Square Diamond - brilliance

[ChromeWeasel]

Can anyone advise on whether there is a significant difference in brilliance between princess, radiant, and cushion cuts? IE: does any one of those flash more / reflect light notably better?

I originally expected that this would be a reason for the popularity of the princess cut. That this was the flashiest cut possible other than a round brilliant. But doing some research I find a lot of comments that radiant flashes highly as well. And this weekend I was told that that cushions would actually flash more than princess cuts. That surprised me and I thought I'd see if it was true.

Appreciate some other opinions on this. I'm sure that there's some math to this that would suggest whether one cut or another actually generates more flash, assuming two cuts were ideal for their own proportions. Does anyone know?

The reason I get into this is that my girlfriend had suggested she likes the princess cut. I actually think she is more interested in a square cut in general though. So she's not enamored of a that specific cut as much as she wants a good square stone in a nice setting.

Appreciate any advice!

 

[maccers]

I'm no expert in square-ish stones but I did remember seeing a video from GoodOldGold comparing a radiant and two princess cuts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1KY5gkZrvY

GoodOldGold probably has some other videos comparing different cut stones, take a gander.

Of course, the brilliances/sparkle of any stone is only as good as it's cut. A radiant could outsparkle a princess (and vice versa) if the two stones aren't equally well-cut.

ETA: You may find this helpful as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOs9ywWanPc

 

[jmarshall]

Of course, the brilliances/sparkle of any stone is only as good as it's cut. A radiant could outsparkle a princess (and vice versa) if the two stones aren't equally well-cut.

This. I don't think that the shape has anything to do with how brilliant the stone is, it is the quality of cut and skill of the cutter along with the specs of the diamond.

 

[ecf8503]

Are you looking for a square shape? Good Old Gold has the Brellia, which is a square hearts and arrows (with rounded corners, so it looks cushion-y). They also recently started cutting their own ideal-cut cushions, and of course they have August Vintage cushions and ideal cut princesses.

I'd say start with determining your budget. Then watch some videos comparing different cuts (princess, cushions (both modern and vintage styles), radiants, Brellia-types, etc).

Princesses will have many small splintery flashes of light, and will show more white light than colored light. And exactly opposite of that are vintage-style cushions with larger facets designed to return broader, but fewer in number, flashes of colored light. Most other cuts lie somewhere in the middle.

I'd look at Good Old Gold, Whiteflash, Brian Gavin, and Engagement Rings Direct for starters.

Good Old Gold has a youtube channel and they have tons of comparison videos of different shapes, so you can get an idea of what you like. (look under diamondinfoman)

 

[yssie]

Simple question, complicated answer. The way a stone plays with light depends on number, orientation, and alignment of its "virtual facets" - the facets that you see when you look into the stone, which aren't all actually physically cut into the stone - they're reflections of facets, and reflections of reflections... each one of those virtual facets is capable of returning light, obstructing (going dark because it's reflecting something dark), or "leaking" (allowing light to escape out the sides/bottom of the stone instead of being returned face-up to you).

Different shapes sparkle differently, and which is best for you depends on what your definition of "notably better" is. In very, very, very general terms:

Do you prefer large, bold, slow "rolling" flashes over any other type of light return?
(ie. at the expense of quick sizzling twinkles)
Choose a stone with larger (but likely fewer) virtual facets - or double your target carat weight
You'll also likely see more coloured light return in a given lighting environment b/c fewer higher-energy outbound dispersions = greater odds of your eyes catching a single wavelength..

Do you prefer quick sizzling twinkle over any other type of light return?
(ie. at the expense of large, bold, slow "rolling" flashes)
Choose a stone with lots of little virtual facets.

Do you prefer a mix of the two?
(ie. at the expense of both extremely large, bold slow "rolling" flashes and tons of quick sizzling twinkle)
Choose a stone with lots of "medium" sized virtual facets. I would call MRBs are the quintessential catch-alls.

Do you prefer both extremes from the same stone?
Choose a stone with a mix of both giant and tiny virtual facets.
While this may sound like the best option on first glance I've personally never seen a stone that pulls it off - the distribution of large vs. small is always unattractively skewed and IMO they inevitably wind up looking like they've got personality disorders.


