Yossi" and so on. Oh yea, and Paul was "really" helpful with regards to this idea because he just looked at her and said "I think that is a great idea!" (thanks buddy) and Yossi mumbled some C**P about "That would be good, very, very good, and we could design a custom setting for it to set it off, maybe we''ll surround it with some fancy colored diamonds" (and I''m thinking, what did I do to you?!?!). No wonder these guys never introduce me to their wives.
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
Nice to see you posting today Todd!
I have to agree with much that you said, I invested money in the Jubilee cuts when they came out, after also having stocked a few regency cuts.
How many even remember that they existed? I got a few calls for them, sold some of them here locally, but man, it was like swimming upstream to spawn. I gladly traded in the last couple I had for rounds and went on with my life.
Paul is also right on with his talk about virtual facets and the size of the gem involved. (Hey, here''s a question, how many of you non scientific types can tell me what a virtual facet is? I have had Paul explain it to me several times, as well as Peter Yantzer and John Quixote. I think I understand it, but I would hate to have to expound on it in great detail. Basically the mirrors in the gem create little virtual mirrors like looking into opposing mirrors in the barber shop, and these little mirrors that don''t really exist but do because they are virtual create ever diminishiing reflections that also exist in reality because you can see them, even if they are caused by something that is only virtual. I am going to go take an aspirin now, my head hurts again...)
What most do not know or take the time to think about even if they know it is that in order for dispersion to be detected by the human eye, the flash must be wider than the pupil of the eye for it to be seen. If the flash is narrower than the iris the light is all combined and when combined we see that as white light rather than the beautiful colors of the rainbow that we are looking for. There are charts and diagrams here in Pricescope somewhere and also a great discussion of it when John and I colaborated on one of the live web presentations that can also be found here somewhere.
So while we can get H&A cut mele right on down to little bitty tiny things, I personally like in the .01 and .02ct sizes some nicely cut single cuts. Do not take me wrong, the H&A''s, especially in the .05ct and up range are dynomite! Just don''t look for a lot of dispersion in the tiny ones. LOTS of sparkle, but not much dispersion. It is a thing of physics and the manner in which our eyes process light and sciences of which I am totally not able to hold an intelligent conversation. I read the report that was published in the scientific journal by the AGS research team, but it hurt my head so much I can no longer even remember the name of the journal.
I will leave the science to those with the desire to work through the headaches, suffice it for me that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and a well cut diamond with good symmetry seems to have more beauty for more beholders than poorly cut diamonds.
Wink
I have to agree with much that you said, I invested money in the Jubilee cuts when they came out, after also having stocked a few regency cuts.
How many even remember that they existed? I got a few calls for them, sold some of them here locally, but man, it was like swimming upstream to spawn. I gladly traded in the last couple I had for rounds and went on with my life.
Paul is also right on with his talk about virtual facets and the size of the gem involved. (Hey, here''s a question, how many of you non scientific types can tell me what a virtual facet is? I have had Paul explain it to me several times, as well as Peter Yantzer and John Quixote. I think I understand it, but I would hate to have to expound on it in great detail. Basically the mirrors in the gem create little virtual mirrors like looking into opposing mirrors in the barber shop, and these little mirrors that don''t really exist but do because they are virtual create ever diminishiing reflections that also exist in reality because you can see them, even if they are caused by something that is only virtual. I am going to go take an aspirin now, my head hurts again...)
What most do not know or take the time to think about even if they know it is that in order for dispersion to be detected by the human eye, the flash must be wider than the pupil of the eye for it to be seen. If the flash is narrower than the iris the light is all combined and when combined we see that as white light rather than the beautiful colors of the rainbow that we are looking for. There are charts and diagrams here in Pricescope somewhere and also a great discussion of it when John and I colaborated on one of the live web presentations that can also be found here somewhere.
