Jump to content

Talk:Diamond cut

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Viewing distance


The current debate about cut-grading standards involves explicit assumptions about lighting and the distance at which a diamond is viewed. The choice of 10 inches versus 14 inches explains some significant differences between two proposed grading standards, according to this PriceScope thread.



Cut (table, pavilion depth, crown angle)

Diamonds take a high polish which enhances its scintillation.

You can also test a diamond's light responsiveness

Round brilliants are the most resistant to breakage, but a princess cut will give more caret weight per rough. A modified princess cut called the Arctic Empress (by Sirius) clips the vulnerable corners. Girdles on brilliants may be cut too thin as well. Pear cut and Marquise cut diamonds have sharp points which are vulnerable to damage.

Statements where reasonable people may disagree

  • (Various cuts with points or very thin girdles) may be uninsurable, or require much higher payments. [These cuts] should have issues with insurance due to inherent vice (legal term).
    • This depends on the insurance company, legal jurisdiction, and the fine print of the policy.
  • Unfortunately, the AGS' overall cut grade (e.g., AGS 0, AGS 1, etc) is still in its first draft, and is the subject of considerable controversy.
    • The AGS has announced major changes to its cut grading. Many (perhaps most) stones that currently grade as AGS 0 will not grade as AGS 0 under the new standards. Many other stones that currently get lower cut grades will grade as AGS 0 under the new standards.
    • The new standards more closely align with computer simulations of cut quality, and with Tolkowsky's model of the crown. Unfortunately, the new standards have not been described in detail yet.
    • The AGS' new cut grading standards for round brilliants take effect in the summer of 2005.
    • The AGS also plans to issue cut grades for some fancy-cut diamonds.

~ender 2004-09-04 MST 19:22

Passion cut

I believe this 'diamond cut' article does not describe enough cuts. I have added one, and would like to add more but want to wait until I get an idea from this group as to whether my contribution is on the right track. It was already deleted once by VSmith, who thought it too sales-y, but truthfully that is not the goal. I do ghostwrite for the Passion Cut inventor, but that is for press and social media, not Wikipedia. He does not sell to consumers, and no one can buy diamonds from him online. Only big retailers can contract to buy from him, and they are not Wikipedia's audience. This contribution is intended to be educational and appropriate to the encyclopedic discussion of round brilliant cuts. Hearts and Arrows is another patented cut, and I used it as the model for the Passion Cut and would like to use it as the model for other round brilliant cuts.
I included a link to the US Patent office, a link to an image of the cut schematic, and a link to the GIA page about the 4c's, which has good information about cuts. It is important for the article 'diamond cuts' to include descriptions about various diamond cuts. As I find more, I will add them as well, so the 'round brilliant' is not only discussing ideal, hearts/arrows, and passion cuts. There are many, and it makes sense for people interested in learning about cuts to have access to information about the different cuts out there. I hope you will allow the link to the passion cut schematic, because the image shows how the pavilion mains are split, which is good original source information that is relevant to the other schematic on the diamond cut article and not available elsewhere as the cut is only three years old. If you disagree, I would prefer you notify me so I can take out that link rather than have the whole contribution deleted, please. I look forward to hearing your comments about this edited post. Thank you, Norreida (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've converted the patent bit to ref format although as a primary source it has WP:RS problems. I've removed the inline link to the Passion cut.com page as there was no illustration at that specific link and it is a commercial promotional page. Upload a free image for illustration rather than linking to a commercial site. I've also removed the GIA see also bit, the GIA page is referenced in another section. The section is in need of reliable sources independent of the commercial entity. The whole page has problems, but just adding more of the same doesn't help.. Vsmith (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've uploaded the free image of the cut specs. Also, will continue researching independent reliable sources. It's new design, relatively speaking, which is why there's little out there right now. Will add as soon as I find something appropriate. Also, am researching other cuts to add, as well. Thank you for your time and good advice. Norreida (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]



I think the theory section should both:

  • Mention that a crown angle of 34.5°, a pavilion angle of 40.75°, and table ratio of about 56% is a common reference point for the round brilliant cut.
  • Discuss the tradeoff between crown angle and pavilion angle.

