Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

bill bray - and anyone else...

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

Cehrabehra

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 29, 2006
Messages
11,071
I wanted to take this out of the fire thread because I thought it would get lost there... anyway I''d like to know more about what you meant when you said this:

Date: 2/4/2007 10:19:53 AM
Author: He Scores
I hope the performance guys notice that the majority of Ellens shots highlight light reflected off a facet surface.

This is enhanced by facet definition which is lost by a. pasting brilliandeering facets b. shallow crown angles.


Now, I''ll go and read the rest of the thread.



Bill


Thank you :)
 

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295
ssssshhhhh don''t tell anyone but the most impressive pics are actually lens flair on the camera lens and not fire from the diamond.

What He is talking about is surface return or glare.
Remember the table glare from the diamonds Wink was showing when he was comparing 8* infinity and the other?
Same thing different facet.

Higher crowns have larger crown facets hence more chance of glare.
Painted diamonds have less distinct and different angled girdle facets therefore there is less chance of glare or surface return being returned in a viewable direction.
Over all its pretty much a non-issue in my opinion.
 

diagem

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
4,929
Date: 2/4/2007 1:39:45 PM
Author: strmrdr
ssssshhhhh don''t tell anyone but the most impressive pics are actually lens flair on the camera lens and not fire from the diamond.

What He is talking about is surface return or glare.
Remember the table glare from the diamonds Wink was showing when he was comparing 8* infinity and the other?
Same thing different facet.

Higher crowns have larger crown facets hence more chance of glare.
Painted diamonds have less distinct and different angled girdle facets therefore there is less chance of glare or surface return being returned in a viewable direction.
Over all its pretty much a non-issue in my opinion.
I think it is a huge issue...
After all Diamonds also reflect light amazingly.

Its true, its a less of an issue on flater diamonds (big diameter diamonds)..., like rounds and large table diamonds like princesses etc, etc...
But i am surprised Strmrdr thinks this way..., as he is the "Asscher man", and Asschers get amazing crown reflections when cut right and is considered a sought after look.

Ive wrote many times that one of the many amazing features of diamonds is when they are cut with high crowns..., thats where the best reflection effect
comes from.

I think the sculpture efect of a high large faceted crown is more important than spread..., but thats only me.



I would
 

diagem

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
4,929
Date: 2/4/2007 1:49:06 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Sorry Bill - we do not seem to be agreeing much these days.

The difference in a painted stone is only that those facets would reflect from different directions. Correct, if the facets are not pasted.
 

diamondseeker2006

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
55,611
Antique-Diamond Gem, what sort of crown angle measurement do you prefer on a round?
 

diagem

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
4,929
Date: 2/4/2007 2:05:50 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Antique-Diamond Gem, what sort of crown angle measurement do you prefer on a round?
DS,

Rounds are systemized (you are extremely limited to widen your options). And there is no creativity involve unlike fancy cuts.
They have to be cut by the book to fall into the "ideal" category with a very limited tollerance..., and if they are not ideally cut, they get categorized as ugly-ducklins....

I would prefer a high crowned Old-European any day over a standard round...
 

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295
Date: 2/4/2007 1:59:45 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 2/4/2007 1:39:45 PM
Author: strmrdr
ssssshhhhh don''t tell anyone but the most impressive pics are actually lens flair on the camera lens and not fire from the diamond.

What He is talking about is surface return or glare.
Remember the table glare from the diamonds Wink was showing when he was comparing 8* infinity and the other?
Same thing different facet.

Higher crowns have larger crown facets hence more chance of glare.
Painted diamonds have less distinct and different angled girdle facets therefore there is less chance of glare or surface return being returned in a viewable direction.
Over all its pretty much a non-issue in my opinion.
I think it is a huge issue...
After all Diamonds also reflect light amazingly.

Its true, its a less of an issue on flater diamonds (big diameter diamonds)..., like rounds and large table diamonds like princesses etc, etc...
But i am surprised Strmrdr thinks this way..., as he is the ''Asscher man'', and Asschers get amazing crown reflections when cut right and is considered a sought after look.

Ive wrote many times that one of the many amazing features of diamonds is when they are cut with high crowns..., thats where the best reflection effect
comes from.

I think the sculpture efect of a high large faceted crown is more important than spread..., but thats only me.