So while we can get H&A cut mele right on down to little bitty tiny things, I personally like in the .01 and .02ct sizes some nicely cut single cuts. Do not take me wrong, the H&A''s, especially in the .05ct and up range are dynomite! Just don''t look for a lot of dispersion in the tiny ones. LOTS of sparkle, but not much dispersion. It is a thing of physics and the manner in which our eyes process light and sciences of which I am totally not able to hold an intelligent conversation. I read the report that was published in the scientific journal by the AGS research team, but it hurt my head so much I can no longer even remember the name of the journal.
I will leave the science to those with the desire to work through the headaches, suffice it for me that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and a well cut diamond with good symmetry seems to have more beauty for more beholders than poorly cut diamonds.
Wink
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 5,096
Firstly... congrats on your engagement....
My background comes from Diamond design..., but I must admit and say most new cuts are not pure innovations...
I would identify them more as newer modified classic cuts, except maybe a few...
The problem as mentioned above is:
A) The enormous cost of material.
B) The majority of cutters are creatures of habits stuck on the past practices.
C) Most cutters are not familiarized with the actual light behaviour within the Diamond material (except on old known cuts..., and also based on trial & error and not scientific...)
D) The strategic fashion or business model it take to launch a new cut into an(old-fashioned) jewelry industry.
E) The enormous investment needed for ongoing marketing after the launch-off!!!
F) adaption of a new cut to a jewelry design so they complement each other in an innovative way...
And a few more.....
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
Paul I have a ton of respect for you but I busted up laughing at that comment.
Its a 3p-3c asscher cut, the virtual facets is what determines what type of face up appearance a step cut has.
all of these will have huge scint events when the pavilion steps fire as its tilted.
Notice the location of the virtual facets that I pointed out with the blue arrows.
The difference in the 2 stones is the location of the 2 virtual facets both have exactly the same number of real facets.
They are the same 2 virtual facets create the same way just in different locations.
In the third more virtual facets were created than 2.
Virtual facets are a huge part of any asscher design and it would be a very ugly stone without them.
I have verified that the same movement of virtual facets takes place in real stones of that look.
Now are these virtual facets hard to control in real stones, you bet they are.
So you are right DC is a lot easier than cutting rough.
That''s why well cut asschers are rare because the cutter not only has too take into account real facets, but virtual facets as well much more so than a round or princess cut.
The majority of asschers on the market are drop style because they retain the most weight and they are easy.
You could target one specific style of asscher but I doubt very many other cutters could other than the drop style on a consistent basis without using more pavilion facets.
I''m not into designing new cuts I''m working on refining the asscher cut mainly because of all the possibilities it has in the design.
Honestly I don''t care if they are ever cut because I learn something new every one I do.
Every once in the while I share my passion with others here most wont understand, too others its just eyecandy thats kewl too :}
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
niceice
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2003
- Messages
- 1,792
Long winded? Storm, long winded? It''s just too funny not to quote
As DiaGem points out, most of the "new" diamond cuts are not new innovations, but rather tweaks on an existing design. Flipping through the guide to fancy shapes was entertaining to me to that extent because so many of the "proprietary cuts" are merely a branded version of an existing cut with little, if any, change in the general structure - paid advertistement type placement in the guide?
I was fortunate to have Paul out for a visit so that he was able to demonstrate the concept of visual facets in-person which saved all kinds of grief I''m sure. As I understand it, a virtual facet is the appearance of a larger facet created by the presence of smaller facets in the form of a reflective surface or image. For instance, the upper girdle facets are small elongated rectangle shaped surfaces which combine to look like one large reflective surface when viewed from a distance - the facet line which divides the two upper girdle facets is not distinctly visible to the observer without close scrutiny or magnification. The scintillation effects discussed are created by the combination of a variety of physical facets appearing to create "virtual facets".
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
hehehehehehe thats the longest post iv done in a long time.....Date: 2/11/2008 2:40:27 PM
Author: niceice
Long winded? Storm, long winded? It''s just too funny not to quote
As DiaGem points out, most of the ''new'' diamond cuts are not new innovations, but rather tweaks on an existing design. Flipping through the guide to fancy shapes was entertaining to me to that extent because so many of the ''proprietary cuts'' are merely a branded version of an existing cut with little, if any, change in the general structure - paid advertistement type placement in the guide?
