Diamond setting and light return

[joshua1745]

I have a question about the setting. If you place a diamond in an open setting like a tiffany solitare will that increase the light return coming from the crown vs an enclosed setting like a bezel or basket. Can an ideal cut diamond benefit at all from this. Will light coming in thru the pavillion exit thru the crown in an ideal cut? Would a less ideal cut benefit even more?

 

[joshua1745]

Any ideas?

 

[Jr22]

Date: 9/22/2005 5:31:03 PM
Author: joshua1745
Any ideas?

Joshua,
I''m not expert by any means, but from what I''v read here and other places is that is doesn''t matter that much because most if not all the light return you get comes through the top or table and crown of the diamond and IF ideally cut, will reflect back out the top or table and crown. As far from what I''ve read I haven''t read that any light comes through the bottom and if so will not reflect back out the table or crown anyway even if ideally cut.

I might be incorrect but others will are more adept at answering that question.

 

[ecf8503]

I agree with the previous statement. My previous setting was a tension look, and I upgraded the stone in it to an ideal cut of the same size. The new ideal cut stone itself looked fabulous, but what was distracting to my eye, and gave me the mental impression of decreased performance was the SHADOW of the walls of the setting under the stone. The culet was visible, but the "walls" the stone was set between cast a shadow that I decided didn''t do any service to the stone. So I changed to a different setting - one with no "walls" - just prongs - and no horizontal bar as seen in basket settings. I think the stone looks better to me because I don''t see the shadow cast under it.

Now in a bezel setting, where the bottom of the stone isn''t visible anyway, this wouldn''t be an issue, and the light return will be great for the reasons the previous poster mentioned.

I also have a standard basket setting for another stone in which the body of the stone itself is largely buried. Top down, I think the diamond''s performance is fine. But what I like about the 4-prong, no-horizontal-bar setting is that I can see the ILLUMINATION of the body of the stone. Top down light performance isn''t affected in any standard setting if it is an ideal cut - the light will do what it will do anyway. It''s the other aspects of the setting that play tricks on your (my) eyes. Does this make any sense?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/22/2005 7:03:43 PM
Author: Jr22

Date: 9/22/2005 5:31:03 PM

Author: joshua1745

Any ideas?

Joshua,

I'm not expert by any means, but from what I'v read here and other places is that is doesn't matter that much because most if not all the light return you get comes through the top or table and crown of the diamond and IF ideally cut, will reflect back out the top or table and crown. As far from what I've read I haven't read that any light comes through the bottom and if so will not reflect back out the table or crown anyway even if ideally cut.


I might be incorrect but others will are more adept at answering that question.

There are some areas of the diamond that will look lighter on even a ideal-cut diamond in some lighting but you would probably have to have them side by side to see it.
On leaky diamonds light going thru the stone hitting the setting and being reflected back can be a big part of its light return.
That is more common with gemstones other than diamonds but it happens with them also.

Bottom line an ideal-cut to super-ideal cut diamond isnt going to look bad in any setting but might look different in different settings.

 

[joshua1745]

When you say illumination of the body of the stone are you talking about the side view. I would actually expect an ideal diamond to have less illumination from the side b/c the light is coming out thru the top.

Do you think the bar, cuts down on light return, b/c I am making a ring and I can take it out of the design; however I felt safer thinking the structure would be more rigid and less prone to loosening of the diamond.

 

[ecf8503]

I''m going to use my rings as an example of what I mean. The first pic here is my original e-ring setting - a decent 60/60, 0.52ct, in a tension-look setting (there is a support bar under the culet for stability, so it is not a true tension). The "walls" come to a "V" - almost touching at the bottom. At the time, I needed a setting that was low, wouldn''t catch on gloves, etc - this was perfect. But I did notice that the high "walls" created a dark shadow under the stone.

 

[ecf8503]

Then we decided to upgrade the stone for our anniversary. So I had a slightly larger (0.59ct) Ideal cut RB set into the same setting. The old stone was placed into a Vatche setting with baguettes on the sides. To my surprise, when I received both rings, my reaction to the ideal stone in the old setting was "What? That''s it?" and to the old stone in the new setting was "Wow" My stone''s never looked better!".

