- Joined
- Sep 2, 2002
- Messages
- 2,859
The job of a cutter is different from that of a gemologist. Where a gemologist tries to describe certain appearances after the product is finished, a cutter has to basically foresee these appearances in design and in production.
The advantage of being a cutter is that we can build upon experience, our own and that of predecessors, while the gemologist might still be struggling in ways to accurately describe. In that sense, we can produce diamonds, that gemologists have a hard time describing since they are still struggling with the definitions of certain descriptions.
This introduction only served to explain that I am coming from a different background than most contributors here. However, I have tried to combine my hands-on-experience with an ever-growing knowledge of gemology. I see it as an advantage that I can consider certain basics of gemology and, as a relative newbie in this area, can pinpoint where a certain gemological definition or description is lacking in clarity.
Over the past years, I have concentrated on the gemological description of brilliance (contrast-brightness), fire and scintillation. Understanding these phenomena now a lot better, I am glad to see that the extra knowledge does not affect my designs or production. But I am shocked to see, on a gemological field, how these terms are often loosely and incorrectly used, hampering new developments in gemological knowledge.
Reading PS''s tutorial-page on the subject (link), I find it hard to understand, and in its attempt to be clear and short, often incorrect. Therefore, I would like to attempt to re-set these definitions. Here it goes:
"
Brilliance, fire and scintillation are traditionally mentioned as the three aspects of light, which jointly describe a beautiful diamond.
In order to better understand them, we need not only define them, but also pinpoint the difference between them. First, the definitions:
Brilliance, or contrast-brightness, is the white light returned and observed by an observer in relation to the contrast, caused by the observer obstructing the light and light-leakage.
Fire is the colored light returned and observed by an observer.
Scintillation is the combination of sparkles, white or colored, observed by an observer, when either the diamond, the light-source or the observer are moving.
Looking at scintillation specifically, there are two major differences with the other two. First, there is a need of movement, and second, scintillation comprises both white and colored light being observed. So, in a sense, brilliance and fire are subsets of scintillation.
The difference between observing brilliance (a white sparkle) or fire (a colored sparkle) is a difficult one. This depends upon various factors, notably the observer (his visual acuity, his age, his pupil diameter), the lighting (the environment and the type of lighting) and logically the diamond itself. With one and the same diamond, it still depends upon the observer and the lighting.
With scintillation, the need of movement to accurately observe scintillation comes closer to the real-life interaction between diamond and observer. The study of brilliance and fire, static as they are, would be more accurately named ''potential brilliance'' and ''potential fire''. How these translate into sparkles when moving, is actually the study of scintillation.
On the date of today, it is safe to say that most gemological studies are still limited to studying ''potential brilliance''. As such, many gemological ''truths'' are still based upon a partial study of diamonds.
"
Looking forward to comments.
Live long,
The advantage of being a cutter is that we can build upon experience, our own and that of predecessors, while the gemologist might still be struggling in ways to accurately describe. In that sense, we can produce diamonds, that gemologists have a hard time describing since they are still struggling with the definitions of certain descriptions.
This introduction only served to explain that I am coming from a different background than most contributors here. However, I have tried to combine my hands-on-experience with an ever-growing knowledge of gemology. I see it as an advantage that I can consider certain basics of gemology and, as a relative newbie in this area, can pinpoint where a certain gemological definition or description is lacking in clarity.
Over the past years, I have concentrated on the gemological description of brilliance (contrast-brightness), fire and scintillation. Understanding these phenomena now a lot better, I am glad to see that the extra knowledge does not affect my designs or production. But I am shocked to see, on a gemological field, how these terms are often loosely and incorrectly used, hampering new developments in gemological knowledge.
Reading PS''s tutorial-page on the subject (link), I find it hard to understand, and in its attempt to be clear and short, often incorrect. Therefore, I would like to attempt to re-set these definitions. Here it goes:
"
Brilliance, fire and scintillation are traditionally mentioned as the three aspects of light, which jointly describe a beautiful diamond.
In order to better understand them, we need not only define them, but also pinpoint the difference between them. First, the definitions:
Brilliance, or contrast-brightness, is the white light returned and observed by an observer in relation to the contrast, caused by the observer obstructing the light and light-leakage.
Fire is the colored light returned and observed by an observer.
Scintillation is the combination of sparkles, white or colored, observed by an observer, when either the diamond, the light-source or the observer are moving.
Looking at scintillation specifically, there are two major differences with the other two. First, there is a need of movement, and second, scintillation comprises both white and colored light being observed. So, in a sense, brilliance and fire are subsets of scintillation.
The difference between observing brilliance (a white sparkle) or fire (a colored sparkle) is a difficult one. This depends upon various factors, notably the observer (his visual acuity, his age, his pupil diameter), the lighting (the environment and the type of lighting) and logically the diamond itself. With one and the same diamond, it still depends upon the observer and the lighting.
With scintillation, the need of movement to accurately observe scintillation comes closer to the real-life interaction between diamond and observer. The study of brilliance and fire, static as they are, would be more accurately named ''potential brilliance'' and ''potential fire''. How these translate into sparkles when moving, is actually the study of scintillation.
On the date of today, it is safe to say that most gemological studies are still limited to studying ''potential brilliance''. As such, many gemological ''truths'' are still based upon a partial study of diamonds.
"
Looking forward to comments.
Live long,
:
300x240.png)