I was fortunate to have Paul out for a visit so that he was able to demonstrate the concept of visual facets in-person which saved all kinds of grief I''m sure. As I understand it, a virtual facet is the appearance of a larger facet created by the presence of smaller facets in the form of a reflective surface or image. For instance, the upper girdle facets are small elongated rectangle shaped surfaces which combine to look like one large reflective surface when viewed from a distance - the facet line which divides the two upper girdle facets is not distinctly visible to the observer without close scrutiny or magnification. The scintillation effects discussed are created by the combination of a variety of physical facets appearing to create ''virtual facets''.
Pretty much all the new diamond cuts iv seen promoted are nothing but gemstones cuts from the 50s applied too diamonds. There isn''t much you can do with rough that hasn''t been tried before.
virtual facets can also split physical facets not just combine to make one large one.
Asschers split large facets with virtual facets.
It is viewing distance dependant, because they do rely on virtual facets the use of reflectors is problematic because the head shadow and distance with change the interaction of the virtual facets.
Take an asscher cut and hold it right beside a super-ideal round.
look at it at 8 inches then slowly move them out too 24 inches.
The asscher will have 100x the difference in appearance than the round :}
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,717
Paul this was a piece of excellent
reporting
Most luxury "want" based industry's have a demand driven basis.
Storm's pursuit to design a bette looking asscher is well founded.
He sent me his models and Paul i think you could make money on one of them, but the supply driven market would not think they were a recognizable enough commodity.
The point is that Storm and his activity can help change the supply basis to a demand basis.
For that reason my little band of hooded forest dwellers (the cut group) are holding our second diamond cut conference next year. We want to do as Paul said - stop this silly "my diamond is the most brilliant ever" business that every new cut designer / owner seems to say - it basically says to everyone out there wanting to buy something different / special / at the level in our lifestyles that we have eveolved to "we trinket traders are all a pack of liars and cheats".
There is a problem I have identified - we have a supply based industry.Date: 2/11/2008 10:39:37 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
There are very important points that you are all forgetting. Consumer-power and interpreting their desires are strategies with serious limitations.
To start, the rough that cutters are buying, is very expensive. Like Diagem puts it, it reduces the cutter's propensity to experiment. I think some of Storms designs can be rather good yeilding options
One of the reasons why rough diamonds are expensive, is because too many consumers are indeed, Garry, still buying diamonds as a commodity, without any regard on quality whichever way you want to express quality. It is because of this basic demand for 'whatever' diamond, that huge cutting houses can afford to cut 'whatever', and use their economies of scale to generate profits. Sergey identifys the problem as starting with De Beers 1940's "a diamond is forever" which led to the idea that if we will live with this woman forever we must give her a symbol that will last forever. So diamond became a brand of a necessity, and the nature of woman confirmed it was a good idea. So diamond the "need" was born. Any diamond will do to fulfil a need, one that sparkles is no more a diamond than one that does not when that is the case.
We have a huge task ahead of us of marketing 'quality' in diamonds, not only to the PS-public, of which more than half is already converted to quality, but to the public in general. In order to achieve this, quality-people should work together, and stay away from the bickering about 'my quality-product' is slightly better than your 'quality-product'. In all brand positioning the idea of quality should focus on moving above the economic need (I need a diamond, any diamond will do for the least cost and easiest convenience - a small japanese car that is cheap and reliable), to something with quality that gives me emotional value, it should have some socially accepted kewlness, a VW bug, merc,bMW etc. But if I am important and a leader with large goals and aspirations I need to support my identity, I need a diamond that turns heads and outshines all her friends and most especially is more sparkly than the staff her report to her. I need a ferrari or lamborghini (sorry john, you are reading i know, I deliberately left out Porsche just to niggle you because you are out wandering in the desert, and can not retort). Of course we understand the need for Nicer Ice Todd, and you would surely have been happy (I am guesing) to find something unique and special if the Buddha had some life and sparkle?
