57 vs. 63 vs. 93 facets

[in_need_of_help]

I was at the mall the other day, just to nose around.

The sales people at a few shops tries to tell me about these "new cuts" with more facets than the traditional cut.

Just with the naked eye, I think that the diamonds with more facets looked brighter and sparklier than those with fewer facets (for comparably cut/colored/size stones).

When it comes to facets, is more better?

Thanks.

Kevin

 

[Mara]

Nooo don't fall for it. More is not better. Get the 57 (or 58 with culet) faceted stones. The other facets some may say gives it more sparkle or radiance, in my opinion it just makes it look like some odd cousin to the diamond--it doesn't look like a REAL diamond to me. If you want a typical round brilliant look, then don't add facets to it....otherwise you have something entirely different.




Also keep in mind that those stores trying to sell their special extra faceted stones may have crappily cut round brilliants to compare that new extra faceted cut to, that way you will come here and say exactly what you did...that the EF stones looked better than the typical round brilliant. I can almost guarantee you that if you shined a true H&A excellently cut stone next to a diamond aberration like the Leo...you'd see the real winner in the RB!

Then again I'm a RB girl and a regular facet girl...so those other types of stones are like fake LV bags trying to pass themselves off as the real thing to me! No fakes! My two cents.

 

[Colored Gemstone Nut]

----------------
On 11/3/2003 10:12:59 PM in_need_of_help wrote:





I was at the mall the other day, just to nose around.

The sales people at a few shops tries to tell me about these 'new cuts' with more facets than the traditional cut.

Just with the naked eye, I think that the diamonds with more facets looked brighter and sparklier than those with fewer facets (for comparably cut/colored/size stones).

When it comes to facets, is more better?

Thanks.

Kevin
----------------

Kevin...

Mara gives you very sound advice...

Many diamonds which have extra facets is just a ploy to leave more weight (=$) on a stone when cutting.

Some of these diamonds are cut with very deep pavilions considering about 2/3rd's of a diamonds weight is in the pavilions and then to compensate for light loss, add a few extra facets on it so the diamond doesn't look "dead".

This practice benefits the cutter, and give many marketers something to hype up their stones with. The stones might be beautiful, but put them next to a well proportioned ideal cut round and the results are noticable...

 

[valeria101]

I guess more is neither better nor worse: each cut pattern can yield better or worse stones. However, it is that much easier for the seller to claim that whatever makes his stones different also makes them better. Until present I have yet to see a side-by-side test of wether these extra facets do what it is claimed, aside changing (sometimes) the overall appearance of the stone. For now, 'more facets' = 'brand' and a matter of taste, I guess, but not a strong reason to leave the classical cuts behind. To be sure, I am quite sorry to say this because I do like unusual cuts, but such a choice is really personal and there is no hard data to allow me to advocate for it.

For once, mass-merchandise cut in South Asia (just talking about the average here) is never going to sport all those hundreds of facets, so I guess more complicated designs do get better treatment. However, the same judgement applies here as for RBCs: the heavier the diamond the better the yield! So, fancy cuts are just that and no number of facets should exempt a diamond for being evaluated for light return and such.