Australian Facetors' Guild Limited

Concave Faceting Competitions

<< First  < Prev   1   2   3   Next >  Last >> 
  • 19 Feb 2017 7:38 PM
    Message # 4617441

    How many of you cutters with Concave Faceting machines are interested enough to have a special section in faceting competitions?

    I know of a case where a cutter has submitted a Std Brilliant with Concave Pavilion Main Facets in a competition.. A Std Brilliant was designed for flat facets not concave. 

    BUT what if there was a special section for you to compete in? What types of designs would you use? Would they be GemCad designs? Gemcad can only draw straight lines, how could they be adapted for concave facets? 

    How about it guys? Are there enough of you to get it off the ground?  I have sparked an  interest to J&R and if there is enough demand from you guys they may consider doing something, but it needs your ideas & support to get it started and continue. 

  • 20 Feb 2017 4:57 PM
    Reply # 4618608 on 4617441

    It will be interesting to find out how many members are interested.

    As far as patterns go, one of the advantages of concave faceting is the opportunity to experiment and create new effects . Perhaps a standard Gemcad design could be used and the facetor could choose which facets to concave. The judging would then be subjective which always brings problems  but it might be one way to get a competition started to test the interest.


  • 04 Mar 2017 9:03 AM
    Reply # 4646778 on 4617441
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Yes I would like to see a competition started it would show the cutters true ability.

    But the rules may stop it from getting of the ground so I would apply the KISS method  best of luck

  • 05 Mar 2017 4:47 PM
    Reply # 4648633 on 4617441

    Often the rules do get in the way with anything new.

    Would probably be best to start with an informal demonstration of concave cut stones with informal voting based on aesthetic appeal to see how much interest there is .

  • 06 Mar 2017 8:53 PM
    Reply # 4650081 on 4617441

    So what would the judging features be on the judging sheet? there would have to be some sort of standard criteria for the judge  to judge upon. e.g.,  all the standard features like aesthetic appeal, meets, facets uniform, polish, scratches, etc etc., with maybe a few extras like grind marks? sanding marks? roundness? shape? depth?  degree of effort? Contestants would have to have a diagram to follow that all the entries conform to, Maybe only nominated meets or facets are counted. Your suggestions are welcome and encouraged, throw you ideas out there. Paul

  • 16 Mar 2017 7:19 PM
    Reply # 4669785 on 4617441

    Well it seems the owners of concave cutting machines are not interested or don't read this forum . I think the latter is the case.

    To gauge interest in a future competition we have to crawl before we can walk.

    A possible method would be for a call to concave facetors to exhibit items of their work at a future Muster ( or Gem Shows) to gauge the amount of interest.

    If sufficient interest an informal comp. could be a start similar to the Memorial Comp which currently is held at the Muster. I know there have been demos. of concave faceting  at previous  Seminars but this could be another way to bring concave faceting to the fore - perhaps with hands on participation.


  • 16 Mar 2017 7:55 PM
    Reply # 4669806 on 4617441

    I tend to agree, there must just you & I reading this post? Maybe I'll bring it up at the Gemboree?

  • 22 Apr 2017 3:48 PM
    Reply # 4768876 on 4617441
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    This forum is a really good place for this discussion on concave faceting, and I need to add my comments to the good posts above.

    As I was the one who entered the Standard Brilliant with concave mains into the 2017 Gemboree Comp, you should understand why. I deliberately entered this stone with concave facets to challenge what I (and several others) saw as currently inadequate definitions in the J&R Manual. It is considered traditional that all facets excluding a continuous girdle for a SB are flat. However, the definition in the J&R Manual does not state that. The definition of a facet is a flat or deliberately curved surface.

    My entry was to see, first of all, if the competition committee deemed it eligible, under the current definition. After much consultation, the competition committee agreed that it was eligible. 

    The follow-on was an immediate change in the definition of a Standard Brilliant, effective immediately, at the J&R meeting held during Gemboree.