At this point in time, almost no consumer is willing to pay considerably more for a quality-diamond. Even while we are talking that certain 'quality-products' command a premium, in fact, coming from the same rough, most cutters are very happy if they bring in the same money as a general low-quality diamond. It is because consumers do not grasp that weight, colour and clarity are not actual describers of a diamond, they perceive cut-quality as an indicator of a higher price, while this is often not true.
As for consumer-input, Storm, I really respect your efforts in Diamcalc-designing, but when this has no relation with actual rough, it is meaningless. To start, one cannot design without considering the weight-loss.
Second, in DC, one is always designing absolute symmetry. Now, I fully agree that this contributes to overall performance, but the more sophisticated the design, and the more into small details a design is, the more limitations in cutting-technology make it difficult to impossible to achieve this design.
Finally, looking at these specific DC-designs, they look great at first sight, on a stone with a diameter of 60 mm. But we should reduce each design to its real size, and then, I fear that too many small virtual facets will take away from the performance of these designs. In a sense, a majority of diamond-cutters make this same mistake, based upon tradition, by creating faceting-patterns with more facets, thinking (even claiming) that this results in better light-performance. In reality, unless it is a really, really BIG rock, the only result is too many and too small virtual facets, where fire becomes difficult to observe, and where one has no big-size scintillation.
Live long,
Most luxury "want" based industry's have a demand driven basis.
Storm's pursuit to design a bette looking asscher is well founded.
He sent me his models and Paul i think you could make money on one of them, but the supply driven market would not think they were a recognizable enough commodity.
The point is that Storm and his activity can help change the supply basis to a demand basis.
For that reason my little band of hooded forest dwellers (the cut group) are holding our second diamond cut conference next year. We want to do as Paul said - stop this silly "my diamond is the most brilliant ever" business that every new cut designer / owner seems to say - it basically says to everyone out there wanting to buy something different / special / at the level in our lifestyles that we have eveolved to "we trinket traders are all a pack of liars and cheats".
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 5,096
I remember Gabi Tolkowsky ones said...Date: 2/11/2008 2:25:03 PM
Author: strmrdr
Paul I have a ton of respect for you but I busted up laughing at that comment.
Its a 3p-3c asscher cut, the virtual facets is what determines what type of face up appearance a step cut has.
all of these will have huge scint events when the pavilion steps fire as its tilted.
And if I am not mistaken, virtual facets on step cuts are nothing like virtual facets on brilliant cuts!
The size of the Diamond matters more when brilliant virtual facets are the topic. (again..., just my humble opinion...)
Notice the location of the virtual facets that I pointed out with the blue arrows.
The difference in the 2 stones is the location of the 2 virtual facets both have exactly the same number of real facets.
They are the same 2 virtual facets create the same way just in different locations.
In the third more virtual facets were created than 2.
Virtual facets are a huge part of any asscher design and it would be a very ugly stone without them.
I have verified that the same movement of virtual facets takes place in real stones of that look.
Now are these virtual facets hard to control in real stones, you bet they are.
So you are right DC is a lot easier than cutting rough.
That''s why well cut asschers are rare because the cutter not only has too take into account real facets, but virtual facets as well much more so than a round or princess cut.
The majority of asschers on the market are drop style because they retain the most weight and they are easy.
You could target one specific style of asscher but I doubt very many other cutters could other than the drop style on a consistent basis without using more pavilion facets.
I''m not into designing new cuts I''m working on refining the asscher cut mainly because of all the possibilities it has in the design.
Honestly I don''t care if they are ever cut because I learn something new every one I do.
Keep doing this storm..., it is intriguing..., and a learning experience even for the pro''s...
Every once in the while I share my passion with others here most wont understand, too others its just eyecandy thats kewl too :}
The most he learned on cutting was when cutting large (very large) Diamonds..., he could see himself reflecting inside the stone''s facets...
And that was before the luxury we have today using technology!!!