I would
Asschers are a whole different world than rounds and we were talking rounds here.
With a round light entering the diamond and being returned is a much bigger and more important issue than glare.
With some huge tabled rounds it might be the only return they get so its more of an issue.
Large tabled EC and SE (large table flat looking) its also a large part of there performance because they don''t have anything else.
Either one when well cut the in and out light return becomes a much larger part of their performance envelope and look but its also true that surface return is a bigger part of it than with well cut rounds.

It really depends on which way you look at it so I think we are both right.
With fancies its more important but with rounds its not a huge issue.
 

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295
Date: 2/4/2007 2:27:00 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 2/4/2007 2:05:50 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Antique-Diamond Gem, what sort of crown angle measurement do you prefer on a round?
DS,

Rounds are systemized (you are extremely limited to widen your options). And there is no creativity involve unlike fancy cuts.
They have to be cut by the book to fall into the ''ideal'' category with a very limited tollerance..., and if they are not ideally cut, they get categorized as ugly-ducklins....

I would prefer a high crowned Old-European any day over a standard round...
Some days I feel the same, RB''s get kinda boring after a while.
There is a fairly large range of ideals but the differences aren''t huge but enough so people have preferences.

Thats what I love about asschers no 2 are the same and likely never will be.
 

diagem

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
4,929
Date: 2/4/2007 2:31:25 PM
Author: strmrdr

Asschers are a whole different world than rounds and we were talking rounds here.
With a round light entering the diamond and being returned is a much bigger and more important issue than glare.
With some huge tabled rounds it might be the only return they get so its more of an issue.
Large tabled EC and SE (large table flat looking) its also a large part of there performance because they don''t have anything else.
Either one when well cut the in and out light return becomes a much larger part of their performance envelope and look but its also true that surface return is a bigger part of it than with well cut rounds.

It really depends on which way you look at it so I think we are both right. Agreed...
With fancies its more important but with rounds its not a huge issue.
Old-Euro''s are rounds..., rounds that were cut when they were still considered creative.
 

diagem

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
4,929
Date: 2/4/2007 2:35:12 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 2/4/2007 2:27:00 PM
Author: DiaGem


Date: 2/4/2007 2:05:50 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Antique-Diamond Gem, what sort of crown angle measurement do you prefer on a round?
DS,

Rounds are systemized (you are extremely limited to widen your options). And there is no creativity involve unlike fancy cuts.
They have to be cut by the book to fall into the ''ideal'' category with a very limited tollerance..., and if they are not ideally cut, they get categorized as ugly-ducklins....

I would prefer a high crowned Old-European any day over a standard round...
Some days I feel the same, RB''s get kinda boring after a while.
There is a fairly large range of ideals but the differences aren''t huge but enough so people have preferences.

Thats what I love about asschers no 2 are the same and likely never will be.
We know some that are trying to take the creativity out of Asscher''s as i write these words....,
 

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295
Date: 2/4/2007 2:48:42 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 2/4/2007 2:31:25 PM
Author: strmrdr

Asschers are a whole different world than rounds and we were talking rounds here.
With a round light entering the diamond and being returned is a much bigger and more important issue than glare.
With some huge tabled rounds it might be the only return they get so its more of an issue.
Large tabled EC and SE (large table flat looking) its also a large part of there performance because they don''t have anything else.
Either one when well cut the in and out light return becomes a much larger part of their performance envelope and look but its also true that surface return is a bigger part of it than with well cut rounds.

It really depends on which way you look at it so I think we are both right. Agreed...
With fancies its more important but with rounds its not a huge issue.
Old-Euro''s are rounds..., rounds that were cut when they were still considered creative.
True that.
When someone says a round they are assumed to be talking about RB''s these days and other rounds are called by there names but I see your point :}
 

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295
Date: 2/4/2007 2:54:48 PM
Author: DiaGem
We know some that are trying to take the creativity out of Asscher''s as i write these words....,
Time will tell but I don''t think that is really possible.
If AGS goes too tight on what a great stone is then yea it might somewhat happen.
If they do that at least one person will reject the grading (me).
They have stated that a wide range of looks will be allowed to get the top grade so time will tell.
There will also always be a small market for the traditional antique style asschers.
 