    This incident has made several of the AFG management committee wonder if we should also be including concave faceting in our competitions. Although it was not my intention to highlight concave faceting in competitions, I welcome this idea too.

    It is also my opinion that we should take ‘baby-steps’ by way of a firstly having a display, to test interest from the relatively few members in the AFG who actually do concave cutting. A competition at this stage is still a far way off, in my estimation, but should be our eventual aim.

    What is already mentioned in the J&R Manual about curved/concave facets and how they are judged is possibly sufficient and very few minor changes (if any) may be needed.

    A further outcome to this discussion will be an upcoming Facet Talk article. Hopefully an article will increase the awareness of this new topic to all Facet Talk readers and let members know about this discussion forum.

    Dave Radke

    Last modified: 23 Apr 2017 6:32 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)
  • 23 Apr 2017 5:44 PM
    Reply # 4770441 on 4617441

    Dave ,

    Your post is very interesting. I'll look forward to your article in Facet Talk - it should start an interesting conversation.


  • 23 Jun 2017 11:57 PM
    Reply # 4914129 on 4617441
    I enter competitions to:
    1. improve my skills;
    2. encourage others to do likewise; and
    3. promote the craft involved in the relevant competition.
    I believe that we should encourage diversity and innovation.  I believe this allows us to move with the times, attract new members, and strengthen the Guild while still catering for members who are content with staying in their comfort zone.

    I don't understand why the rules had to be urgently changed.  One of the US Facetors has published a list of 10 different "Standard Round Brilliant designs". 

    On that basis in any competition where the competition schedule merely states round brilliant without giving a cutting sheet, the judge could be faced with having to judge 10 different designs in the same section.

    The Guild and AFLACCA hav used 3 of these as a Standard Round Brilliant in different competitions.  One design has 2 degrees between the pavilion break facets and the Mains, the next has 1.5 degrees, and the third has 1 degree.  Each has been specified through the relevant competition schedule.

    Given the definitions before the change in the rules, there was no reason why the stone couldn't be judged on an equal footing with stones with all flat pavilion facets.  

    After all Dave's stone received a 3rd place, so clearly it was within the scope of the rules at the time and it was able to be judged on the same criteria as stones with flat facets.

    We are allowed to change facet angles using Gemcad or using tangent ratios to ensure the facet shape (outline) is maintained.  I have not entered some competitions because the designs performed so badly I don't want to cut them if I was not allowed to improve their performance by changing the angles.

    If a concave facet maintains the shape  then let the member enter a concave facet if he wishes.

    Should we have a competition section for concave faceting? 

    I believe the recent changes to the judging manual have given us no choice if we are to encourage diversity and improvements to our craft. 

    This is because the changes have narrowed the choices an entrant may make when cutting a competition entry.

    We now have no choice but to create a competition for concave facet designs, the alternative is to stifle innovation. 

    Perhaps we should now have new sections 8C, 9C, 10B and 11B to cater for concave facets.  Many Groups in the  Manual already have multiple sections.

    I also believe we must now run the same concave  facet section on our competitions for at least three years to allow time for momentum to build the section into a solid competition.  Given the additional investment in a concave faceting machine needed to enter, not many people will be in a position to enter in year 1.

    In smaller competitions perhaps we should allow entries in a section from  two sections in the same Group, e.g. a Modified design without concave facets and a modified design with concave facets. 

    It would add visual interest to the display as people would be able to see the difference between two stones cut to the same design, but one with concave facets.  Each would need to be judged under the judging sheet for the relevant section. 

    It shouldn't be hard for a judge to pick the appropriate judging sheet if there is a need for a separate judging sheet.  Judges make these sorts of decision in competitions when assessing whether an entry meets the section criteria. 

    The points are usually standardised to a mark out of 100% so any variation in the sheets scoring system can be catered for.

    Happy Faceting

    Last modified: 24 Jun 2017 12:03 AM | Anonymous member
<< First  < Prev   1   2   3   Next >  Last >> 

Copyright 2015 Australian Facetors' Guild Limited  •  Site by Highland Creative

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software