Bad setting for ideal cut?

[timetobuy]

What do you think. Is it a waste to pay for an ideal cut and then put it in this kind of setting?

 

[qtiekiki]

I don''t think so. The face of the diamond of a ideal cut still look more white and sparkly and maybe even bigger than non-ideal cut. Although the setting isn''t my favorite because it looks like it''s choking the diamond. An ideal cut diamond would probably make all the differences.

 

[ecf8503]

What do you think is a "waste"? That setting is a Mark Morrell, who does not take his craft lightly, and I''m sure would never compromise the performance of a stone. An ideal cut round should perform equally well no matter what setting it is in (prong, semi bezel, tension, full bezel, etc) because all the true light performance is seen through the crown. This setting does not interfere with the visually performing surface of the stone and therefore shouldn''t affect it''s performance any more or less than any other prong / basket setting. Perhaps the diamond studded girdle is throwing your eye off?

 

[Scintillating]

Interesting topic...

I was under the impression that diamonds need some light from underneath to perform.
Can a setting interfere with performance? Any guidelines?
Experts?

Scintillating...

 

[Kaleigh]

I don''t get what your point is. That setting by Mark Morrel is gorgeous. Why would it be a waste??

 

[solange]

I think the setting is beautiful and very different. I do not know why anyone would question it.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 2/14/2006 8:42:33 PM
Author: Scintillating
Interesting topic...

I was under the impression that diamonds need some light from underneath to perform.
Can a setting interfere with performance? Any guidelines?
Experts?

Scintillating...

No, that is a misconception. I''ve read it on here several times. The experts always come in to say that it is the light from the top that matters. You can have a stone set down in a setting completely so that only the top shows (like some antique settings) and it will still be brilliant (assuming a great cut) because it is only the light through the top that matters.

I''d reverse this whole thought process. Would it be a compromise to put a less than ideal cut stone in a magnificent Mark Morrell setting? My answer would be yes. The finest of settings deserves an excellent diamond, IMO.

 

[finerthings]

I have always found this setting gorgeous, and very unique. (another Mark Morrell beauty) I don''t think it would hinder the performance of your beautiful diamond at all. I wish I could reach in and try on that ring!

 

[plg_cp]

Date: 2/14/2006 8:57:10 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Date: 2/14/2006 8:42:33 PM

Author: Scintillating

I was under the impression that diamonds need some light from underneath to perform.

No, that is a misconception. I''ve read it on here several times. The experts always come in to say that it is the light from the top that matters. You can have a stone set down in a setting completely so that only the top shows (like some antique settings) and it will still be brilliant (assuming a great cut) because it is only the light through the top that matters.

I believe it would depend on the amount of light leakage the stone exhibits. A poorly cut stone that leaks light out through the pavillion that entered through the crown would logically also "leak" light out the crown that entered through the pavillion. In this case you would benefit by having an exposed pavillion.

If you are referring to a diamond with minimal light leakage, then enclosing it from the girdle down shouldn''t have much impact.

Mark

 

[MiniMouse]

An ideal stone would look fab in this setting, subject to the stone not having a lot of light leakage. A well cut stone will bounce back the light! I think it would look wonderful.