95girl

Help Needed-Finding A Good Tolkowsky/hearts And Arrows

17 posts in this topic

 

Hi.So,I've been seeing that websites don't offer options to search based on star facet % crown angle,pavillion angle etc. they omit them from their options.The thing is,I wish to buy a diamond with tolkowsky's proportions,plus girdle,but every ASET I see has some "side effects" at the bottom of arrows,while some diamonds close to the tolkowsky model,don't.I understand that a good Hearts and arrows has a VERY narrow range of possible proportions,so can you please tell me how to search that options OR a reliable website where I could buy tolkowsky diamonds?Thanks in advance!

Like This

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I understand - you seem to conflate "Tolkowsky proportions" (whatever that means - he indicated a huge range as providing good visual results) with H&A, which is a symmetry pattern having very little to do with what Tolkowsky wrote.

 

You then mention "side effects" at the bottom of arrows in ASET (which is not a reflector technology designed to display arrows, though it often does) without actually explaining what these are... which adds to the confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I remember Tolkowsky family does produce diamonds but they don't sell to online retailers.

 

Can you upload a picture of what you're seeing as side effects on ASET maps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/0.730-g-si1-round-diamond-ags-104084692004

 

http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/0.534-g-vs1-round-diamond-ags-104091064031

 

At the bottom of the arrows,blue represents contrast.I've seen patterns of perfect ASET scopes,without that additional spots below/around the arrows.And I found out this didn't happen with tolkowsky proportions

Edited by 95girl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, that makes one part of the question clearer. Easier to click links below, for others to comment/check:

 

http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/0.534-g-vs1-round-diamond-ags-104091064031

http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/0.730-g-si1-round-diamond-ags-104084692004

 

1) "Tolkowsky proportions" have nothing to do with that. The extremely simplified 2-D ray tracing proposed by Tolkowsky in 1919 did not take anything into account beyond table, pavilion mains and crown kites. The pattern that bothers you is created by the interactions of other facets...

 

2) In his analysis, Tolkowsky specified a 53% table. Which I believe is too small (or right at-the-edge of what's possible) to form a proper hearts pattern (which, incidentally, uses fairly arbitrary proportions in its definition). The other problem with a 53% table is that it's decidedly out-of-fashion, so not many are cut.

 

3) I'd be very cautious about the "ASET" images without those extra contrast areas - as far as I know, the only "legitimate" way to eliminate them is to re-orient the angles of the upper and lower girdle facets in what is known as 'painting'. If done correctly, there is nothing wrong with it, but since it can be used to retain weight, GIA frowns upon it and penalises cutters that use the technique, so it's no longer popular either. The early (say until ~2007) Hearts-on-Fire used this style of cutting.

 

The other reason for being cautious is that taking good photographic ASET images is not easy, and a lot of details can be obfuscated by poor technique (deliberate or otherwise), and some methods for producing an ASET (e.g. some types of scan-and-compute software) may simply not be accurate enough to reproduce the issue.

 

4) The most interesting question for me remains: have you actually seen one of these "faultless" diamonds? And compared it to something like the two "defective" ones you have linked above?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm aware that Tolkowsky did not mention star length,which does affect the hearts and arrows,nor lower girdle percentage.to me,the following values are ok

 

55% table

34.5 crown angle

40.7,40.8 pavillion angle

76-77% lower girdle halves

43.1% depth

16.2% crown

Star 45-50% (sometimes I ran into 47,48 and 50)

 

Girdle: any type except bruted,and any %

 

What I mean by ASET is not the one which is posted on briangavin as photos,along with other images,but the AGSL digital image on the certificate.THAT one shows additional defects when compared to just ASET

And yes I have seen "faultless" diamonds before...after countless minutes of searching.one had these exact proportions.I will post the image when I find one again

 

 

 

EDIT example of Good ASET but with "noisy" pattern on certificate. http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/0.534-g-vs1-round-diamond-ags-104091064031

Example of mostly clean digital pattern (I have seen even better,but I only found this in my bookmarks). http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/0.701-j-vs2-round-diamond-ags-104084684032#!prettyPhoto%5Bgallery2%5D/1/

Edited by 95girl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question was specifically whether you had seen with your eyes, in real life, one of these (supposedly) faultless diamonds, and compared it to a "faulty" one... I would bet you $100 to a button that you cannot tell the difference without a loupe and other accoutrements.

 

The digitally-derived ASET images are - in my opinion - suspect, if nothing else because of the successive approximations introduced by scanning and then ray-tracing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question was specifically whether you had seen with your eyes, in real life, one of these (supposedly) faultless diamonds, and compared it to a "faulty" one... I would bet you $100 to a button that you cannot tell the difference without a loupe and other accoutrements.

 

The digitally-derived ASET images are - in my opinion - suspect, if nothing else because of the successive approximations introduced by scanning and then ray-tracing.