That's the very, very, very short version. Within those very, very, very general terms are subdivisions that yield nuances that make all the difference to the way a stone looks and performs. I define a "good performer" as one without large/lots of clumps of virtual facets that don't visibly change what they do (return light/obstruct/leak) either singly or as a cluster when you rock the stone. Those "dead VFs" just look like hazy, greysih mush IRL - not attractive at all!

To clarify: I do NOT define a "good performer" based strictly on ASET colour unless the stone was designed and cut to maximize utility and return of incident light face-up.

This is what I mean re. nuances completely changing the look of a stone - princesses and non-H&A non-specialty radiants look nothing alike in-person despite both being square(ish) and featuring lots of little virtual facets:
A) Princesses have clearly delineated faceting patterns and the boutique precision-cut princesses popular on PS (WF's ACAs, BGD's signatures, Crafted by Infinity used to cut two-chevron princesses, GOG's Superior inventory, Solasferas, HOF's Dreams...) are all designed specifically to minimize both colour and energy absorption by minimizing light path length through the stone, and to maximize utility and return of light incident face-up as specified above. Meaning: because in today's world the brightest lights are usually coming from up above us, use as much of that light as possible, make the light returned as bright as possible, and hide body colour as much as possible.
B) Radiants (I used the word "generic" but I'm including brands like Original Radiant Cut - anything other than the H&A-esque specialty "radiants") are totally different - IMO the best radiants are like looking into tubs of glitter: no discernible patterning, no hotspots of brightness vs. darkness vs. leakage - just glitter glitter everywhere! The "softer", more uniform, less clearly-on/off character is the result of NOT imposing the requirements for princesses listed above - using more light from the sides and back of the stone, allowing more facets to "leak" light face-up, allowing longer path lengths... all of which also results in a stone that shows more body colour face-up, that isn't as blindingly bright (longer path length = more energy diffusion per internal reflection), and that is more succeptible to significantly decreased light return face-up when set into more enclosed settings.
C) Then there are the H&A-esque "radiants" that are basically MRB books with square covers - the Princess of Hearts, the Jubilee, the Brellia... perfect for those who want the very predictable, structured, flashy InYourFace light return of an MRB but who prefer a square/rectangular outline.


Of the three my personal favourites are nice radiants, especially after I got to see a spectacular ORC IRL at DBL last year (was it last year?)... there's a whole lotta dreck out there though, and finding a nice one isn't nearly as easy as finding a nice princess or square H&A type

 

[yssie]

Oh, and I think princesses are more popular because "a princess for my princess" is a momentous and beautiful sentiment every time

 

[Christina...]

Simple question, complicated answer. The way a stone plays with light depends on number, orientation, and alignment of its "virtual facets" - the facets that you see when you look into the stone, which aren't all actually physically cut into the stone - they're reflections of facets, and reflections of reflections... each one of those virtual facets is capable of returning light, obstructing (going dark because it's reflecting something dark), or "leaking" (allowing light to escape out the sides/bottom of the stone instead of being returned face-up to you).

Different shapes sparkle differently, and which is best for you depends on what your definition of "notably better" is. In very, very, very general terms:

Do you prefer large, bold, slow "rolling" flashes over any other type of light return?
(ie. at the expense of quick sizzling twinkles)
Choose a stone with larger (but likely fewer) virtual facets - or double your target carat weight
You'll also likely see more coloured light return in a given lighting environment b/c fewer higher-energy outbound dispersions = greater odds of your eyes catching a single wavelength..

Do you prefer quick sizzling twinkle over any other type of light return?
(ie. at the expense of large, bold, slow "rolling" flashes)
Choose a stone with lots of little virtual facets.

Do you prefer a mix of the two?
(ie. at the expense of both extremely large, bold slow "rolling" flashes and tons of quick sizzling twinkle)
Choose a stone with lots of "medium" sized virtual facets. I would call MRBs are the quintessential catch-alls.

Do you prefer both extremes from the same stone?
Choose a stone with a mix of both giant and tiny virtual facets.
While this may sound like the best option on first glance I've personally never seen a stone that pulls it off - the distribution of large vs. small is always unattractively skewed and IMO they inevitably wind up looking like they've got personality disorders.


