can I mimic the crown look of an older cut by ''playing'' with the numbers on a H&A?

[mela lu]

I am in the market for a 1ct round brilliant stone. Although I prefer the ‘look’ of the OECs and cushions – for their high crowns and fiery nature, I also love the unbelievable light return and precision that you get from a mathematically cut RB.

I want best of both worlds. sigh.

My question. If I were to look for a H&A stone and err on the side of a smaller table 53% - 54% in order to get more ‘fire’ out of the stone, and a slightly higher crown angle and height to ‘mimic’ the older cuts, will I achieve this older ‘look’? Is there any other number I should be looking at?

I know Cehra had mentioned keeping the LGF short. How would I know what the LGF is just by looking at the stone’s numbers? Does the LGF correspond to the pavilion depth %?

Thanks for your help!! I’m so happy that I get to have the opportunity to go through this learning process

 

[mela lu]

okay. so perfect example is this stone:

http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/Diamond_Details.aspx?idno=55356#

Report: AGS
. Shape: A Cut Above H&A
. Carat: 1.081
. Depth %: 60.7
. Table %: 54.8
. Crown Angle: 34.8
. Crown %: 15.9
. Star : 51
. Pavilion Angle: 40.9
. Pavilion %: 43.1
. Lower Girdle %: 77
. Girdle: Thin to Medium Faceted
. Measurements: 6.68-6.69X4.06
. Light Performance: 0
. Polish: Ideal
. Symmetry: Ideal
. Culet: Pointed
. Fluorescence: Negligible
It says: Lower girdle %77. Can someone tell me in words what that should mean to me?
Would this give me that high-crown fiery look, or should I ''push'' the numbers even further???

What fun!

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 5/28/2007 12:13:18 PM
Author:mela lu

I am in the market for a 1ct round brilliant stone. Although I prefer the ‘look’ of the OECs and cushions – for their high crowns and fiery nature, I also love the unbelievable light return and precision that you get from a mathematically cut RB.

I want best of both worlds. sigh.

My question. If I were to look for a H&A stone and err on the side of a smaller table 53% - 54% in order to get more ‘fire’ out of the stone, and a slightly higher crown angle and height to ‘mimic’ the older cuts, will I achieve this older ‘look’? Is there any other number I should be looking at?

I know Cehra had mentioned keeping the LGF short. How would I know what the LGF is just by looking at the stone’s numbers? Does the LGF correspond to the pavilion depth %?

Thanks for your help!! I’m so happy that I get to have the opportunity to go through this learning process

I wish I could say it was this simple and in the past I think I did LOL You''re heading in the right direction with the small table and higher crown angle and if you stick with ACA stones you should be fine going off in that direction, however the LGF of OEC stones is closer to like 40-60% and with whiteflash stones you''re not likely to find under 74 probably, and even then I don''t know if all of the other angles AND the size AND the color/clarity you see are all going to come together.

You''re not the only person read and waiting for "style B" of high precision H&A types to come along and wow us.... check out diamondseeker2006''s thread!

 

[RockDoc]

Lower Facet Girdle lengths are important to the face up performance of the stone.

It is very rare that all are equal.... the 77% is an average. That length is a good compromise between too fat and too thin arrows.

With the smaller table, this stone will tend to trade off white light return for fiery color light return, which appears is your preference. However, that is just a prediction, not a guarantee of how it will perform. Judging a diamond by the numbers isn''t an exact "science". But it helps sort out the better stones, from others.

Rockdoc

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/28/2007 1:08:06 PM
Author: Cehrabehra

Date: 5/28/2007 12:13:18 PM
Author:mela lu


I am in the market for a 1ct round brilliant stone. Although I prefer the ‘look’ of the OECs and cushions – for their high crowns and fiery nature, I also love the unbelievable light return and precision that you get from a mathematically cut RB.

I want best of both worlds. sigh.

My question. If I were to look for a H&A stone and err on the side of a smaller table 53% - 54% in order to get more ‘fire’ out of the stone, and a slightly higher crown angle and height to ‘mimic’ the older cuts, will I achieve this older ‘look’? Is there any other number I should be looking at?

Low 50"s table is a step in the right direction.

I know Cehra had mentioned keeping the LGF short. How would I know what the LGF is just by looking at the stone’s numbers? Does the LGF correspond to the pavilion depth %?

Thanks for your help!! I’m so happy that I get to have the opportunity to go through this learning process

I wish I could say it was this simple and in the past I think I did LOL You''re heading in the right direction with the small table and higher crown angle and if you stick with ACA stones you should be fine going off in that direction, however the LGF of OEC stones is closer to like 40-60% and with whiteflash stones you''re not likely to find under 74 probably, and even then I don''t know if all of the other angles AND the size AND the color/clarity you see are all going to come together.
To reach the Older-cut look..., you need to want the 60% LGF lenght!!!