diagem

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
4,929
Date: 2/4/2007 3:01:21 PM
Author: strmrdr
Time will tell but I don''t think that is really possible. Its not possible, but its money making tool, and they will fight for it....
If AGS goes too tight on what a great stone is then yea it might somewhat happen.
If they do that at least one person will reject the grading (me). Strmrdr, i know some of the more serious Asscher producers and to my dismay, they dont even follow up on the AGS plans, its NOT even an issue for them...
They have stated that a wide range of looks will be allowed to get the top grade so time will tell. There it doesnt make any sense, there are at least 56 step facets on a stone, if you give these facets a "wide" range..., how can you systemize its look (appearance?)
There will also always be a small market for the traditional antique style asschers. Just like the Old-Euro''s...
 

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
15,170
Back to the issue - the upper halfs or crowwn girdle facets on a Tolkowsky stone would be about 37 degrees on a painted stone, vs 40-41 degrees on a normal stone, so there is more chance the shallower angled stones would reflect glare from a light suorce on a painted stone.

This assumes there are more light sources on the ceiling.

A normal stone should have more reflections from windows - which because they are bigger then most lights - can have more impact on regular stones. But there is no light from windows at night time.

Either way - this is a very minor issue as the surface area of these facets is rather small
 

diamondseeker2006

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
55,611
Date: 2/4/2007 2:27:00 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 2/4/2007 2:05:50 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Antique-Diamond Gem, what sort of crown angle measurement do you prefer on a round?
DS,

Rounds are systemized (you are extremely limited to widen your options). And there is no creativity involve unlike fancy cuts.
They have to be cut by the book to fall into the ''ideal'' category with a very limited tollerance..., and if they are not ideally cut, they get categorized as ugly-ducklins....

I would prefer a high crowned Old-European any day over a standard round...
Yeah, I wish I knew how to buy those. But what I''d really like is one of these, but I can''t figure out how (and maybe it would be more than I could afford?).

DiaGemOMC1d.jpg
 

He Scores

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Mar 26, 2005
Messages
230
.

When you have flatter crown facets, the "bounce" of reflected light from facet to facet is less and less as that angle is decreased. Most lay people and some people in the trade often don't look past the reflected light of facet surfaces. If you look at many of Ellen's very nice pictures, she captured (fairly well for an amateur) reflections of facet surfaces. There was one picture later on that captured a small flash of fire from within the stone, I'd have to go back and see who it was.

Another example of this lack of definition between facets takes place when you have a set of upper or lower girdle halves that are DUG so deeply that the sarin machine will only pick up one facet as opposed to two, because there is such an indistinguishible variation between the two surfaces. The same thing happens between the table and the crown main facets when the mains are cut "flat" (read, lesser angle)and since the stars are on an angle inbetween they too "soften" the look of the crown even more.

Lay people sometimes see the sharp pronounced facet junctions on a diamond and think this is what is meant by "points"( not the astute regulars on Pricescope but still).

A lady jeweler corned me and another cutter and complained about the cut on her heart shape diamond and what could we do to improve it. I louped it and it was a gorgeous shape. The other cutter agreed. She protested that, "it wasn't cut right". I took the stone and looked at it again, louped it, and stood my ground. I hand it back to her and I observed the way she looked at the stone, and she was looking at it at about a 45 degree angle to the crown. I took it back and looked at it the same way she was looking at it. What do you think I saw?

I saw the reflection of the table. And then it dawned on me that the shape of the table on the heart shape diamond isn't the same as the shape of the heart. The table is more of a shield cut shape. This is what she meant. When I explained to her that we couldn't shape the table like that, she reluctantly accepted the reality of her diamond. All from looking at a surface reflection.

It was what I was taught in diamond cutting school. The brilliandeering facets frame the main facets much like a frame on a painting. If girdle facets are painted on, if the lower girdle facets are painted and too high, the definition between them and the main is diminished and this affects the look of the stone. This is why I agree with the GIA on deducting for painted girdle facets. I deduct for them in my scoring system as is also done if they are "dug" too much.

I always disagreed with judging the look of a diamond by a simple static face up view. The trade's observation studies prohibited the viewer of viewing the diamond from any angle they wanted to. Diamonds are a sculpture. Scupltures aren't meant to be observed by a picture of a single view. They change the way they look in different conditions from different views. Imagine if we only saw one picture of the Statue of Liberty, Washington Monument or the only view of the Lincoln Memorial was what we saw on a penny! When Tolkowsky did his treatise, he simple told cutters to cut the stone to what they considered the best looking stones, and they proved out his theory. How different the studies are today!

