Diamond Calculator
Diamond 3D Book
Educational Programs
Testing Laboratory
Diamond Cut Study 
Poster: Three approaches to grade diamond cut: parametrical, direct light measurements, and 3D model
Poster: Introducing a set of Basic Light Responses (BLR) and building a cut grading system based on these (clusterization)
Poster: Different models of illumination
Poster: The importance of the relationship between the pupil of a human eye, a light source, and the size of diamonds virtual facet
Poster: ETAS - part of space visible through moving diamond
Poster: How symmetry affects diamond appearance: mutual relationship between diamond proportions and symmetry
Poster: Examples of grading systems for different types of goods and services (wines, hotels, cars)
  Poster: How symmetry affects diamond appearance: mutual relationship between diamond proportions and symmetry  
  How asymmetry relates with proportions in their mutual influence on diamond appearance and beauty?

The proper proportions of diamond can maximize its optic appearance: scintillation, brilliance and fire. Deviations of cut proportions can create some undesirable effects of diamond appearance, and sometimes require compensation by deviation of other corresponding proportions and angles.

In this poster we discuss a possibility of improving diamond optical appearance by some symmetry deviations. The problem is that today any symmetry deviation visible by loupe penalizes diamond cut quality by definition.

A general observation reveals that an overall diamond picture (pattern, appearance) is created by facet arrangement. Proportions and symmetry here are two sides of one coin. The following example illustrates relationship between deviations of proportions and deviations of symmetry.

At this example a stone at the Fig 1 is of course the best out of four because is has good proportions and ideal symmetry. Stones at the Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 have distorted symmetry and incorrect proportions respectively. Stone at the Fig 4 is a combination of improper proportions and symmetry.

There are two questions here:
1) Which stone is the best out of 2, 3, and 4?
2) Which stone is the worst out of 2, 3, and 4?

Figure 1

Figure 1

Fig. 1 Tolkowsky proportions (pavilion angle is 40.75 degree). Ideal symmetry.

Figure 2

Figure 2

Fig. 2 Average proportions are the same as Tolkowsky. Pavilion angles vary from 39.93 to 41.60 degrees because of 1.5% culet displacement.

Figure 3

Figure 3

Fig. 3 Pavilion is deeper than Tolkowsky proportions (41.50 degree).
Ideal symmetry.

Figure 4

Figure 4

Fig. 4 Average pavilion angle is 41.10 degrees and vary from 40.69 to 41.52 degrees because of 0.75% culet displacement.

Various symmetry distortions are connected with the number and shape of diamond virtual facets that are critical for scintillation. If a bigger stone has exactly the same shape and symmetry it will have the same number of virtual facets but with bigger size. Probably it is better to implement some special symmetry distortions in order to achieve more virtual facets and more scintillating diamond.

It is important to separate asymmetry of diamond shape (visual) and asymmetry of facet positions.

What is better: to distort symmetry in order to avoid some negative optical effects due to improper proportions or leave a stone with improper proportions and perfect symmetry?

 
  Authors :  
 

Sergey Sivovolenko, OctoNus, Moscow, Russia
Yuri Shelementiev, Gemological Center MSU, Moscow, Russia

 
© 2004-2005 S.B. Sivovolenko, Yu.B. Shelementyev