You''re not the only person read and waiting for ''style B'' of high precision H&A types to come along and wow us.... check out diamondseeker2006''s thread!

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 5/28/2007 2:12:01 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 5/28/2007 1:08:06 PM
Author: Cehrabehra

Date: 5/28/2007 12:13:18 PM
Author:mela lu



I am in the market for a 1ct round brilliant stone. Although I prefer the ‘look’ of the OECs and cushions – for their high crowns and fiery nature, I also love the unbelievable light return and precision that you get from a mathematically cut RB.

I want best of both worlds. sigh.

My question. If I were to look for a H&A stone and err on the side of a smaller table 53% - 54% in order to get more ‘fire’ out of the stone, and a slightly higher crown angle and height to ‘mimic’ the older cuts, will I achieve this older ‘look’? Is there any other number I should be looking at?

Low 50''s table is a step in the right direction.

I know Cehra had mentioned keeping the LGF short. How would I know what the LGF is just by looking at the stone’s numbers? Does the LGF correspond to the pavilion depth %?

Thanks for your help!! I’m so happy that I get to have the opportunity to go through this learning process

I wish I could say it was this simple and in the past I think I did LOL You''re heading in the right direction with the small table and higher crown angle and if you stick with ACA stones you should be fine going off in that direction, however the LGF of OEC stones is closer to like 40-60% and with whiteflash stones you''re not likely to find under 74 probably, and even then I don''t know if all of the other angles AND the size AND the color/clarity you see are all going to come together.
To reach the Older-cut look..., you need to want the 60% LGF lenght!!!

You''re not the only person read and waiting for ''style B'' of high precision H&A types to come along and wow us.... check out diamondseeker2006''s thread!

DG - 65% lgf is like the *minimum* for transition sorts right? The older the stone the shorter the LGF?

 

[mela lu]

Date: 5/28/2007 2:28:14 PM
Author: Cehrabehra
DG - 65% lgf is like the *minimum* for transition sorts right? The older the stone the shorter the LGF?

so based on 65% lgf....

Have we seen if or what the ''trade-off'' would be in preformance? what do you lose?

This is a tough decision because part of me thinks...wait and see what ''comes'' out on the market. but the other part of me wants this done before my wedding in 8 weeks.

decisions decisions.

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/28/2007 2:52:16 PM
Author: mela lu

Date: 5/28/2007 2:28:14 PM
Author: Cehrabehra
DG - 65% lgf is like the *minimum* for transition sorts right? The older the stone the shorter the LGF?
Cehra, there are NO rules when it comes to Old-Cut Diamonds!!!
Back in those days...., everything was OK!

so based on 65% lgf....

Have we seen if or what the ''trade-off'' would be in preformance? what do you lose?
As RockDoc said above in regards to the fat/thin arrows....
At a certain point the splinter efect gradually changes into wider/larger light flashes.
Its up to you to decide where your limit stands.

This is a tough decision because part of me thinks...wait and see what ''comes'' out on the market. but the other part of me wants this done before my wedding in 8 weeks.

decisions decisions.

 

[mela lu]

Date: 5/28/2007 3:27:23 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 5/28/2007 2:52:16 PM
Author: mela lu

Date: 5/28/2007 2:28:14 PM
Author: Cehrabehra
DG - 65% lgf is like the *minimum* for transition sorts right? The older the stone the shorter the LGF?
Cehra, there are NO rules when it comes to Old-Cut Diamonds!!!
Back in those days...., everything was OK!

so based on 65% lgf....

Have we seen if or what the ''trade-off'' would be in preformance? what do you lose?
As RockDoc said above in regards to the fat/thin arrows....
At a certain point the splinter efect gradually changes into wider/larger light flashes.
Its up to you to decide where your limit stands.

This is a tough decision because part of me thinks...wait and see what ''comes'' out on the market. but the other part of me wants this done before my wedding in 8 weeks.

decisions decisions.

and I guess the only way to *judge* this limit is by using my eyes. nothing on paper will truly help me with that desicion will it?

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/28/2007 3:40:57 PM
Author: mela lu

Date: 5/28/2007 3:27:23 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 5/28/2007 2:52:16 PM
Author: mela lu

Date: 5/28/2007 2:28:14 PM
Author: Cehrabehra
DG - 65% lgf is like the *minimum* for transition sorts right? The older the stone the shorter the LGF?
Cehra, there are NO rules when it comes to Old-Cut Diamonds!!!
Back in those days...., everything was OK!

so based on 65% lgf....

Have we seen if or what the ''trade-off'' would be in preformance? what do you lose?
As RockDoc said above in regards to the fat/thin arrows....
At a certain point the splinter efect gradually changes into wider/larger light flashes.
Its up to you to decide where your limit stands.