Doing this clearly, succinctly, and accurately will be a neat trick. Should we reorganize the material in the "Theory" and "Cut Grading" sections?

Should this section describe the various approaches to modelling a diamond's light return?

  • 2-D modelling (a la Tolkowsky) that emphasizes average rays and the crown and pavilion facets
  • 2-D modelling (a la Harding) that emphasizes "head blockage" and other lighting effects
  • 3-D modelling (a la Octonus, GIA, and Adamas Gem Labs) that shows the effects of the other facets

-- Jasper 23:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see you've edited out the quoted crown and pavilion angles, presumably because they refer to the round brilliant only (which I neglected to make explicit). I agree that there could be more discussion with regards to tradeoffs, but it seems sleep deprivation is making me slow, because I can't begin to formulate a way of expressing it clearly, succinctly, and accurately. However, the section already mentions how crown angle/height affects fire/brilliance, and how pavilion angle doesn't budge much because it's so important to TIR. All the while I realise there's an inherent POV in explaining the subject, because after all, who's to say how much fire a diamond should have? ;) One aspect of fudging the proportions is weight retention, but I already mentioned that under "Choice of cut".
As for the modelling approaches, if the subject can be done justice with 1-2 paragraphs, it should fit into the Theory section. Alternatively a new section could be created. I originally meant the theory section to be something of a jumping off point for the rest of the article, so complex concepts were already explained and "out of the way", which would make discussing the later topics easier and would mitigate repetition.
Anyway, I'm wide open to corrections and proposals. You do seem to be well-studied in diamond cut theory, and you've certainly kept a closer eye on recent (i.e., over the past 2-3 years) developments than I have. I had planned to expand the "Cut grading" section during my initial expansion, but I couldn't decide how I'd tackle it. To be honest, I was/am also uncomfortable describing AGS's and HCA's techniques because I don't feel I understand them enough to do so. I was trained to grade diamonds in the conventional manner, so the new methods that incorporate stone-viewer distance maximums and proprietary software are still a bit new to me. (Gah, I suppose it's back to school for me. It doesn't help that AGS is guarding all meaningful details from outsiders like a bunch of scrapyard hounds.) Should we even bother describing the conventional method, since it seems even GIA has joined the ray-tracing bandwagon? Sigh. Sorry for rambling. -- Hadal 05:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind reply. I have similar concerns, but from a different point of view: I am much more familiar with the last 4 years of the theory than with traditional gemology. I should read up on how the mid-twentieth century "ideal" cut models were derived.
I edited out the quoted crown and pavilion angles because their context was about finding a single combination of proportions. The context did not consider the trade-offs of crown angle vs. pavilion angle, brilliance vs. fire, et cetera. And like you did, I had trouble coming up with suitable replacement text.
I think I understand the HCA. Holloway has explained it in detail, and I could probably summarize it. The AGS, GIA, and Adamas Gem Labs models are much more complicated, and much harder to explain.
-- Jasper 00:42, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Minor spelling difference on the graphics


Pavilion is pavilion in at least one place.

This graphic is taken from a document that consistently uses "pavilion". "Pavilion" is a legitimate alternate spelling. -- Jasper 20:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To help develop this article further (on this fairly complicated topic) I may suggest discussing GIA and AGS's viewpoints on cutting in more detail. For example GIA's viewpoint is fairly complicated but it discusses the important complimentary relationship between the pavilion and bezel facets; pavilion facet shape/length; categorizes different effects of cutting; etc. The recent studies by both companies and others have dramatically changed the conventional ways a diamonds cut is judged. As a forewarning all these different organizations/people will have different opinions/biases on cut grading.