That's the very, very, very short version. Within those very, very, very general terms are subdivisions that yield nuances that make all the difference to the way a stone looks and performs. I define a "good performer" as one without large/lots of clumps of virtual facets that don't visibly change what they do (return light/obstruct/leak) either singly or as a cluster when you rock the stone. Those "dead VFs" just look like hazy, greysih mush IRL - not attractive at all!

To clarify: I do NOT define a "good performer" based strictly on ASET colour unless the stone was designed and cut to maximize utility and return of incident light face-up.

This is what I mean re. nuances completely changing the look of a stone - princesses and non-H&A non-specialty radiants look nothing alike in-person despite both being square(ish) and featuring lots of little virtual facets:
A) Princesses have clearly delineated faceting patterns and the boutique precision-cut princesses popular on PS (WF's ACAs, BGD's signatures, Crafted by Infinity used to cut two-chevron princesses, GOG's Superior inventory, Solasferas, HOF's Dreams...) are all designed specifically to minimize both colour and energy absorption by minimizing light path length through the stone, and to maximize utility and return of light incident face-up as specified above. Meaning: because in today's world the brightest lights are usually coming from up above us, use as much of that light as possible, make the light returned as bright as possible, and hide body colour as much as possible.
B) Radiants (I used the word "generic" but I'm including brands like Original Radiant Cut - anything other than the H&A-esque specialty "radiants") are totally different - IMO the best radiants are like looking into tubs of glitter: no discernible patterning, no hotspots of brightness vs. darkness vs. leakage - just glitter glitter everywhere! The "softer", more uniform, less clearly-on/off character is the result of NOT imposing the requirements for princesses listed above - using more light from the sides and back of the stone, allowing more facets to "leak" light face-up, allowing longer path lengths... all of which also results in a stone that shows more body colour face-up, that isn't as blindingly bright (longer path length = more energy diffusion per internal reflection), and that is more succeptible to significantly decreased light return face-up when set into more enclosed settings.
C) Then there are the H&A-esque "radiants" that are basically MRB books with square covers - the Princess of Hearts, the Jubilee, the Brellia... perfect for those who want the very predictable, structured, flashy InYourFace light return of an MRB but who prefer a square/rectangular outline.


Of the three my personal favourites are nice radiants, especially after I got to see a spectacular ORC IRL at DBL last year (was it last year?)... there's a whole lotta dreck out there though, and finding a nice one isn't nearly as easy as finding a nice princess or square H&A type

Fantastic post! I miss insight and guidance around here!

 

[Roxy]

Simple question, complicated answer. The way a stone plays with light depends on number, orientation, and alignment of its "virtual facets" - the facets that you see when you look into the stone, which aren't all actually physically cut into the stone - they're reflections of facets, and reflections of reflections... each one of those virtual facets is capable of returning light, obstructing (going dark because it's reflecting something dark), or "leaking" (allowing light to escape out the sides/bottom of the stone instead of being returned face-up to you).

Different shapes sparkle differently, and which is best for you depends on what your definition of "notably better" is. In very, very, very general terms:

Do you prefer large, bold, slow "rolling" flashes over any other type of light return?
(ie. at the expense of quick sizzling twinkles)
Choose a stone with larger (but likely fewer) virtual facets - or double your target carat weight
You'll also likely see more coloured light return in a given lighting environment b/c fewer higher-energy outbound dispersions = greater odds of your eyes catching a single wavelength..

Do you prefer quick sizzling twinkle over any other type of light return?
(ie. at the expense of large, bold, slow "rolling" flashes)
Choose a stone with lots of little virtual facets.

Do you prefer a mix of the two?
(ie. at the expense of both extremely large, bold slow "rolling" flashes and tons of quick sizzling twinkle)
Choose a stone with lots of "medium" sized virtual facets. I would call MRBs are the quintessential catch-alls.

Do you prefer both extremes from the same stone?
Choose a stone with a mix of both giant and tiny virtual facets.
While this may sound like the best option on first glance I've personally never seen a stone that pulls it off - the distribution of large vs. small is always unattractively skewed and IMO they inevitably wind up looking like they've got personality disorders.


That's the very, very, very short version. Within those very, very, very general terms are subdivisions that yield nuances that make all the difference to the way a stone looks and performs. I define a "good performer" as one without large/lots of clumps of virtual facets that don't visibly change what they do (return light/obstruct/leak) either singly or as a cluster when you rock the stone. Those "dead VFs" just look like hazy, greysih mush IRL - not attractive at all!