This is a tough decision because part of me thinks...wait and see what ''comes'' out on the market. but the other part of me wants this done before my wedding in 8 weeks.

decisions decisions.

and I guess the only way to *judge* this limit is by using my eyes. nothing on paper will truly help me with that desicion will it?

You got it!!

 

[strmrdr]

If you want an old style stone then get one, trying to make a RB perform like one is a mistake.
It just introduces other compromises into the mix.

 

[Ellen]

If you decide to go with a round, you might check out the Solasfera, it supposedly puts off more fire than a regular round. There''s a video of one at GOG.

 

[mela lu]

hey. I hear you Strmrdr...but I really dont want to buy an older diamond online. I want the romantic...''vacationing in *blank* and finding an estate peice....blah blah blah."

I have been generously (extreeeeemly generously) given the opportunity of replacing my e-stone, as I''ve never been happy with it. In order to maximize this opportunity, I want to start with a classic. a RB ''classic'' stone, and I can build my ''collection'' over the rest of my lifetime.

So. that said, I love fire over scin, and love the higher crowns, so I''m just agmenting the classic RB to reflect my preference.

I found this one:

Report: GIA
. Shape: Round Ideal Cut
. Carat: 1.07
. Depth %: 61.4
. Table %: 53
. Crown Angle: 34.5
. Crown %: 16
. Star : 55
. Pavilion Angle: 40.8
. Pavilion %: 43
. Lower Girdle %: 80
. Girdle: Thin to Medium Faceted
. Measurements: 6.64-6.65X4.08

Which looks awsome!!! but I wanted to know what the 80% lg will ''look'' like. It''s a touch on the long side, non?

 

[chrono]

Based on the stats, I believe this one will look like a regular modern RB due to the large LGF. I remember a webinar with John and there was a chart of the LGF and we talked lots about fat arrows and such. You really should stay with short & fat arrows to mimic the old cut look, something 60% and less.

 

[mela lu]

rrarh. that''s what I figured.

The thing is...my sensitivity or visual preference isn''t *really* related to the arrow thickness as it is with the look of the crown and fire off the crown. mmm.

Is there a ''mark-up'' on the Solasfera''s?

My budget is supposed to be 5k USDs.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 5/29/2007 12:47:42 PM
Author: mela lu

Which looks awsome!!! but I wanted to know what the 80% lg will ''look'' like. It''s a touch on the long side, non?

It depends on personal taste. Once you have a diamond with great light return the lower halves ‘fine-tune’ the character of that diamond’s performance. Shorter lower halves mean wider pavilion mains (what you see in diamond photos with obstruction as ‘arrows’). Longer lower halves mean narrower pavilion mains.As it relates to scintillation, broad flashes become more visible as lower half % gets shorter.Needlelike flashes become more visible as they get longer.Shorter lower halves can be conducive to performance in indirect/soft lighting conditions and longer lower halves can be conducive to direct/bright lighting conditions. Diamonds in the middle range have a balance of qualities.

The major labs generally include rounds with lower halves between 70-85% as candidates for the top grade. GIA rounds to the nearest 5% on their reports. AGS does not round. Human eyes won''t detect a difference of a few % in otherwise identical diamonds (especially since the # is an average) but the extremes are very noticeable. You can ''guesstimate'' lower half % by viewing still diamond photos with obstruction (where the arrows are dark), like we commonly see on PS.The simulations below are near-Tolkowsky configurations. See how the ''arrows'' get fatter with short lower halves - and skinner with longer.

 

[chrono]

I'm really not sure what you are after then. I have a transitional cut (which I call an OEC anyway). Here are the stats if it helps any:

With these stats, you really can't see the arrows.

I think the reason why the arrows don't seem to show up is due to the play of pavilon and crown angles. As John explained above, to get this chunky facet look, you need small LGF, a small table and high crown and all the right angles. If you look at his attached picture at the far left, it has the look of an old cut stone.

 

[JohnQuixote]

The above are near-Tolkowsky diamonds like we commonly see discussed here.It’s a big world, with many different makes, and different configurations are impacted differently:For example, (X) lower half % would lend a much different appearance to a RB with a 50% table than one with a 65% table. Seeking well-performing crown/pavilion angles and top light return should be prerequisites. Once that is done, personal taste comes into play.

In near-Tolkowsky makes I advise staying within the 70-85% the labs allow for their top grade unless you have personally eyeballed NTs with lower halves outside that range for yourself and like the flavor.

 

[mela lu]

that is gorgeous Chrono! I love that. At this point in time, I just want a diamond with amazing light return and preformance; as the one that I''ve had for the past year has been dark and lifeless.

Ulitimately, I would love an OEC...but I''m realistic in knowing that I''ll never be unhappy with a RB and if I want to change mine out before my wedding in 8 weeks, I should ''get on it''.

