My attempt to take my own Ideal-scope Image

[greengook]

Just playing around with my digital camera and the IS.

 

[greengook]

Another Attempt.

 

[wonka27]

Why are the "arrows" so short? Can anyone explain this?

 

[valeria101]

This is one interesting Q. The stone does not look H&A-ish and gets set into the BIC range by HCA (score 1.3, Vg-Ex-Ex-Ex) - and not too many do around here... Also, few get "excellent" spread among tipical H&A.

I hope you will get the complete Sarin to run a model of this stone and see if Diam Calc approximates well what you see, but in the meantime, I would attempt to explain the look of the arrows by two factors: the length of upper girdle facets (since I see those reflectors between the arrows) and the pavilion height which is a bit less than one would expect from a tipical H&A piece (this could explain why the arrow shafts start forming away from the center of the stone, rezulting in shorter arrows). I could not find a simmilar stone with complete list of brilliance tests, but you could take a look at the tutorial pages about how arrows are formed (LINK) to see where my guess comes from. The other source is GOG's page on minor facets (LINK).

This stone seems to be one good example that those arrows are not needed to obtain top light return, either in direct light conditions or otherwise

What do those harts look like if at all ? If you do not have a H&A viewer at hand, the Iscope could do the trick if you allow the stone to get light not from behind but from between the Iscope and camera (lateral lighting, of course).

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

It is a great photo - it is a H&A's CZ calibration stone

 

[wonka27]

Seriously?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

----------------
On 8/10/2004 4:10:53 PM wonka27 wrote:

Seriously?----------------

Yes

The first one is better, and is pretty much what you see.

 

[Mara]

*deleted post, confusion by lack of coffee*