Here's another short story. I had a lady come to me with a complaint that she had her ring sized and now her diamond doesn't look the same. When I asked her how she could tell, she said she drove a red cadilac with white interior. When she drove to work, with her hand on the steering wheel the sun would hit her ring and she could look up on the visor and ceiling and see the the "sparkle" on them. When she got her ring back, she didn't see the same array of spectral flashes. I compared the stone with the the certificate and agreed that it wasn't the same stone. It was an honest mistake on the part of her jeweler and she ended up with her original diamond, but she was able to tell the difference from the surface reflections, the same way that an early technological tool used to in the industry....Gemprint.


Bill
 

Cehrabehra

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 29, 2006
Messages
11,071
Date: 2/4/2007 10:19:34 PM
Author: He Scores
.

When you have flatter crown facets, the ''bounce'' of reflected light from facet to facet is less and less as that angle is decreased. Most lay people and some people in the trade often don''t look past the reflected light of facet surfaces. If you look at many of Ellen''s very nice pictures, she captured (fairly well for an amateur) reflections of facet surfaces. There was one picture later on that captured a small flash of fire from within the stone, I''d have to go back and see who it was.

Another example of this lack of definition between facets takes place when you have a set of upper or lower girdle halves that are DUG so deeply that the sarin machine will only pick up one facet as opposed to two, because there is such an indistinguishible variation between the two surfaces. The same thing happens between the table and the crown main facets when the mains are cut ''flat'' (read, lesser angle)and since the stars are on an angle inbetween they too ''soften'' the look of the crown even more.

Lay people sometimes see the sharp pronounced facet junctions on a diamond and think this is what is meant by ''points''( not the astute regulars on Pricescope but still).

A lady jeweler corned me and another cutter and complained about the cut on her heart shape diamond and what could we do to improve it. I louped it and it was a gorgeous shape. The other cutter agreed. She protested that, ''it wasn''t cut right''. I took the stone and looked at it again, louped it, and stood my ground. I hand it back to her and I observed the way she looked at the stone, and she was looking at it at about a 45 degree angle to the crown. I took it back and looked at it the same way she was looking at it. What do you think I saw?

I saw the reflection of the table. And then it dawned on me that the shape of the table on the heart shape diamond isn''t the same as the shape of the heart. The table is more of a shield cut shape. This is what she meant. When I explained to her that we couldn''t shape the table like that, she reluctantly accepted the reality of her diamond. All from looking at a surface reflection.

It was what I was taught in diamond cutting school. The brilliandeering facets frame the main facets much like a frame on a painting. If girdle facets are painted on, if the lower girdle facets are painted and too high, the definition between them and the main is diminished and this affects the look of the stone. This is why I agree with the GIA on deducting for painted girdle facets. I deduct for them in my scoring system as is also done if they are ''dug'' too much.

I always disagreed with judging the look of a diamond by a simple static face up view. The trade''s observation studies prohibited the viewer of viewing the diamond from any angle they wanted to. Diamonds are a sculpture. Scupltures aren''t meant to be observed by a picture of a single view. They change the way they look in different conditions from different views. Imagine if we only saw one picture of the Statue of Liberty, Washington Monument or the only view of the Lincoln Memorial was what we saw on a penny! When Tolkowsky did his treatise, he simple told cutters to cut the stone to what they considered the best looking stones, and they proved out his theory. How different the studies are today!

Here''s another short story. I had a lady come to me with a complaint that she had her ring sized and now her diamond doesn''t look the same. When I asked her how she could tell, she said she drove a red cadilac with white interior. When she drove to work, with her hand on the steering wheel the sun would hit her ring and she could look up on the visor and ceiling and see the the ''sparkle'' on them. When she got her ring back, she didn''t see the same array of spectral flashes. I compared the stone with the the certificate and agreed that it wasn''t the same stone. It was an honest mistake on the part of her jeweler and she ended up with her original diamond, but she was able to tell the difference from the surface reflections, the same way that an early technological tool used to in the industry....Gemprint.


