Brilliance/Fire in Marquise? Confused.

[cloreene]

Which of these two stones has better brilliance/fire? Why does the first stone have more little rainbow-y sparks in it versus the 2nd stone? Does diamond 1 have more fire in it or would 2 have more? Which one would be considered better? I'm not planning on buying these but I am confused as to what would be considered a better diamond? I'm usually a colored stones person so I am super confused about diamonds. I have read a lot about diamonds and marquise/pears/ovals, etc but I still don't know what I'm looking at or why things look the way they do. Thanks in advance for all the help.

#1
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/marquise-cut/0.67-carat-d-color-si2-clarity-sku-618617

#2
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/marquise-cut/0.64-carat-e-color-si1-clarity-sku-832112

 

[oldminer]

The stones look a lot different because the camera lightness and contrast settings are different by accident. #1 is 66% depth and #2 is 61% depth. Right away, I'd prefer #2. It simply looks way better, but mostly due to the way the camera was set up, not because the diamonds are all that different. I see more colored light coming back to my eye in #2. However, little of the colored light looks like fire (dispersion), but look more like there is some blue lighting or blue background reflecting back into the camera which has been picked up by the diamond.

You don't have much to go on with these images since they are not really compatible with one another. Fire is always present in well cut diamonds, but it is highly variable according to the lighting you are in. Light return (brilliance), contrast and patterning are of far greater importance and far less variable. Fire is just an inherent quality that comes with many gem materials. Diamond has a good balance of fire to white light return. Several gem materials always have more fire than diamond, but they are nothing special. Many gems with far less fire command very high values. Fire just does not determine much in value or desirability, but is an aspect in balance in a well cut stone.

 

[lambskin]

I like 2 better-based on the picture alone-it seems to me more, in my idea of what brilliance is, brilliant.

 

[cloreene]

Thank you Oldminer and lambskin! I am glad to know that #2 is a better choice. I was confused about #1's looks but it's great to know that #2 would be the better of the two. Thanks again for your input! I greatly appreciate it!

 

[D_]

Learning here, if you don't mind me asking a question.
Is it normal to have the girdle thicker on one end on a marquise cut (832112 seems to have a thicker girdle on one end)?
Is the girdle on a marquise generally meant to be of uniform thickness, different thickness or just different flavour?
How does it impact the visuals/light performance?

 

[oldminer]

Variation in girdle thickness is far from unusual with pointed end fancy shapes such as pear, heart or marquise. Extremely thin or extremely thick are craftsmanship issues, but the normal variation within rather acceptable ranges is common. One cannot simply generalize about the effect of girdle thickness or variation in girdle thickness when predicting light return or how you will see what is most attractive. Every nuance of cutting has some effect, but with so many variables, a prediction of outcome is less than reliable without tremendous data generation about any particular stone under examination.

I suppose one could generalize that diamonds with thin to slightly thick girdles have little to no real girdle thickness "problems" while those with very thin or thinner, and those very thick or thicker do have some "problems". Ones with wide range of thicknesses have more issues possibly than some with little variation. You can't go much further with any real conclusions.

 

[D_]

Thanks, Oldminer!