To clarify: I do NOT define a "good performer" based strictly on ASET colour unless the stone was designed and cut to maximize utility and return of incident light face-up.

This is what I mean re. nuances completely changing the look of a stone - princesses and non-H&A non-specialty radiants look nothing alike in-person despite both being square(ish) and featuring lots of little virtual facets:
A) Princesses have clearly delineated faceting patterns and the boutique precision-cut princesses popular on PS (WF's ACAs, BGD's signatures, Crafted by Infinity used to cut two-chevron princesses, GOG's Superior inventory, Solasferas, HOF's Dreams...) are all designed specifically to minimize both colour and energy absorption by minimizing light path length through the stone, and to maximize utility and return of light incident face-up as specified above. Meaning: because in today's world the brightest lights are usually coming from up above us, use as much of that light as possible, make the light returned as bright as possible, and hide body colour as much as possible.
B) Radiants (I used the word "generic" but I'm including brands like Original Radiant Cut - anything other than the H&A-esque specialty "radiants") are totally different - IMO the best radiants are like looking into tubs of glitter: no discernible patterning, no hotspots of brightness vs. darkness vs. leakage - just glitter glitter everywhere! The "softer", more uniform, less clearly-on/off character is the result of NOT imposing the requirements for princesses listed above - using more light from the sides and back of the stone, allowing more facets to "leak" light face-up, allowing longer path lengths... all of which also results in a stone that shows more body colour face-up, that isn't as blindingly bright (longer path length = more energy diffusion per internal reflection), and that is more succeptible to significantly decreased light return face-up when set into more enclosed settings.
C) Then there are the H&A-esque "radiants" that are basically MRB books with square covers - the Princess of Hearts, the Jubilee, the Brellia... perfect for those who want the very predictable, structured, flashy InYourFace light return of an MRB but who prefer a square/rectangular outline.


Of the three my personal favourites are nice radiants, especially after I got to see a spectacular ORC IRL at DBL last year (was it last year?)... there's a whole lotta dreck out there though, and finding a nice one isn't nearly as easy as finding a nice princess or square H&A type

Fantastic post! I miss insight and guidance around here!

Agreed!! Thanks for the excellent and informative post!

OP: As was mentioned previously, take a look at some of the videos that the jewelers have uploaded onto YouTube which show comparisons of stones side-by-side (I know that Good Old Gold has some, but I believe there are other jewelers out there as well). I think they'll help you to narrow down what appeals to your eye.

 

[diamond-enthusiast]

Try the Solasfera princess cut. It has one of the nicest performance for square stones.

 

[Christina...]

Simple question, complicated answer. The way a stone plays with light depends on number, orientation, and alignment of its "virtual facets" - the facets that you see when you look into the stone, which aren't all actually physically cut into the stone - they're reflections of facets, and reflections of reflections... each one of those virtual facets is capable of returning light, obstructing (going dark because it's reflecting something dark), or "leaking" (allowing light to escape out the sides/bottom of the stone instead of being returned face-up to you).

Different shapes sparkle differently, and which is best for you depends on what your definition of "notably better" is. In very, very, very general terms:

Do you prefer large, bold, slow "rolling" flashes over any other type of light return?
(ie. at the expense of quick sizzling twinkles)
Choose a stone with larger (but likely fewer) virtual facets - or double your target carat weight
You'll also likely see more coloured light return in a given lighting environment b/c fewer higher-energy outbound dispersions = greater odds of your eyes catching a single wavelength..

Do you prefer quick sizzling twinkle over any other type of light return?
(ie. at the expense of large, bold, slow "rolling" flashes)
Choose a stone with lots of little virtual facets.

Do you prefer a mix of the two?
(ie. at the expense of both extremely large, bold slow "rolling" flashes and tons of quick sizzling twinkle)
Choose a stone with lots of "medium" sized virtual facets. I would call MRBs are the quintessential catch-alls.

Do you prefer both extremes from the same stone?
Choose a stone with a mix of both giant and tiny virtual facets.
While this may sound like the best option on first glance I've personally never seen a stone that pulls it off - the distribution of large vs. small is always unattractively skewed and IMO they inevitably wind up looking like they've got personality disorders.


