This should be an interesting discussion at the Muster at Casino .
I hope members will take in the pros and cons with an open mind and listen carefully to the points raised.
One point that should be raised is that not all concave attachments are capable of getting the same result. I have the VJ attachment and there are some patterns which it can't cut. If a competition sets unique patterns they would have to be able to cut on all the concave attachments - not an easy proposition without a lot of investigation.
John
John Maine wrote: 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. John
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.
At the moment my browser keeps trying to stop me going to the AFG home page, saying it is unsafe and may steal my personal info. I suspect the site certificate has expired.
I was prompted to look at the forum again after noticing a mention of the debate in Facet Talk.
Do you think an index of recent posts in Facet Talk would encourage more participation?
Regards
Gordon Perkins
Interesting point John. Allowing concave facevtors to enter existing comps would/should overcome that point. Facetors would need to adjust the angle to suit the diameter of their mandrel to maintain the shape of the facet.
It would not allow for v wheels etc, but it is a start and by the time there is enough interest to run a separate sectìon, we would have enough of a feel to start setting designs that will suit all types of machine.
All good points guys, all worth considering, keep them coming. I'm about to throw a curved ball in here, excuse the pun. If we intend to add a section for concave cuts to competitions and yes softly softley why not also consider Fantasy Cut, Freeform and Novelty cuts at the same time.
It is a big job to add a new section to the Competition Groups, a lot has to be considered, a lot of discussion about definitions, Features etc etc. So if we are going to all that trouble just to introduce Concave why not the others at the same time. Open it up a bit - make it more imaginative for the cutter, isn't that part of why we facet ? for fun and the challenge?
Paul
So if the definitions are separate, then there was no need for "usually" in the definition unless the original drafters of the rules intended to allow curved surfaces (e.g. concave or convex facets) in Groups 8 and 9.
regards
Gordon
Interesting discussion evolving. I don't see any reason to change anything. Forget about using section 8 & 9. There will be further changes here to make things a bit clearer but that'll have to wait till next years' J&R meeting at the Gemboree. Just keep entering section 8 & 9 without concave facets & you'll be safe.
Moving forward, Section 10 & 11 already allow various cuts - concave, freeform, fantasy, novelty etc. It's just a matter of naming the section with the next sequence number, eg O.11.1, O.11.2, O.11.3 .......4........5.......6 & so on.
Section 11 judging sheet can be used as is. Section 11 is better suited as sometimes a design may not have a table or a girdle, the points for these are deleted then an average score is calculated from the remaining points. take a look at the judging sheet.
All a committee needs to do is select suitable designs that give explicit instructions not only for the competitor but also for the judge.
Opening it up to "any cut" or "cutters choice' if you like isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future. Nothing stopping discussing it though.
Thanks Paul
The definition of curved surface does not readily accomodate V cut OMF, hence my reasoning we would need to include a definition of OMF even if it overlaps with curved surface.
Either that or we extend Curved Surface go include all classes of OMF.
I would still like to see a section for laminated faceted stones to accommodate those facetors adding opal or another stone in place of the cutlet. I have seen one article on this and the stones are stunning.
I am currently pondering how we can make the rules or their intent more accessable to members. By that I mean easier for them to comprehend the rules.
I would also love to know why usually was included on pages 44 and 47 when the rules were first written. Unfortunately the original draftsmen have probably died.
This leads to my next request, why not post an explanatory memorandum detailing the need for proposed rule changes months in advance of them being finalised. This would give members an opportunity to debate the changes and provide input.
Regards Gordon Perkins
Paul Sabolta wrote: ... Forget about using section 8 & 9. There will be further changes here to make things a bit clearer ... Moving forward, Section 10 & 11 already allow various cuts - concave, freeform, fantasy, novelty etc. ... All a committee needs to do is select suitable designs that give explicit instructions not only for the competitor but also for the judge. Opening it up to "any cut" or "cutters choice' if you like isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future. Nothing stopping discussing it though. Paul
... Forget about using section 8 & 9. There will be further changes here to make things a bit clearer ...
Moving forward, Section 10 & 11 already allow various cuts - concave, freeform, fantasy, novelty etc. ...
I am interested in why cutters choice is frowned upon. Each cut has its own challenges and the rules are about as objective as you can get so each cut should be judged on its merits. Last time I looked Central Queensland ran a cutters choice so it seems such a comp can be judged. What am I missing?
However I was thinking of a competition committee setting a design, say a Bar Round One and challenging contestants to design a variation and submit the design with the stone. The variation would need be recognisable as descended from the cut.
For example splitting each bar on the crown of Bar Round One into two so it cuts as shallow chevrons and adding a second row of pavillion facets.
Take a look at the new tab above"NEWS" this is opening the discussion a bit further.
Privacy policy Website terms and conditions
Copyright 2015 Australian Facetors' Guild Limited • Site by Highland Creative
