Australian Facetors' Guild Limited

As a Guild we have a role to play in setting and maintaining standarde.  To date this has largely been by influencing the rules of competitions published by AFLACCA.  I hope this topic generates discussion on the rules.

1. We have faceting courses. Why not introduce a competancy level of Master Facetor to recognise high achievers in the craft?

It would provide a further level at which we could compete, provide an incentive to pursue further studdy in faceting and should allow mastee facetors to more effectively market their skills.

2. Why not expand the definition of curved surface to include flat concave cut surfaces such as grooves cut into a gem to allow all conceivable OMF cuts to be  catered for?  Do we need a definition of concave surface covering all OMF cutting techniques not falling into the current definition of curved surface?

Clarification of Rules

I believe there should be more guidance on how a competitor’s work is judged in the competitor and judges rules. 

We were recently discussing rules at the Moreton Bay Group of the Facetor’s guild and a judge made a good point.  When judging an Oblong cut, he judges the L/W ratio of the finished stone.  His view is that the L/W ratio influences the shape of the stone and the facets.  He also pointed out that some stewards and competitors do not like this and it is apparent not all judges apply this standard.

This leads to two main issues, all judges should interpret the rules in the same way, otherwise it gives stewards in a competition and their immediate family an unfair advantage as they will know who the judge is and be able to focus on the judges preferences, more so in competitions where points are awarded for subjective measures such as degree of difficulty and aesthetic appeal.

The second issue is that the guild allows competitors to adjust the angles of the design using the tangent ratio method (or Gemcad).  Doing so gives competitors an edge when the design is sub-optimal for the prescribed stone.  Before joining the Guild I asked at club level whether I could adjust the angles and at the time a judge there told me no, as the angles are prescribed in the design, they can’t be changed.

The feedback from the floor and the judge was that it wasn’t necessary to write a rule enshrining the unwritten rule that angles can be changed using a tangent ratio method (Gemcad is the easiest) provided that the facet shape wasn’t changed into the rules. 

It seems angles can’t be easily judged but whether a competitor has followed the diagram religiously or adjusted angles can easily be checked by a judge with a set of feeler gauges and callipers, by measuring the girdle and the height of the stone.  From this the sum of T/W and C/W can be checked against the height of the stone. 

Now we have two competing views by judges.  One is that the facet angles can be adjusted as long as the shape of the facets remains the same.  The other is that as an L/W Ratio is prescribed, it can’t be changed, although it seems not all judges follow this rule. 

Requiring adherence to the metrics in the cutting instructions prevents competitors from optimising facet angles for the material being cut.  It may make competing in the competition less attractive, personally I don’t want to waste my time cutting what I think is a sub-optimal stone.

If we require the ratios to be maintained, does this mean we need to measure the size of floating facets and steps in the stone to make sure they are in the same proportion of W as on the diagram, or is this merely a visual check?  I doubt many clubs have accurate graticules available to their members so they can make the necessary measurements and the feedback I have received is that many new facetors don’t know what a graticule is used for.

If we police L/W we should have tolerances to cater for measuring equipment accuracy.  For example my graphite jawed calipers are accurate to 0.1 of a mm rather than the 0.02mm accuracy of cheap steel jawed calipers.  Consequently plus or minus 0.12mm should be a   minimum tolerance to cater for variations in the accuracy of different measuring equipment.  Should we also allow a higher tolerance for Novices, some may be entering a stone cut during classes at their lapidary club? 

Allowing a competitor to tangent ratio change angles tests a competitor’s technical expertise and allows for designs to be optimised for the set material.  I believe this should be encouraged as it helps develop a facetor’s skills.

On the other hand the judge has a point, the L/W ratio of an Oblong cut is important, if it is not right, none of the corner angles work or the cut corners vary in size.  But if we religiously police the L/W of a stone, where do we stop?  We need guidance to reconcile these two competing interpretations of the rules, and guidance on the tolerances allowed. 

For this reason I propose we create two new rules to work towards uniformity of judging and certainty for competitors.

1.    Competitors are allowed to change the angles of the facets in the design provided they use a Tangent Ratio Method (such as  employed by Gemcad) so that the shape of the facets when viewed parallel to the C axis of the stone do not change UNLESS the competition schedule states otherwise.

2.  The ratios of the table width to stone width may be judged to a tolerance of plus or minus 0.12mm, but the remaining ratios are not to be judged UNLESS the competition schedule states otherwise.  A competition schedule stating otherwise must be assumed to require a tolerance of plus or minus 0.12mm if it does not state the required tolerance.

I noticed there was a paragraph on the proposed rule changed to allow concave faceting in the summary to the last AFG meeting inserted into Facet Talk No. 219.

Would the Guild make the proposal for the rule change available for comment by members before sending the proposal to AFLACA. 

Yours sincerely

Gordon Perkins

I think some of our members are getting ahead of them self in respect to faceting rules as any changes have to be first put to the J&R members of the guild and then the members for comment and finally should the members agree about the changes they have to be put to the AFLACA J&R before they can be put to use in a competition. I also think that the rules as they are a set standard for cutting for all cutters to work towards achieving a 100% correct stone which some of the faceting community  have done so in recent competition I know this as I pencil for Paul at most of the faceting competitions that we judge down here in Sydney.

Guys, the opportunity to have your say has been available since September 2017 when this all kicked off from the session at the Muster.

The proposal and survey has been on the website for all to read and comment on.

 I only received 14 replies to the survey, and I thank the members that sent in their surveys. I think 4-5 months is sufficient time for you to have read the proposal and replied to the survey.

I did  give you the opportunity to have your say, there was even a reminder in FT218 under my President's report.

 All the survey responses I received had constructive ideas which I incorporated into a revised proposal where the Group 39 idea is now abandoned. The proposal now has the intention of expanding the already existing Group 11 into 5 Sections, Fancy Cut, Concave Cuts, Freeform Cuts, Fantasy Cuts and Novelty Cuts. I have put together a proposal that is now closed to any more comments and is now in the hands of the AFLACA J&R Delegates around Australia for their perusal. This proposal will be discussed amongst the J&R Delegates at the J&R Meeting to be held at the Gemboree at Willunga.

I have forged ahead to test the waters in AFLACA. It would have taken another year or so for anything to happen otherwise and would have died from lack of interest.

I have also requested some Rule changes regarding L/W ratios, some tidying up of the wording with regards to Standard Cuts and curved facets and a few other minor changes.

We will have to wait & see now what comes out of the J&R Meeting at Willunga.

Paul