Here it is

http://www.hknowstore.com/locale/en-US/ ... 6ba7a752fd

I really don't think this is a "Dino skewb truncated octahedron." It has a face and corner turning cube moves. It was first made under the name Concept 11 by another builder.

Edit: Oops, didn't realize it was so deep cut. Looks exactly like concept 11 on the outside.

very good news
it is an interesting puzzle to play with
but what is the difference between special and original version?

very VERY good news! What a puzzle!

Should this not be in New Puzzles?

here are some pictures:

It is basically Gelatinbrain's 4.1.7

Wow. Crazy.

Although on this image it looks like the edge piece in the very center of the picture doesn't look split. At least not really.



Is it assured that the deep cut is along every axis? I guess it is.
But I better ask first.

After I II and III this was an instand buy, can't wait!

That’s actually the same picture they used for the Gem 3

I have ordered one immediately when I got the Email from hknowstore
I guess we should agree upon a more intuitive notation for octahedra. Probably, there will be a discussion about some move sequences soon
The Gelatinbrain notation is not very intuitive at all.

Here is my proposal

We look at the octahedron sitting on a table one corner and one face (F) pointing at us.

The slice moves equivalent to the dodecahedron notation we came up with:

The Gelatinbrain notation is understandable, as each face is the same as a cube corner, and people describe cube corners as 'DBL' and so forth. Nevertheless, I do like Konrad's notation. Now, who's going to sort out the icosahedral notation?

Since I came up with the same notation as Gelatinbrain it must be an obvious one.
Its single disadvantage matters only for move-sequence-addicts: It uses more than one letter per face.

I did not say that the Gelatinbrain notation is not understandable. I just said that it is not very intuitive.
Many people seem to feel the same and came up with notations similar to mine - at least U, R and F I have seen identically several times.
Even if I come from the dual cube, I would end with a slightly different notation:



I start with the octahedron and the cube inscribed and view the cube as in Gelatinbrain. I name the cube corners as usual. I look down to the top corner of the octahedron / the U face of the cube.
Now I would turn the octahedron by the smallest angle possible to get to the shape used by Gelatinbrain.
URF (or UFR) would either be to my front or to my right. In Gelatinbrain it is back from me.

My notation is shorter, yes, but this is not the main reason why I prefer it. It is more intuitive for me, at least for U,R and L; intuitive for a human being looking at the physical puzzle on a table before him / her.

DaYan Gem IV Cube Black Body (Deep Cut), a few photo to share as below,

That looks absolutely gorgeous! I'm looking forward to getting my hands on it. I wouldn't be surprised if they combined by the Gem III and Gem IV to create the Gem V (meaning it has deep cuts, hexagonal face cuts, and square face cuts).

mine is coming

I think my next buy is going to be the whole gem set.

Maybe, I have not understand anything, but is it not still the case ?

On this one only hexagonal faces turn; the shallow hexagonal face turns and the deep cut hexagonal face turns. A nice was of imagining this puzzle is as a Dino Skewb shape mod. The four squares on the center of each Dino Skewb face don't turn, so neither do the square faces here.

I just received mine!

It came stickered. Straight out of the box, the turning is OK. The "centre" slice turns are much better than the hex face turns. On the hex faces the small centre triangles can easily catch and cause a lock-up. I expect some breaking-in and screw tension adjustment will solve that.

I see, it is clear now. Thank you
I am going to take one, because it seems to be an interesting puzzle

Are the Gem 3 and 4 the same size? Or they are a bit different?
I ask it because of the stickers.
I assume Gem 3 stickers are good for the Gem 4 puzzle as well, But I want to be sure!

Oooo, I can't wait .
Nice pics Gus.
Cheers,
Burgo.

The edge length of the Gem IV is 31-32mm. And it weighs 244g.

OK, THX!
Then it must be the same.

Mine arrived today. I agree exactly with Gus. Came stickered but turning is not brilliant. The triangles catching remind me of the catching on the face turning starminx.

So, since this is the only dayan gem I have, does it jumble? Also,

in what ways is it different to this?

Gelatinbrain 4.1.7 is a full octahedron, whereas Dayan Gem IV is a truncated octahedron. Because the corners are truncated, the corner pieces and the small triangles around the corners in 4.1.7 are gone.

Today I have received mine. After lubrication it turns acceptable. Some axis turn worse than others.
Maybe a different tension can help.

I had to sticker the former Gems I, II, III myself. This one came stickered. Unfortunately it uses a different colour scheme than I had used before.


Here are the four Gems:

And here it is with my Dino Skewb:

As you can see it has a few (32 ) more pieces than the cubic Dino Skewb.

@rline: No, it does not jumble. Only I and II can jumble as you see on my photo above.

I received mine yesterday. After a few turns it completely fell apart in my hands. (Click on the disassembly.) It turned out that the red center piece was screwed in as tight as it could be and caused it to pop. I loosened the red face and put it back together but a little while it popped again. After a few hours the outer layer began to turn much better. Some of the stickers are placed off center but other than that I am happy with it.

Mine popped and fell apart while turning one of the outer layers. After reassembly it's slightly better. I've found you have to be really careful turning this-especially the outer hex faces. Other than that it's a really enjoyable puzzle to solve- not too hard or too easy. Overall good but wish it was a bit more stable.

Could this puzzle be modded into a Dino Skewb without changing the internal mechanism? I'm having trouble visualizing the relationship between the two.

I think the relationship with the Compy Skewb is more obvious

The photo shows TomZ's Compy Skewb (BTW, great puzzle )
please see
There are still some differences.
Carl Hoff has made a picture for the Compy thread explaining all pieces of it.
The `Tetrahedral Twin corners` correspond to the hexagonal centres of a Dino turn.
The `Skewb Faces` and `Skewb Corners` are missing on the Gem.
So, counting visible pieces, the Gem iV is something between the Compy and the Dino Skewb.

For those having stability issues with this puzzle: tighten the screws under the square faces almost all the way. Just gently push a screwdriver between the pieces to reach the screws.
Mine exploded three times in one day before doing this.

It's a cool puzzle though, I recommend it to all solvers and collectors.

I have opened a new thread for solution oriented posts.

This thread is in desperate need of a picture. Hope you guys don't mind if I contribute this: (click for a bigger picture)


A Compy Skewb (minus the somewhat "artificially-created" corners) exists inside this puzzle and is not pictured for simplicity. Every piece that is on the surface of the Dayan Gem IV is on the surface of the Dino Skewb. Every piece that is on the surface of the Compy Skewb (again excluding the corners) is on the surface of the Dayan Gem IV. That being said, all three puzzle theoretically contain the same pieces if we count internal pieces.

The Compy Skewb has the special corners - which somewhat of an unnatural, custom mech - and one additional type of piece that is not visible on the Dayan Gem IV - the center square pieces. These pieces exists inside the Dayan Gem VI both theoretically and physically - they are the hidden pieces as described by CBCubes in his video at 3:18. I have not checked to see if making a Compy Skewb out of a Dayan Gem VI would cut too deep into the mechanism, but all the pieces are there, so a mod may indeed be possible.

The Dayan Gem IV can be shape-modded into a Dino Skewb, no problem. No mechanism changes necessary - it's a pure extension mod. Such a transformation will cover up two piece types: the hexagonal centers and the small triangle pieces that lie in the square-hexagon face interactions (the other small triangle pieces, those that lie in the hexagon-hexagon face interactions become the edges of the Dino Skewb).

Now then, any questions?

Peace,
Matt Galla