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
Right in an RB the position of each facet is fixed there for a larger stone will have larger virtual facets where with asschers you could make a 1ct with bigger virtual facets than a 2ct.Date: 2/11/2008 3:42:34 PM
Author: DiaGem
Date: 2/11/2008 2:25:03 PM
Author: strmrdr
Paul I have a ton of respect for you but I busted up laughing at that comment.
Its a 3p-3c asscher cut, the virtual facets is what determines what type of face up appearance a step cut has.
all of these will have huge scint events when the pavilion steps fire as its tilted.
And if I am not mistaken, virtual facets on step cuts are nothing like virtual facets on brilliant cuts!
The size of the Diamond matters more when brilliant virtual facets are the topic. (again..., just my humble opinion...)
You cant do that with a 57 facet RB.
You can play with the stars and lgf% and a lesser extent the angles until you get out of the tic range and change the virtual facet size but its a small change. BIC and FIC will have different virtual facets than a TIC, but within the TIC range the range of sizes of the virtual facets is very limited.
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,717
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
well Iv made a monster square and a monster octagon but haven''t figured out how too do the corner facets yet for an asscher but have only spent a couple hours on it so far.Date: 2/13/2008 1:51:45 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
How is it going with Cut Designer Storm?
If you have anything sedn it to me and I will see if I can do a bit of optimization for you with DC pro
Got sidetracked playing around with squares.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,717
It is worth reading the manual, which hides in Start>Programs>DiamCalc>User Manual - scrol to almost 1/2 way down as it is a 90 page manual. (There is so much inside this software it blows my brain)Date: 2/13/2008 2:02:14 AM
Author: strmrdr
well Iv made a monster square and a monster octagon but haven''t figured out how too do the corner facets yet for an asscher but have only spent a couple hours on it so far.Date: 2/13/2008 1:51:45 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
How is it going with Cut Designer Storm?
If you have anything sedn it to me and I will see if I can do a bit of optimization for you with DC pro
Got sidetracked playing around with squares.
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
In my response above I expressed my opinion of what virtual facets were, roughly, and Todd expressed a similar but diametrically opposed opinion. Todd, Paul Slegers, John Pollard and I have since had discussions about this, and it helps me to better understand what some of the light scientists are talking about in a more thorough manner than my previous post and adds a further dimension into the discussion because it also takes into consideration not only optical symmetry, but also tilt and its affect on the appearance and performance of virtual facets.
I am going to enclose a portion of that discussion, with Paul and John''s permission, in this post for you to understand a little better not only the complexity of the issue, but the depth of their understanding of it. I have had the great fortune of sitting in a room with John Pollard and Peter Yantzer of the AGS and listening to them discuss this same issue, and trust me, it is incredibly complex. Some of the greatest minds on the planet have attacked this issue of diamond performance and its affect on scintillation and they are not yet fully satisfied that they have captured the full essence of it, but they are definitely getting close!
Here is the result of an email discussion between some of us who are cut obsessed. Thanks to John P for the graphics. I think my mind is finally beginning to actually absorb this as it seems quite straight forward this time. For those who wish further explanation, perhaps someone who is more search literate can find the threads where we discussed the issues of the length of the flash of color and the need for it to be longer than the width of the pupil for the dispersion to actually show. I particularly enjoyed the reference to Marty Haske''s work.
Virtual facets are the appearance of smaller facets within larger facets, in the form of surfaces or images, which occur due to reflection and refraction within a diamond. You can see simulated virtual facets in DiamCalc by selecting "Draft + Single Reflection" (see virtualfacet-01.jpg and virtualfacet-02.jpg). Remember that when looking at the computer-example in this graphic there is an assumption of perfect optical symmetry [cut precision] and no tilt. Since Infinity diamonds are cut with such high precision it is applicable to our product for this example, but the vast majority of diamonds in "real life" would display very chaotic, unordered virtual facets even in a perfectly non-tilted position.