I pondered this for a few weeks, and took numerous shots of the 2 rings together. It took me a while, but I finally realized that it was the setting that was the culprit - it was doing a disservice to the new ideal cut stone. The walls created that shadow underneath, blocked light from the sides, and the girdle was buried enough that to my eye it made the stone look smaller than it was.

The old stone in the new Vatche setting looks great! The girdle is up a bit off the horizontal support bar of the basket. It looks fab from the top. But I really (and this is just me) would prefer to be able to see more of the stone itself. I don''t think the horizontal bar impedes light performance at all (and it shouldn''t) - it''s just a different look than I was used to.

 

[ecf8503]

My husband and I discussed things, and we ended up ordering a second, slightly larger stone (0.74ct and also ideal cut) in addition to the 0.59ct, with the intent of returning one of them. The new stone was shipped loose, so it was difficult to look at and compare the 2 stones since the setting created such a different environment for the smaller stone.

It is well documented in art / optics / vision theory that your eye will perceive differences in colors and their relative contrast in different manners depending on what you are looking at. If you are comparing a white, a gray, and a black, the gray will look dark compared to the white and light compared to the black. Jonathan at Good Old Gold has a pic of this (with checkerboard patterns to demonstrate contrast) on his site - somewhere - but I can''t find it at the moment.

So I tried to compare the new loose stone with a stone that was set into a dark surrounding. Here are some pics of the 2 stones together, with my various attempts to compare the stones. I determined, that to me anyway, the buried bezel and deep walls of the "V" were creating this dark background for my little rock! The bigger stone just looked more "bright" if that makes any sense in that there was no dark contrast around it. It was then that I decided I needed a new setting.

 

[ecf8503]

Finally I decided to keep the bigger stone and get a simpler setting (as opposed to keeping the smaller stone and using the money for a more ornate, "blingy" setting). So the little stone went back, and the old setting is now sitting empty.

The quest for a new setting led me to this A. Jaffe model that I think does a great job of showing off the stone. What I meant by all of this - in response to your question about what I meant by "illumination" - is that light is let into the setting from all sides, not just the top.

This has absolutely no impact on the performance of the stone - it''s gonna do what it''s gonna do regardless of what it is set in. What made a difference TO ME was the visual impact of the surroundings. I decided to go for a simpler / not ornate ring, so there are no side stones to draw your attention. The lack of shadow cast into / under the stone, to my eye, makes for a lighter, brighter visual experience. Just a lesson in contrast for me!

In a true full bezel, the "V" of my old ring would not be there - the entire stone is surrounded by an even visual experience, so there are no shadows cast to detract your eye from the stone. If I were to do it again (looking back on my original ring many years ago) I should have done a full bezel instead of the semi-tension.

Does that answer your questions?

 

[joshua1745]

WOW thanks for that great presentation. Here''s my delema. I am making a custom ring similar to this scott kay. I am trying to decide whether to leave the bar just below the girdle of the center diamond in or not. On the scott kay its not present but I was afraid that without it the overall rigidity was poor and if 1 stone became loose all stones would become loose. Is this the purpose of that center bar b/c usually the diamond is just sitting above the bar. I notice that pretty much all rings except tiffany solitaires with thick prongs have the center bar.

 

[Sundial]

My three stone ring is a Hearts on Fire semi-bezel setting that looks very similiar to the one from Scott Kay in a side profile. It has no bars and I have had no problems with it at all. On the other hand I don't see that the bar would have a negative effect on the light performance of the diamond if you felt better having it there. Is the Scott Kay design prong set or bezel set?

 

[joshua1745]

There is no bezel on the scott kay or my custom ring that I am building. The center stone is held by 4 prongs. The side diamonds have 2 prongs on the ouside and are pressed against a groove on a bar that goes in between the 2 center prongs from the side.