Bill
Bill, I really respect your views here. Of course as you can see by my avatar, I am the owner of a big crowned stone :)

Particularly the part I highlighted.... I totally agree... they are indeed a sculpture that is to be appreciated from all angles, not just straight up.

I have compared these really tightly parametered diamonds to a flashlight that has had its focus turned to deliver a very tight beam of light, rather than having the focus spread so that there is less brilliance perhaps, but it is filtered over a larger area. I imagine if all of your efforts are put cutting a stone that performs almost exclusively at its best in one direction only, you might not have much appreciation for stones that look just as beautiful from other angles even if it means not having an equal intensity in that one direction.

I enjoy a very wide optimal viewing range for my stone - definitely not just the top 25*. And it doesn''t bother me in the least that there are cutters and customers out there preferring these ''tighty whiteys'' lol but that there isn''t much going on to explore other flavors. I''m glad there are cutters like diagem out there creating avant garde styles, but the world could use more of them.
 

Ellen

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
24,426
Bill, thank you for the compliment on my pics, and also for your interesting and thoughtful post.

And I agree as well, diamonds are indeed sculptures!
 

elmo

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
1,160
Date: 2/4/2007 9:30:08 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
But what I'd really like is one of these, but I can't figure out how (and maybe it would be more than I could afford?).
DS - talk with Ari at Singlestone. He'll arrange to have one cut for you. They're sold at a significant premium, list and higher.
 

elmo

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
1,160
Date: 2/4/2007 10:19:34 PM
Author: He Scores
I always disagreed with judging the look of a diamond by a simple static face up view.
Bill and Cehra, I think that's a great point that I don't see discussed much. I've been looking for a pendant stone lately. Looked recently at a modern cushion with a killer appearance when it was close to perpendicular to the light source. But more than a little off axis performance dropped, to the point where if you held it in the position where you'd wear it in a pendant, it didn't look good at all. On the other hand, an antique reproduction I saw with the huge crown actually seemed to perform better when 30-40% off axis. Still looking at stones to find the right balance.
 

Cehrabehra

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 29, 2006
Messages
11,071
Date: 2/5/2007 8:31:57 AM
Author: elmo

Date: 2/4/2007 10:19:34 PM
Author: He Scores
I always disagreed with judging the look of a diamond by a simple static face up view.
Bill and Cehra, I think that''s a great point that I don''t see discussed much. I''ve been looking for a pendant stone lately. Looked recently at a modern cushion with a killer appearance when it was close to perpendicular to the light source. But more than a little off axis performance dropped, to the point where if you held it in the position where you''d wear it in a pendant, it didn''t look good at all. On the other hand, an antique reproduction I saw with the huge crown actually seemed to perform better when 30-40% off axis. Still looking at stones to find the right balance.
and then there are experts who would disagree with us... https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/selecting-a-diamond-with-best-appearance.54425/

I dunno - to me the more focused your return is, the more eggs you have in one basket so to speak.... but IMO this static view is essential for tools such as idealscope. Or is it that idealscope is essential in creating the demand? which came first the chicken or the egg? There''s no doubt they''re beautiful, but they''re not the only kind of beauty. I would love to have a SECOND diamond that performed like that, but I''m thrilled my main one has broader sparkle, even if it is not as intense.
 

diagem

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
4,929
Date: 2/5/2007 10:42:02 AM
Author: Cehrabehra

Date: 2/5/2007 8:31:57 AM
Author: elmo


Date: 2/4/2007 10:19:34 PM
Author: He Scores
I always disagreed with judging the look of a diamond by a simple static face up view.
Bill and Cehra, I think that''s a great point that I don''t see discussed much. I''ve been looking for a pendant stone lately. Looked recently at a modern cushion with a killer appearance when it was close to perpendicular to the light source. But more than a little off axis performance dropped, to the point where if you held it in the position where you''d wear it in a pendant, it didn''t look good at all. On the other hand, an antique reproduction I saw with the huge crown actually seemed to perform better when 30-40% off axis. Still looking at stones to find the right balance.
and then there are experts who would disagree with us... https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/selecting-a-diamond-with-best-appearance.54425/