Looking at virtualfacet-03.jpg you can see that as our diamond tilts the frequency and size of the virtual facets shifts and changes. As we go to 5, 10 and 15 degrees ''south'' and ''east'' the frequency of the virtual facets increases and their size decreases. In such a small object it''s easy to see how fast these virtual facets become tiny and reduce the possibility of seeing fire (understanding AGS research on fire mapping/human vision aids comprehension of this). Since the AGS light performance system accounts for how a diamond fares when tilted to 15 degrees at different compass points - another example of how they are leading the field – we can easily understand how round and princess diamonds with top optical symmetry [cut precision] and proper facet structure for their size [chevrons on princess] are scoring well in terms of scintillation: More ''scintillation events'' in the medium and large range are visible with such stones through a practical range of tilt.
There is even more to come regarding not only the size of the events but the intensity of color: Marty Haske, a leading specialist in diamond optics, has done research showing that top optical symmetry [cut precision] results in purer spectral hues during scintillation. This is because virtual facets in precisely cut stones are more orderly so the fresnels don''t mix. Put in simple terms, precisely cut stones have less color-mixing in their scintillation so your eye will see more intense, pure-colored flares than the mixed pastels and earth tones seen in less precisely cut diamonds.
There you have it, direct from the mouth, or should I say fingers, of Paul Slegers, with additional reference to the research of Marty Haske.
Wink
I am going to enclose a portion of that discussion, with Paul and John''s permission, in this post for you to understand a little better not only the complexity of the issue, but the depth of their understanding of it. I have had the great fortune of sitting in a room with John Pollard and Peter Yantzer of the AGS and listening to them discuss this same issue, and trust me, it is incredibly complex. Some of the greatest minds on the planet have attacked this issue of diamond performance and its affect on scintillation and they are not yet fully satisfied that they have captured the full essence of it, but they are definitely getting close!
Here is the result of an email discussion between some of us who are cut obsessed. Thanks to John P for the graphics. I think my mind is finally beginning to actually absorb this as it seems quite straight forward this time. For those who wish further explanation, perhaps someone who is more search literate can find the threads where we discussed the issues of the length of the flash of color and the need for it to be longer than the width of the pupil for the dispersion to actually show. I particularly enjoyed the reference to Marty Haske''s work.
Virtual facets are the appearance of smaller facets within larger facets, in the form of surfaces or images, which occur due to reflection and refraction within a diamond. You can see simulated virtual facets in DiamCalc by selecting "Draft + Single Reflection" (see virtualfacet-01.jpg and virtualfacet-02.jpg). Remember that when looking at the computer-example in this graphic there is an assumption of perfect optical symmetry [cut precision] and no tilt. Since Infinity diamonds are cut with such high precision it is applicable to our product for this example, but the vast majority of diamonds in "real life" would display very chaotic, unordered virtual facets even in a perfectly non-tilted position.
Looking at virtualfacet-03.jpg you can see that as our diamond tilts the frequency and size of the virtual facets shifts and changes. As we go to 5, 10 and 15 degrees ''south'' and ''east'' the frequency of the virtual facets increases and their size decreases. In such a small object it''s easy to see how fast these virtual facets become tiny and reduce the possibility of seeing fire (understanding AGS research on fire mapping/human vision aids comprehension of this). Since the AGS light performance system accounts for how a diamond fares when tilted to 15 degrees at different compass points - another example of how they are leading the field – we can easily understand how round and princess diamonds with top optical symmetry [cut precision] and proper facet structure for their size [chevrons on princess] are scoring well in terms of scintillation: More ''scintillation events'' in the medium and large range are visible with such stones through a practical range of tilt.
There is even more to come regarding not only the size of the events but the intensity of color: Marty Haske, a leading specialist in diamond optics, has done research showing that top optical symmetry [cut precision] results in purer spectral hues during scintillation. This is because virtual facets in precisely cut stones are more orderly so the fresnels don''t mix. Put in simple terms, precisely cut stones have less color-mixing in their scintillation so your eye will see more intense, pure-colored flares than the mixed pastels and earth tones seen in less precisely cut diamonds.
There you have it, direct from the mouth, or should I say fingers, of Paul Slegers, with additional reference to the research of Marty Haske.