That's the very, very, very short version. Within those very, very, very general terms are subdivisions that yield nuances that make all the difference to the way a stone looks and performs. I define a "good performer" as one without large/lots of clumps of virtual facets that don't visibly change what they do (return light/obstruct/leak) either singly or as a cluster when you rock the stone. Those "dead VFs" just look like hazy, greysih mush IRL - not attractive at all!

To clarify: I do NOT define a "good performer" based strictly on ASET colour unless the stone was designed and cut to maximize utility and return of incident light face-up.

This is what I mean re. nuances completely changing the look of a stone - princesses and non-H&A non-specialty radiants look nothing alike in-person despite both being square(ish) and featuring lots of little virtual facets:
A) Princesses have clearly delineated faceting patterns and the boutique precision-cut princesses popular on PS (WF's ACAs, BGD's signatures, Crafted by Infinity used to cut two-chevron princesses, GOG's Superior inventory, Solasferas, HOF's Dreams...) are all designed specifically to minimize both colour and energy absorption by minimizing light path length through the stone, and to maximize utility and return of light incident face-up as specified above. Meaning: because in today's world the brightest lights are usually coming from up above us, use as much of that light as possible, make the light returned as bright as possible, and hide body colour as much as possible.
B) Radiants (I used the word "generic" but I'm including brands like Original Radiant Cut - anything other than the H&A-esque specialty "radiants") are totally different - IMO the best radiants are like looking into tubs of glitter: no discernible patterning, no hotspots of brightness vs. darkness vs. leakage - just glitter glitter everywhere! The "softer", more uniform, less clearly-on/off character is the result of NOT imposing the requirements for princesses listed above - using more light from the sides and back of the stone, allowing more facets to "leak" light face-up, allowing longer path lengths... all of which also results in a stone that shows more body colour face-up, that isn't as blindingly bright (longer path length = more energy diffusion per internal reflection), and that is more succeptible to significantly decreased light return face-up when set into more enclosed settings.
C) Then there are the H&A-esque "radiants" that are basically MRB books with square covers - the Princess of Hearts, the Jubilee, the Brellia... perfect for those who want the very predictable, structured, flashy InYourFace light return of an MRB but who prefer a square/rectangular outline.


Of the three my personal favourites are nice radiants, especially after I got to see a spectacular ORC IRL at DBL last year (was it last year?)... there's a whole lotta dreck out there though, and finding a nice one isn't nearly as easy as finding a nice princess or square H&A type

Fantastic post! I miss insight and guidance around here!

Opps! Too late to edit, but I meant to say.....I miss YOUR insight and guidance around here!

 

[ChromeWeasel]

Simple question, complicated answer....:

Thanks for the excellent reply. That's quite a bit to digest, but I appreciate it.

Yesterday I was able to find a jeweler with a radiant diamond right next to a princess to compare the two. Overall I thought that they looked pretty similar. I could tell the difference in the very square corners, even with the diamonds set into rings. I am a bit concerned about the sharp corners of a princess catching on the environment since she is an ER nurse and will be active all day long. I've read a few warnings about the sharp corners chipping, scratching, or catching on things so it seems like something to watch out for.

I found this diamond online that looks good for $5000. I don't know if I should post a direct link or not, so I'll just list the stats for now.
The GIA certificate lists it as: [Cut cornered rectangular modified brilliant]. It looks like a nice square though.

Carat weight:1.21
Certificate:GIA
Color:I
Shape: Radiant
Clarity: VS2
Depth %:70.90
Girdle: Very Thick-Extremely Thick
Table %:71.00
Culet:NN
Polish:Very Good
Crown ∠: - Symmetry:Very Good
Crown %:-
Fluorescence:None
Pavilion ∠:-
L/W/D (mm): 5.95*5.50*3.90
Pavilion %: -

Appreciate any further advice on this!

 

[yssie]

Simple question, complicated answer....:

Thanks for the excellent reply. That's quite a bit to digest, but I appreciate it.

Yesterday I was able to find a jeweler with a radiant diamond right next to a princess to compare the two. Overall I thought that they looked pretty similar. I could tell the difference in the very square corners, even with the diamonds set into rings. I am a bit concerned about the sharp corners of a princess catching on the environment since she is an ER nurse and will be active all day long. I've read a few warnings about the sharp corners chipping, scratching, or catching on things so it seems like something to watch out for.

