Why are thinner marquise considered ideal?

[peonygirl]

When I tried them on my hand, I prefered the "fatter" ones (ones that had a smaller length-to-width ratio). The saleslady told me that those were considered to be more poorly cut because of the ratio though. Does anyone know why? Thanks!

 

[valeria101]

Are they? I don''t remember of a standard for ''ideal marquises''

Perhaps there is a preffered range, in theory, but that sort of prefference leaves room for choice. It is not based on iron-clad technicals like the ideal cut standards are for rounds.


''Guess I like them unusually long - not ''average long''. Unless there are some other issues there the long-ness or shortness alone do not seem to make any difference of price. I might have some idea why the long marq''s that I prefer could have a problem finding a way to avoid a large bow tie and dull-ness, but the short ones you like should be the more brilliant among marquise cuts, so... good for you

Just my 0.2.

 

[jaz464]

I think that would depend on how fat you mean. 1.75-2.25 is considered to be in an acceptable range. Maybe that saleslady doesn''t know what she is talking about. IMO, 1.75 is quite fat and is not considered to be a bad cut. Keep in mind that there are not real standards for marquise diamonds. However I did follow Dave Atlas''s chart to a "T."

 

[oldminer]

The AGA definitions of well cut fancy shapes that I created are indeed "standards" Just because I am not the GIA does not mean I cannot use my knowledge to give information that no one gets elsewhere in such a complete package. You should note that that "preferred" length to width ratios I provide do not in any way affect the final cut grade. People and gemolgists from all over the owrld are aware of the AGA standards and make use of them. Sometimes, they even make use of them without knowing they exist, because diamond dealers do know a good make diamond from a fair make stone. What I did was not rocket science, but a compilation of experience and common sense. None of the major players that hope to grade fancy shapes have a better idea on defining pretty shapes than are found within the AGA Cut Class grades. All the players will now be adding light performance to fancy shape descriptions, but a pleasing shape is already well defined.....

Technology is about ready to communicate more complete information about diamonds to dealers and consumers than ever before. This process buidls upon good standards that already exist. Nothing is done in a total vacuum as knowledge is cumulative.

Years ago, when the time in a town was set by the noon whistle at the local plant, that was a sufficient standard. Now, the atomic clock sets automated time pieces all around the golbe to the nano-second. This is a logcail advance on previosuly acceptable standards. We are seeing much the same happening with diamonds.

The shape of each marquise diamond is dictated by the shape of the rough material. The art of the cutter is to make each one pretty. Length to width ratios are a consideration in this beauty contest, but economics of retaining carat weight are highly important. Also, one must keep in mind that people''s ideas of beauty vary greatly, too. A girl with short fingers who loves a marquise might opt for a shorter cut style while a lady with long, slender fingers might well prefer a longer, needle like stone.

The jeweler''s job is to give conumers what they want and to explain how the diamond they prefer works. What is its color, clarity fluorescence and light performance? These need to be explained. Then the consumers eye and preferences go to work. Ultimately, YOU buy what YOU like best.

 

[koko]

I''m not a fan of the marquise, but if I got one I''d defininetly be looking for a more slender, delicate look over one that looks like a banana or a football.....have fun searching!!

 

[valeria101]

Date: 10/10/2005 8:27:55 AM
Author: oldminer

The AGA definitions of well cut fancy shapes that I created are indeed 'standards' [...]

You should note that that 'preferred' length to width ratios I provide do not in any way affect the final cut grade.

Ouch! I was the one saying 'there are no standards' above... and I should have known to make the post sound better. The two lines cited above say it allot better than my simplistic, blunt statemen I already regret !

Now I realize that the original post does not say exactly why thinner (relative to Peonygirl's prefference, I guessed) marquises were called 'ideal'. When writing the previous post, I assumed that the shop has its own quality categories that also affect prices. It takes a bit of stubborness and self-assurance to choose a cheaper thing that the seller themselves calls 'non-ideal' just because their taste is different. Thinking of this, I wanted to say that 'length to width ratios I provide do not in any way affect the final cut grade' - along the lines of the AGA charts.


On the aside...
All in all I am not sure if trully extreme (l/w) proportions do not make some other more objective detraction unavoidable, but that is another thing I should not have added above. It just came from my own curiosity. Among marqs, those 'needle' like are particularly appealing for me, for some reason. I surely am curious to know if I've been yearning for a widget all the time!

 

[valeria101]

Peonygirl, is this thinner than you'd wish?

THIS one I would call 'long' by all means, although thinner ones are out there. The picture is too big to fit in here.


For refference...

There are unusually short marquises here and there, but failed to find a relevant example. Just for fun, a real shortie is no longer called 'marquise' at all - there are unusual diamonds sometimes called 'lozenghe'. At least some have the same modified brilliant facet pattern as marquises do - only stretched in a different way if you wish. Here's one such thing:

If you like then short... who knows, there might be a second one somewhere, but I would not hold my breath.

 

[peonygirl]

valeria101, I think my preferences are similar to the top one you posted, maybe a little fatter (it''s hard to tell w/o seeing it on my hand).

 

[oldminer]

If you go to my website there is a tool there, found in the left column, called the "Shape Selector"

With it, you can enter your mm measurements in the upper blanks and immediately see the basic outline L;W ratio "look". You an also just vary the lenght to width ratio with the sliders.

After selecting the L:W ratio you most prefer, try out the bulge sliders so that you can see how L:W ratio can be deceptive if you don't see the diamond in a photo or in person.

You can submit via email or print out the best look that you prefer directly from the Shape Selector. It is made to add communication of shape and outline between consumers and vendors.

Its free and I don't keep any tracking records.....

In fact, if any dealer wants to use it we can supply it to their website or I can send a zipped file of it for personal use. Again, no cost.