Wink
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 5,096
Date: 2/13/2008 5:05:34 PM
Author: Wink
In my response above I expressed my opinion of what virtual facets were, roughly, and Todd expressed a similar but diametrically opposed opinion. Todd, Paul Slegers, John Pollard and I have since had discussions about this, and it helps me to better understand what some of the light scientists are talking about in a more thorough manner than my previous post and adds a further dimension into the discussion because it also takes into consideration not only optical symmetry, but also tilt and its affect on the appearance and performance of virtual facets.
I am going to enclose a portion of that discussion, with Paul and John's permission, in this post for you to understand a little better not only the complexity of the issue, but the depth of their understanding of it. I have had the great fortune of sitting in a room with John Pollard and Peter Yantzer of the AGS and listening to them discuss this same issue, and trust me, it is incredibly complex. Some of the greatest minds on the planet have attacked this issue of diamond performance and its affect on scintillation and they are not yet fully satisfied that they have captured the full essence of it, but they are definitely getting close!
Here is the result of an email discussion between some of us who are cut obsessed. Thanks to John P for the graphics. I think my mind is finally beginning to actually absorb this as it seems quite straight forward this time. For those who wish further explanation, perhaps someone who is more search literate can find the threads where we discussed the issues of the length of the flash of color and the need for it to be longer than the width of the pupil for the dispersion to actually show. I particularly enjoyed the reference to Marty Haske's work.
Virtual facets are the appearance of smaller facets within larger facets, in the form of surfaces or images, which occur due to reflection and refraction within a diamond. You can see simulated virtual facets in DiamCalc by selecting 'Draft + Single Reflection' (see virtualfacet-01.jpg and virtualfacet-02.jpg). Remember that when looking at the computer-example in this graphic there is an assumption of perfect optical symmetry [cut precision] and no tilt. Since Infinity diamonds are cut with such high precision it is applicable to our product for this example, but the vast majority of diamonds in 'real life' would display very chaotic, unordered virtual facets even in a perfectly non-tilted position.
I would imagine "chaotic" virtual facets could make the appearance of a Diamond more interesting while being less uniformed.
Looking at virtualfacet-03.jpg you can see that as our diamond tilts the frequency and size of the virtual facets shifts and changes. As we go to 5, 10 and 15 degrees 'south' and 'east' the frequency of the virtual facets increases and their size decreases. In such a small object it's easy to see how fast these virtual facets become tiny and reduce the possibility of seeing fire (understanding AGS research on fire mapping/human vision aids comprehension of this). Since the AGS light performance system accounts for how a diamond fares when tilted to 15 degrees at different compass points - another example of how they are leading the field – we can easily understand how round and princess diamonds with top optical symmetry [cut precision] and proper facet structure for their size [chevrons on princess] are scoring well in terms of scintillation: More 'scintillation events' in the medium and large range are visile with such stones through a practical range of tilt.
I would imagine that RB's with shorter lgf's or Princess cuts with fewer and wider chevron facets would have even larger "scint. events" ..., but then i understand they might be dropped off the Ideal cut list...
Could be a type of catch 22....
There is even more to come regarding not only the size of the events but the intensity of color: Marty Haske, a leading specialist in diamond optics, has done research showing that top optical symmetry [cut precision] results in purer spectral hues during scintillation. This is because virtual facets in precisely cut stones are more orderly so the fresnels don't mix. Put in simple terms, precisely cut stones have less color-mixing in their scintillation so your eye will see more intense, pure-colored flares than the mixed pastels and earth tones seen in less precisely cut diamonds.
Again..., I would imagine more color mixing in the scint. might be somehow more desirable...., maybe???
There you have it, direct from the mouth, or should I say fingers, of Paul Slegers, with additional reference to the research of Marty Haske.
Wink
It sounds to me that the whole issue of scintillation could easily fall into the beauty category of:
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"....
Me for example...., I am not too fond on uniformed appearances..., just my personal opinion....
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 5,096
- Status
300x240.png)