Delisted GA


This article has been removed from the Ga list as it has failed WP:WIAGA criteria 2b. Feel free to renominate the article once these issues have been addressed. Tarret 23:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pricescope-BIASED vendor-Beware


I disagree with the validity of the Pricescope link on this article. While it is a valid topic of discussion, Pricescope is a biased forum owned by someone who is in favor of certain diamond cutters... and in some cases "paid off" by them to show favoritism, thus degrading the value of information found within. The population of the forum is a blunt mix of curious consumers, old hat diamond fans, and employees of the diamond cutting companys which pay the forum... the employees exist to provide carefully disguised sales pitches as if they are unbaised valid information. -- Jess

I agree with you, thus I removed it. Twice. We'll see if it stays off. I have been going through various diamond articles attempting to "clean house" and wipe out all of the commercial and promotional links to online sellers. We need more links to articles from the GIA, AGS, and other credible gemological institutions. Malachite84 05:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pricescope is a biased vendor. Their advertisers are the ones usually blogging and leading you to buy from them. Please remove the title pricescope

Pricescope has been a biased vendor since early 2000. One of the owners is Gary Holloway and the site is a promotion of his thinking and his creating of the Ideal Scope. Whilst there are learnings to be had, the idea of 'cut' is subjective to the author, and the site advocates vendors that pay to advertise on the site and utilise the idealscope. It appears the posters are people who affiliate with companies to promote their diamonds ot have a group mentality due to lack of understanding or to fit in. It is not an objective site and does not discuss cut to the AGS, GIA or AGA standards. It is based on a tool created over 10 years ago. The link to Pricescope should be removed and linked to an independent body such as GIA or AGS who have no profit to be gained from what they consider an ideal cut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loti tilot (talkcontribs) 13:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy cuts


I propose that Fancy cut be merged into the Diamond cut#Fancy cuts section, as they are essentially duplicates. Diamond cut is much better written, while Fancy cut would take a great deal of editing to make it encyclopedic. It would be a more profitable use of editing time to move any information from Fancy cut which can be cited to Diamond cut, and then change Fancy cut back to a redirect. AndyBQ 01:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a person who is full time engaged in diamonds and jewelry business I can agree with the view expressed above. Prakash Lakhi Plakhi 22:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Shape and Cut are frequently confused!

Shape is the model or form of the diamond, such as round, oval, pear and more. Classic shapes The classic diamond shapes following are set standards: round brilliant, princess, radiant, cushion, oval, pear, marquise, emerald, heart, trilliant also named trillion, taper and baguette. The most popular diamond shape is round brilliant. View standard shapes: www.ajediam.com/diamond_shapes.html

Fancy shapes A diamond cutter can cut a rough diamond into any fancy shape such as a flower, horse… View a horse shaped diamond: www.ajediam.com/free-printable-greeting-cards-horse.html There are no standards for fancy shapes. Jan Huts janhuts —Preceding comment was added at 13:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contested article links


I restored the links to:

  • The HCA's graph of the tradeoff between crown angle and pavillion angle.
  • Bruce Harding's article on Faceting Limits
  • Peter Yantzer's article on Indexing the Upper Girdle Facets.

These links are to articles that cover important theoretical issues with diamond cut, in a scholarly manner.

I did not restore the link to the Pricescope discussion of a GIA article about indexing the upper girdle facets. It seemed to me that most of the value of this link seemed to be covered by Yantzer's more scholarly article on the subject.

-- Jasper 02:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These articles link to or are hosted by a non-scholarly website. I have deleted them. See what I wrote on this page under "Pricescope". I would not object to the articles if they were hosted on a scholarly website (GIA for example), or simply a website that was not commercial and biased. As they are not neutral, they are not credible and should not be in an encyclopedia article. Malachite84 05:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Are you seriously claiming that an article by Peter Yantzer (the director of the AGS Laboratory) is not credible?

Are you seriously claiming that Bruce Harding's article on "Faceting Limits" is not credible? This article originally appeared in the Fall 1975 edition of the GIA's journal Gems and Gemology, according to Mr. Harding's post at http://www.diamondring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7101 .

