Hello procedural intrigued,

If you are a glue or adhesive dopster this entire debate is moot.
As has already been pointed out you can’t glue well to a
polished surface. You really have no choice but to continue
cutting upside down and backwards. I recommend skipping this
post and the entire thread. Wax luckily is not an adhesive, the
stone is held to the dop with air pressure. A polished surface
helps.

Well as a table first guy I am somewhat perplexed by the comments
some of our debaters have come up with. To start with there have
been no ‘crown first’ advocates that I have noticed. We have
table-crown-pavilion cutters and we have pavilion-crown-table
cutters. Well I am a table-pavilion-crown cutter with a
defensable procedure.

I sincerely hope that I am correct in assuming that the
motivation of all three groups is identical.  We are all
striving to produce the largest, most perfect gem possible, from
any given piece of rough. It is certainly possible for all 3
methods to produce identical gems from identical roughs.

What are the differences then? My personal experience has shown
that P-C-T cutting
needs NO mathematics,
it is tolerant of miscutting and overcutting corrections,
you have no predetermined formula to keep your recovery honest,
you get to play with your transfer block
and you get to spend the maximum time possible with each stone.

T-C-P and T-P-C cutting
requires basic trig.  Of course computer modelling can be used
if you don’t have a handy slide rule.
You have no room to move if there are any problems caused by
ineptitude. The waste has already been removed so recutting
means a smaller stone. The P-C-Ters have yet to cut their table
so the profile and intended size can remain unchanged.
By cutting and polishing the table first you have a reference
for the stone’s finished size and weight by simply calculating
from the available depth. Achieving that is the challenge.
This reference plane also means you dispense with the transfer
two dop juggling nonsense
and of course your playing time is sadly reduced.

I find the idea of any part of a stone having more importance
than any other is a bit silly. A pavilion with no crown or a
crown with no pavilion is pretty much a waste of time, neither
has any importance at all without the other. I am really not
interested in anyone’s opinion of how much wrongness they find
acceptable. I am even less interested in their opinion of where
they think they can get away with wrongness, no matter what
facts they use to back up those opinions. I find such attitudes
reprehensible. there are enough people doing it wrong that don’t
know any better. Why add to it? If your procedure is causing you
to commit these inaccuracies it might behoove you to try
something different.

Tony.