I dunno - to me the more focused your return is, the more eggs you have in one basket so to speak.... but IMO this static view is essential for tools such as idealscope. Or is it that idealscope is essential in creating the demand? which came first the chicken or the egg? There''s no doubt they''re beautiful, but they''re not the only kind of beauty. I would love to have a SECOND diamond that performed like that, but I''m thrilled my main one has broader sparkle, even if it is not as intense.
Cehra,

Take your avtar for example...., the angle of photography is beautifull...., thats where the sculpture effect comes into place, very simple....
Some enjoy looking at this angle some dont....
I myself love staring at a profile of a high crowned diamond..., i dont like staring at a profile of a round or even a princess cut... (it just doesnt do it to me!!!)
 

widget

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 12, 2004
Messages
4,255
I just love the sentiments so well articulated in this thread!

Sometime ago I tried on a pair of OMC studs, and was absolutely entranced. They were so much richer, more interesting than my RBs!... I think now because of their depth, and the pleasure of enjoying them from angles other than just face up.

(An aside for Cehrabehra: I''m planning on listening in on your conference today with wink...can''t wait! Not only to hear "out loud" your plans/desires for your mounting, but to finally learn how to pronounce your name! LOL)

widget
 

Cehrabehra

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 29, 2006
Messages
11,071
Date: 2/5/2007 11:14:08 AM
Author: widget
I just love the sentiments so well articulated in this thread!

Sometime ago I tried on a pair of OMC studs, and was absolutely entranced. They were so much richer, more interesting than my RBs!... I think now because of their depth, and the pleasure of enjoying them from angles other than just face up.

(An aside for Cehrabehra: I''m planning on listening in on your conference today with wink...can''t wait! Not only to hear ''out loud'' your plans/desires for your mounting, but to finally learn how to pronounce your name! LOL)

widget
LMAO!!! Widget? I can let you in on a secret... haha... my name is Sara - pronounced like Sarah ;-) Cehra is just an alternative spelling I made up as a freshman in high school to be less boring than Sara and it lasted all of like a month... well other than online LOL! But don''t let that stop you from coming ;-)

I think RBs make good earrings and pendants but for a ring, especially my one and only main ring, it is nice to have it really interesting from all angles. It has taken me some time to get over the extreme brilliance thing of the rounds and accept the unique beauty of this stone, but I know I will never be bored - it just as so many things going for it :) I do feel at odds with the RB mentality though because there is so much pressure to want that - and I remember in a session or thread somewhere... no, it was in an interview with the guy from 8* where he said, "People want what we tell them they want" and I just think that however wonderful superideal rounds and idealscopes and that whole mentality is - it isn''t the ONLY way to appreciate a diamond and I find it unfortunate that there is sooooooo much emphasis on that. I''m very relieved when I hear experts like bill and diagem praising other qualities that are actually minimized in the pursuit of the IRB.
 

Cehrabehra

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 29, 2006
Messages
11,071
Date: 2/5/2007 11:00:08 AM
Author: DiaGem
Cehra,

Take your avtar for example...., the angle of photography is beautifull...., thats where the sculpture effect comes into place, very simple....
Some enjoy looking at this angle some dont....
I myself love staring at a profile of a high crowned diamond..., i dont like staring at a profile of a round or even a princess cut... (it just doesnt do it to me!!!)
Thank you diagem.... I wish it was one of your stones. I also hope that you post more of your pictures... I love your style. I almost think I could recognize it on someone''s hand given the chance :)
 

Ellen

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
24,426
Date: 2/5/2007 11:26:47 AM
Author: Cehrabehra
LMAO!!! Widget? I can let you in on a secret... haha... my name is Sara - pronounced like Sarah ;-) Cehra is just an alternative spelling I made up as a freshman in high school to be less boring than Sara and it lasted all of like a month... well other than online LOL! But don''t let that stop you from coming ;-)

I think RBs make good earrings and pendants but for a ring, especially my one and only main ring, it is nice to have it really interesting from all angles. It has taken me some time to get over the extreme brilliance thing of the rounds and accept the unique beauty of this stone, but I know I will never be bored - it just as so many things going for it :) I do feel at odds with the RB mentality though because there is so much pressure to want that - and I remember in a session or thread somewhere... no, it was in an interview with the guy from 8* where he said, ''People want what we tell them they want'' and I just think that however wonderful superideal rounds and idealscopes and that whole mentality is - it isn''t the ONLY way to appreciate a diamond and I find it unfortunate that there is sooooooo much emphasis on that. I''m very relieved when I hear experts like bill and diagem praising other qualities that are actually minimized in the pursuit of the IRB.
Really? I can''t imagine anybody buying a stone they really didn''t want. I certainly wouldn''t. And I would hope people have enough individuality to make their own decisions...