I found this diamond online that looks good for $5000. I don't know if I should post a direct link or not, so I'll just list the stats for now.
The GIA certificate lists it as: [Cut cornered rectangular modified brilliant]. It looks like a nice square though.

Carat weight:1.21
Certificate:GIA
Color:I
Shape: Radiant
Clarity: VS2
Depth %:70.90
Girdle: Very Thick-Extremely Thick
Table %:71.00
Culet:NN
Polish:Very Good
Crown ∠: - Symmetry:Very Good
Crown %:-
Fluorescence:None
Pavilion ∠:-
L/W/D (mm): 5.95*5.50*3.90
Pavilion %: -

Appreciate any further advice on this!

YW.
What about it "looks good" to you?
What are you judging by?

 

[ChromeWeasel]

Simple question, complicated answer....:

Thanks for the excellent reply. That's quite a bit to digest, but I appreciate it.

Yesterday I was able to find a jeweler with a radiant diamond right next to a princess to compare the two. Overall I thought that they looked pretty similar. I could tell the difference in the very square corners, even with the diamonds set into rings. I am a bit concerned about the sharp corners of a princess catching on the environment since she is an ER nurse and will be active all day long. I've read a few warnings about the sharp corners chipping, scratching, or catching on things so it seems like something to watch out for.

I found this diamond online that looks good for $5000. I don't know if I should post a direct link or not, so I'll just list the stats for now.
The GIA certificate lists it as: [Cut cornered rectangular modified brilliant]. It looks like a nice square though.

Carat weight:1.21
Certificate:GIA
Color:I
Shape: Radiant
Clarity: VS2
Depth %:70.90
Girdle: Very Thick-Extremely Thick
Table %:71.00
Culet:NN
Polish:Very Good
Crown ∠: - Symmetry:Very Good
Crown %:-
Fluorescence:None
Pavilion ∠:-
L/W/D (mm): 5.95*5.50*3.90
Pavilion %: -

Appreciate any further advice on this!

YW.
What about it "looks good" to you?
What are you judging by?

Those stats appear to be good and the diamond looks good. Here's the actual stone:

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/radiant-cut/1.21-carat-i-color-vs2-clarity-sku-45926?a_aid=dmnd1357&chan=x

 

[yssie]

Simple question, complicated answer....:

Thanks for the excellent reply. That's quite a bit to digest, but I appreciate it.

Yesterday I was able to find a jeweler with a radiant diamond right next to a princess to compare the two. Overall I thought that they looked pretty similar. I could tell the difference in the very square corners, even with the diamonds set into rings. I am a bit concerned about the sharp corners of a princess catching on the environment since she is an ER nurse and will be active all day long. I've read a few warnings about the sharp corners chipping, scratching, or catching on things so it seems like something to watch out for.

I found this diamond online that looks good for $5000. I don't know if I should post a direct link or not, so I'll just list the stats for now.
The GIA certificate lists it as: [Cut cornered rectangular modified brilliant]. It looks like a nice square though.

Carat weight:1.21
Certificate:GIA
Color:I
Shape: Radiant
Clarity: VS2
Depth %:70.90
Girdle: Very Thick-Extremely Thick
Table %:71.00
Culet:NN
Polish:Very Good
Crown ∠: - Symmetry:Very Good
Crown %:-
Fluorescence:None
Pavilion ∠:-
L/W/D (mm): 5.95*5.50*3.90
Pavilion %: -

Appreciate any further advice on this!

YW.
What about it "looks good" to you?
What are you judging by?

Those stats appear to be good and the diamond looks good. Here's the actual stone:

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/radiant-cut/1.21-carat-i-color-vs2-clarity-sku-45926?a_aid=dmnd1357&chan=x

In general you can judge MRBs pretty safely by the numbers on the reports but with fancy shapes you really do need more info to have a good idea of how those numbers translate to the 3D model - from the video I think it's promising too, and I'd have them put it on hold and check it out

Then, because diamonds are so personal and fancies can be unpredictable, I'd recommend having it shipped out loose to inspect in-person to make sure that you love it IRL before having it set!