-- Jasper 17:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles themselves are not the issue (as they are well-written), but it is because they are hosted by a biased website. It's the same exact thing as posting a link to "all about diamonds" written by the head of the GIA but posted on Blue Nile, Zales, or any other jewelery store website (not that the GIA would ever allow that). Credible scholarly sources keep their distances from retail sources. That is why the most credible source for University papers is still scholarly journals.

Even that website link you just posted is on a website that deals with buying and selling diamonds online.

I would even reccomend hosting the articles (or rather, asking to host the articles) on a free server yourself if you still feel these articles are worthy of being included in an encylopedia, and being sure to not link to sites that deal with online sales. I have no problem with an article allegedly written by the director of the AGS laboratory as long as the AGS hosts, endorses, or at least stands by the article, and ditto for GIA. Feel free to ask a Moderator here for their opinion.

Notice that this article was removed (not by me) from the Good Article list because it does not meet WP:WIAGA criteria 2b, which deals with using sources that are factually accurate and verifiable. Quoting: "(b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles"

Malachite84 02:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I am glad that you stipulate that the "articles themselves are not the issue (as they are well-written)".

Thank you for asking for an administrator's insight into this topic. I have asked User:Hadal if he can participate.

I think that you are worrying too much about whether the articles are in sources that accept advertising aimed at retail purchasers. By your logic, a biography in Bill Gaines' Mad Magazine (which accepted no advertisements while he was alive) would be more credible than a feature biography in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers' magazine (which accepts copious advertisements and press releases). (I used the latter magazine as a source for the articles on Thomas and Emily Davenport.) Whereas, there are circumstances in which I would accept a sufficiently well-written, significant white paper by a manufacturer or retailer of a product. Typically, the circumstances would involve the paper being the best and most reliable article (on the narrow topic that justified linking to the article) that a typical wikipedia reader could reasonably be expected to have access to. For example, most wikipedia readers can readily access Mr. Harding's article at the link I provided; most wikipedia readers do not have access to the Fall 1975 edition of Gems and Gemology.

Sincerely yours,

Jasper 03:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will await an administrator's presence before commenting further. Malachite84 00:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored most of the text. I changed some of the links to references. Jasper (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Diamond grading external link in references no longer exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abeon (talkcontribs) 12:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Anomie 00:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Plagiarism?


"Oddly-shaped crystals such as macles are more likely to be cut in a fancy cut (that is, a cut other than the round brilliant), which the particular crystal shape lends itself to." is the exact words on many other websites, and there are no cites to these websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sipslice11 (talkcontribs) 01:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment


The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Diamond cut/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Much of the content on this page is referring to Diamond Shape, as opposed to Diamond Cut. Diamond Cut is a quality term referring to how well a diamond has been cut and polished in terms of symmetry, finish etc. Diamond Cut is a very widely used term in both diamond grading and in everyday language, and in both cases, is part of the 4c's (carat size, cut, colour, clarity). Diamonds are cut into shapes. The matters relating to shape on this page should perhaps be moved to a Diamond Shape page rprout520 (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 03:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 13:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Diamond cut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Cut (gems)


The article feels a little redundant, so I was wondering if it could reasonably be reworked into this. Thoughts? - Stilistic (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point; Cut (gems) is rather thin. However, the articles are linked, and given that Cut (gems) is broader in scope I think that the structure would be more awkward within Diamond cut. So, I'd recommend keeping them separate, even though Cut (gems) is small. Klbrain (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion


The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected error in Eulitz Brilliant cut


The Eulitz Brilliant's crown height is 0.1445 of the diamond's diameter, and table (top facet) diameter 0.565 of the diameter. That means the distance from the edge of the diamond to the edge of the table facet is , or 0.2175 of the diameter. Therefore, the crown angle is , which comes out to 33.6°, not 33.36° shown in the table. This is also verified by this source:[1] I have corrected the value. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: A similar error exists for the pavilion angle. Mathematically it comes out to 40.79°, and the source in the comment above gives it as 40.8°. I have corrected the table in the article accordingly. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]