People should buy what they like, who cares if anyone else likes it? That''s always been my motto.
 

elmo

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
1,160
Date: 2/5/2007 10:42:02 AM
Author: Cehrabehra
and then there are experts who would disagree with us... https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/selecting-a-diamond-with-best-appearance.54425/
Don't give Dave too hard a time
, we may be just placing somewhat different emphasis on what we're looking for than the average shopper, since we like old stones. Part of what he said is why I didn't keep the antique reproduction I mentioned:

Author: oldminer
If someone sees a stone which looks excellent at 20 degrees off face-up, but looks just okay straight on, it won't be one of the best...Some strange diamonds look better from an angle than face-up, but what is the purpose in choosing such a stone? It needs a fine face-up view to succeed in ultimate beauty.
It's exactly what I was trying to say I was seeing - great at an angle, something missing face up. I'll know the right combination in an old stone when I see it
. Thanks for the link!
 

Cehrabehra

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 29, 2006
Messages
11,071
Date: 2/5/2007 11:48:44 AM
Author: Ellen

Date: 2/5/2007 11:26:47 AM
Author: Cehrabehra
LMAO!!! Widget? I can let you in on a secret... haha... my name is Sara - pronounced like Sarah ;-) Cehra is just an alternative spelling I made up as a freshman in high school to be less boring than Sara and it lasted all of like a month... well other than online LOL! But don''t let that stop you from coming ;-)

I think RBs make good earrings and pendants but for a ring, especially my one and only main ring, it is nice to have it really interesting from all angles. It has taken me some time to get over the extreme brilliance thing of the rounds and accept the unique beauty of this stone, but I know I will never be bored - it just as so many things going for it :) I do feel at odds with the RB mentality though because there is so much pressure to want that - and I remember in a session or thread somewhere... no, it was in an interview with the guy from 8* where he said, ''People want what we tell them they want'' and I just think that however wonderful superideal rounds and idealscopes and that whole mentality is - it isn''t the ONLY way to appreciate a diamond and I find it unfortunate that there is sooooooo much emphasis on that. I''m very relieved when I hear experts like bill and diagem praising other qualities that are actually minimized in the pursuit of the IRB.
Really? I can''t imagine anybody buying a stone they really didn''t want. I certainly wouldn''t. And I would hope people have enough individuality to make their own decisions...

People should buy what they like, who cares if anyone else likes it? That''s always been my motto.
FTR I didn''t mean pressure to want a round diamond - I mean pressure to want a particular type of round diamond if round is the choice... and in the situation I''m talking about it isn''t really about individual preference it is about what the experts tell us is "best". Kinda like in football if they''re training a kicker. Well you can train and train and get the best kicker in the world - and he might not be able to throw a ball. My irk is that throwing has then become underrated because its all about the kick.
 

Cehrabehra

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 29, 2006
Messages
11,071
Date: 2/5/2007 12:10:42 PM
Author: elmo


Date: 2/5/2007 10:42:02 AM
Author: Cehrabehra
and then there are experts who would disagree with us... https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/selecting-a-diamond-with-best-appearance.54425/
Don't give Dave too hard a time
, we may be just placing somewhat different emphasis on what we're looking for than the average shopper, since we like old stones.
you're right and I do value dave - not just on these tight new stones but of course on older stones! I just get the feeling sometimes that the ignorant diamond shopping masses are being led like cattle down those switchbacky things to be shown what some believe to be the epitome of the diamond cut, when I think all of us would be vastly better served with a functioning 31 flavors. Heck - if every woman had that one cut, wouldn't diamonds be boring?
QUICK eta haha - okay so manybe not entirely boring ;-)
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    June’s Birthstone Trinity
    June’s Birthstone Trinity
    Memorial Day Jewelry 2020
    Memorial Day Jewelry 2020
    Van Cleef & Arpels Perlee Clovers Bracelet
    Van Cleef & Arpels Perlee Clovers Bracelet

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.

New posts

Top