Australian Facetors' Guild Limited

Concave Faceting and Competitions - Group 39 - Definitions judging Features and General Notes

  • 02 Oct 2017 7:54 AM
    Message # 5290021
    My suggestions, questions and comments are below.  Please comment on them or add further suggestions, questions and comments on this part of the proposal below.

    I 1.1 Description of Faceting Terms

    Clause m. - typo, "Man- Mad" should be "Man-Made".

    Clause s. - Definitions should be not contain substantive rules.  "only allowed in Section 39D" should be in the Judging Features and/or in each of the Section descriptions as this is the first place a competitor will look.  The definition does not change the common meaning of translucent, yet we have a definition of Transparent for faceting which may vary from the common meaning leaving a void for uncertainty.

    I suggest clause s. read as follows and a new General Notes be created as follows.

    "s. Transparent Material for Faceting is any material that is not translucent (as defined in in this Part) and which is sufficiently translucent to see the outline or shadow of an object behind the material."

    I 1.3 General Notes

    "a. Translucent Material: Translucent Material is only allowed in Section 39D."

    Renumber the remaining paragraphs.


    The definition of Transparent means that some jelly opal, rose quartz, moonstone and other facet grade but "sleepy" or fibrous material will not be eligible for Sections 39A to 39C.  Is there a reason for excluding them from those sections?  Should we amend the definition of Transparent to allow sleepy material if we can see the pavilion facet edges through the Crown, albeit somewhat fuzzily?


    Last modified: 02 Oct 2017 8:59 AM | Anonymous member
  • 02 Oct 2017 8:13 AM
    Reply # 5290029 on 5290021

    I 1.2 Judging Features - a. - Aesthetic Appeal

    The definition of Aesthetic Appeal is inconsistent (as is the current rule).  The third sentence covers the field, It essentially says that this feature is based on whether or not the whole of the stone is reflecting light back to the viewer as full marks should  be given if this is the case.

    Yesterday I saw a stone in coloured quartz (light smoky quartz) which reflected across the whole of the stone but which had a point deducted with the comment that the stone was not a coloured stone.  Firstly, the second sentence provides that full marks should have been given.  Secondly, a smoky quartz is still a coloured stone, it is not colourless, the colour comes from impurities in the crystal lattice, whether a judge thinks a slightly brown grey is less appealing than amethyst or citrine colours is very much  a personal preference and gives an unfair advantage to  competitors knowing the judge's preference.

    There should be no place in Aesthetic Appeal for this type of subjectivity.  If subjective reflectivity is the feature to be judged, then I suggest changing the first sentence of this feature to read as follows, which by the way would make it easier for our US counterparts to comprehend.

    "Aesthetic Appeal relates to the amount of light that is returned by the stone when viewed from above, which in coloured stones may be influenced by colour saturation."

    Happy Faceting

    Last modified: 02 Oct 2017 8:55 AM | Anonymous member
  • 02 Oct 2017 8:22 AM
    Reply # 5290031 on 5290021

    I 1.2 b. Interest, Design

    This leads on from Aesthetic Appeal.  It is perhaps another aesthetic point.

    This judging feature  should only be an issue where the competitor has licence to alter the design. 

    Where the competition committee sets the design with no scope for a competitor to add or change the location of the facets there is no scope for this feature to be judged as all entries should be the same.

    I think further guidance for judges and competitors needs to be included on this feature as there is scope for it if we allow competitors licence to produce their own variations on a set cut, for example by cutting into the edge of a stone to produce a star shaped outline.

    Happy Faceting.

    Last modified: 02 Oct 2017 8:56 AM | Anonymous member
  • 02 Oct 2017 8:31 AM
    Reply # 5290033 on 5290021

    I 1.2 f. Facets uniform

    Personal Gripe here.  If points don't meet up, then by definition one or more facets adjacent to the failed meet are not uniform as there will be a small extra to the facet.  I had a judge say "one of your girdle meets is out so all of them must be out" and mark accordingly.  Another judge didn't think so.

    Should we be penalising twice when a meet point is out but when visually the facets look the same. 

    However when the angle adjuster s used to push in a meet too far, the facet can become distorted, this is clearly a case of an in-uniform facet.

    Facets Uniform also applies to floating facets.

    Should we be expanding this feature  by including "Points will not be deducted for facets which must not be uniform merely because one or more meet points attaching to the facet are not meeting up and points have already been deducted for that feature unless the facet is visibly not uniform with the remaining facets in that row of facets."

    Any thoughts?

    Last modified: 04 Oct 2017 8:18 AM | Anonymous member
  • 02 Oct 2017 8:51 AM
    Reply # 5290039 on 5290021
    I 1.3General Notes

    g. Scheduling Facet Cuts

    Why must a competition committee keep the sections separate?  When adding new sections to a show schedule, there is often a lag as members try out the new competition.  This means that the first year the section is introduced there may me fewer entrants than in later years.  

    The new sections are a case in point.  At a club level it may take several years before enough entries are received to have a decent competition in one of these sections.  If a competition committee wishes place two or more sections together into a competition section until enough entries are received to separate them out into separate sections, then why not let them do so, especially as there will be set designs for each sub-section competing for a place.

    As Paul pointed out at the end of the proposal, judges are qualified to judge all likely sections, it is just going to need a small adjustment to the way we do things.

    Whether a competitor choses to enter one design over another is up to the competitor, so there should not be arguments over the relative fairness of such a competition.  Such an issue can be mitigated by allowing the entrant to submit one stone for each cut in the competition section.

    Happy Faceting

    Last modified: 02 Oct 2017 8:58 AM | Anonymous member
  • 04 Oct 2017 6:25 AM
    Reply # 5293524 on 5290021

    i believe that if you make competion rules to complex and confusing' which the new rules.appear to will put people off entering altogether people will think it is all to hard and not bother to enter.

  • 04 Oct 2017 7:42 AM
    Reply # 5293781 on 5290021


    I couldn't agree more.  The rules are such that they need interpretation to work out what you need to do.  

    Would you agree part of the problem is that there are two components to the rules:

    1. rules regarding how the stone is judged (ag for the competitor and judge); and
    2. rules regarding how the competition committee should set the competition schedule and run the competition.

    Really once the competition is set, the competitor wants to know what the judging features are and how they are judged.

    Do you think we should provide clearer separation between what a competitor needs to do and what the committee needs to consider when setting the competition?

    Another issue is that we seem to need to subdivide the Groups so that the same judging criteria applies to each stone in the section and that concave and fantasy cuts are separate from ordinary cuts.  It seems that once there is a Group or section for an entry, then it can not be included in another section.  This is more of a problem for the metal working sections (including silver smithing) as it makes entering some sections quite technical because competitors are not working to a set design.

    The proposal for Group 39 arose because it was deemed concave cuts should never be allowed in so called standard cuts.  This lead to a discussion about opening up the rules to allow for other forms of faceting such as fantasy cuts, to provide more choice for competitions.  Hence the proposal.

    Personally I think the rule change was made with unseemly haste.  It all could have been dealt with through the competition schedules while rule changes were considered and members views canvassed. 

    Last modified: 04 Oct 2017 8:11 AM | Anonymous member

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

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software