I wish I had seen one in real life,I would have enjoyed an experience like this.I surely would have asked to see it.My trusted jeweler,who sold me my first diamond (not hearts and arrows) said he didn't have any of those (unless I ordered one) and that they were expensive compared to other diamonds.Most jewelers in my town usually have very small diamonds already available or even none unless preordered,but no hearts and arrows.I'm a mineral lover,and that type of diamonds is my ultimate goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't find the last two examples significantly different from the other two - which makes me think I'm looking at the wrong things, perhaps? Do I understand correctly that what worries you are the two "things" highlighted in here (set of 8 for solid and set of 8 for dashed)? Apologies for picking a Whiteflash stone, but BG makes it very difficult to access their images... it's a 0.7 G/SI1, so comparable to the other 4, I think.

post-11046-0-33772700-1492445854_thumb.jpg

 

Both Brian Gavin and Whiteflash have good return periods, and so do most other online merchants. I'd be extremely wary of anyone that wants to sell you a "special" diamond without a decent return policy on the account that it is "special".

 

BTW - any definition of H&A I have ever seen would consider those "faults" irrelevant - what matters is whether the shaft and head are well-formed, distinct but not separate. And any read-out based on a reflector image that does not contain enough contrast would leave me distinctly cold: a flat mirror held at the appropriate height shows up all red in an ASET, but it's hardly as interesting as a diamond.

Edited by davidelevi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think she means the blue contrast areas around the table reflection at the shaft of the arrows.

Edited by Furqan Shafi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those happen because of the slightly shallower pavilion angle. And it appears to be only visible in the computer generated ASET map on the certificate and not on the actual ASET image on that 0.222 ct I coloured diamond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah... these (x 4 or 8, depending on what you consider being in the highlight)? I was looking at the wrong end of the arrow, then! Sorry!

 

post-11046-0-98846600-1492448945_thumb.png

 

Those have also nothing to do with "Tolkowsky" or H&A - nor unfortunately are they detectable through the measurements, whether they are listed on an engine or not: your "best" example (0.701 JVS2) and your "worst" (0.534 G/VS1) have the same reported crown and pavilion angles, and it's not a matter of lower girdle or star length.

 

It's a question of how precisely the facet has been worked and how consistent the angle is through the facet (not between one facet and the next). We are talking thousandths of a mm... and of measurements that are not visible except through direct observation (or high quality 3D scanning).

 

All the observations/comments above about the contrast/leakage at the edge of the stone remain true, but clearly not applicable to your case. I agree that stones with a fully "red" centre exist - finding one is a matter of patience and luck.

 

I still feel that you would not see the difference in real life, and I would invite you to order one of the "bad" ones from BGD (or anyone else) - I think you may be surprised.

post-11046-0-86760700-1492449000_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah... these (x 4 or 8, depending on what you consider being in the highlight)? I was looking at the wrong end of the arrow, then! Sorry!

 

attachicon.gifBG H&A.png

 

Those have also nothing to do with "Tolkowsky" or H&A - nor unfortunately are they detectable through the measurements, whether they are listed on an engine or not: your "best" example (0.701 JVS2) and your "worst" (0.534 G/VS1) have the same reported crown and pavilion angles, and it's not a matter of lower girdle or star length.

 

It's a question of how precisely the facet has been worked and how consistent the angle is through the facet (not between one facet and the next). We are talking thousandths of a mm... and of measurements that are not visible except through direct observation (or high quality 3D scanning).

 

All the observations/comments above about the contrast/leakage at the edge of the stone remain true, but clearly not applicable to your case. I agree that stones with a fully "red" centre exist - finding one is a matter of patience and luck.

 

I still feel that you would not see the difference in real life, and I would invite you to order one of the "bad" ones from BGD (or anyone else) - I think you may be surprised.

 

You speak about a facet,which one?I'm relieved that the problem is not all about proportions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah... these (x 4 or 8, depending on what you consider being in the highlight)? I was looking at the wrong end of the arrow, then! Sorry!

 

BG H&A.png

 

Those have also nothing to do with "Tolkowsky" or H&A - nor unfortunately are they detectable through the measurements, whether they are listed on an engine or not: your "best" example (0.701 JVS2) and your "worst" (0.534 G/VS1) have the same reported crown and pavilion angles, and it's not a matter of lower girdle or star length.

 

It's a question of how precisely the facet has been worked and how consistent the angle is through the facet (not between one facet and the next). We are talking thousandths of a mm... and of measurements that are not visible except through direct observation (or high quality 3D scanning).

 

All the observations/comments above about the contrast/leakage at the edge of the stone remain true, but clearly not applicable to your case. I agree that stones with a fully "red" centre exist - finding one is a matter of patience and luck.

 

I still feel that you would not see the difference in real life, and I would invite you to order one of the "bad" ones from BGD (or anyone else) - I think you may be surprised.

I think that happens because of slight LGF variations and she probably means to ask why this happens? (picture attached)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This attached picture have more contrast at the shaft of the arrows.

post-134164-0-19453000-1492450382_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You speak about a facet,which one?I'm relieved that the problem is not all about proportions

Lower girdle azimuth and possibly (just possibly) pavilion mains azimuth. The fact that it's not about "proportions" is not necessarily good... it means that to find whether it's there you need to see at the very least a good quality ASET, which is not a given for all stones. Before you complicate your life to such an extent, see if you can notice the problem in real life first (and if it's a problem at all - as I said, I tend to like stones with more contrast, not less!)

Edited by davidelevi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now