Transistional cut *does* seem to be the happy medium, but for whatever reason, I lack the confidence buying one sight unseen. ES (and Obv H&A) seem like a safer bet at this point. And like I said, they are a classic - I''ll never get tired of an amazing diamond!!

I reallly appreciate that chart JohnQ~ That is helpful while I make my decision based on Webpics/Idealscope/etc/etc.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 5/29/2007 12:56:57 PM
Author: mela lu
rrarh. that''s what I figured.

The thing is...my sensitivity or visual preference isn''t *really* related to the arrow thickness as it is with the look of the crown and fire off the crown. mmm.

Is there a ''mark-up'' on the Solasfera''s?

My budget is supposed to be 5k USDs.

Well, it''s a proprietary cut, so I''m sure it''s a bit more than a plain old non-branded round. But how much I have no clue. Call up GOG and ask, it can''t hurt. They''ll tell you all about it.

 

[surfgirl]

Mela, there are many antique/old cut stone dealers that we''ve been talking about over and over...check other threads for a full list (Michael Goldstein Ltd, Singlestone, etc). You can easily talk with them and get an actual old cut stone, which seems like what you really want.

And speaking from experience, you do not have to give up scintillation for fire! I didn''t and I have more than I can handle of both. For what you want (and it sounds like you want a Transitional cut), you have to put in some effort in looking around in person, I think. You''re probably not going to find what you really want online in a day''s search. But these stones are out there. If I was you, I''d start at some estate shops near where you live. Then also start calling around to the main old stone dealers in LA and NYC. If you can give them the specific characteristics you want, I''m sure they can locate some stones for you rather quickly.

Hope that helps.

 

[mela lu]

I''m up here in the not-so-great white north. Canada. which is fine, but limits my ability to look in person.

Oh, the other thing I want (from this stone) is the life-time upgrade option. (hehe. all of a sudden I''m high maintenance! lol). I haven''t even been engaged one year and I''m ''upgrading''. So that is another reason I want to buy from a vendor that has that policy.

Thanks for you post. it is helpful in assessing my options. I''ll have to go re-research those other vendors, their prices, and upgrade policies now!

Bye!

haha.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 5/29/2007 12:44:52 PM
Author: Ellen
If you decide to go with a round, you might check out the Solasfera, it supposedly puts off more fire than a regular round. There''s a video of one at GOG.

I think that needs to be qualified - I think there are more *flecks* of color, but they''re even smaller than those in 8main stone so "more fire" is greater in quanity only because it is much smaller in quality. Going in the opposite direction from the chunky fire of an oec!

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 5/29/2007 1:14:49 PM
Author: mela lu
that is gorgeous Chrono! I love that. At this point in time, I just want a diamond with amazing light return and preformance; as the one that I''ve had for the past year has been dark and lifeless.

Ulitimately, I would love an OEC...but I''m realistic in knowing that I''ll never be unhappy with a RB and if I want to change mine out before my wedding in 8 weeks, I should ''get on it''.

Transistional cut *does* seem to be the happy medium, but for whatever reason, I lack the confidence buying one sight unseen. ES (and Obv H&A) seem like a safer bet at this point. And like I said, they are a classic - I''ll never get tired of an amazing diamond!!

I reallly appreciate that chart JohnQ~ That is helpful while I make my decision based on Webpics/Idealscope/etc/etc.

mela? You wanna know what I would do? I would buy an ACA standard cut and enjoy that for a few years while we wait for whiteflash to come out with "flavor B" and optimize the LGF/high crown option that SOOOO MANY women are hungry for. That gives them a few years to figure out that yes, women want this and how to make it a workable reality, then you can trade in your ACA for what they have on the market then

haha, sara, pushing for market expansion

 

[mela lu]

***Cehra*** I''d LOVE to get your opinion on my sitch and this stone. (recap: Sitch is that I''d love to replace my current stone before my wedding aka: photo - and that I''m pleasantly happy having a RB as long as I get that high crown/small table that throws off colourful fire).

based on that stone, 53% table (given that the lgf is a whopping 80%) do you think I''ll happy with the look - accepting that it is a RB, not an OEC...for now *wink*

???

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 5/29/2007 3:32:20 PM
Author: mela lu
***Cehra*** I''d LOVE to get your opinion on my sitch and this stone. (recap: Sitch is that I''d love to replace my current stone before my wedding aka: photo - and that I''m pleasantly happy having a RB as long as I get that high crown/small table that throws off colourful fire).

based on that stone, 53% table (given that the lgf is a whopping 80%) do you think I''ll happy with the look - accepting that it is a RB, not an OEC...for now *wink*

???

well, I would love to say that the "advice" I gave you in my last post was good strong valid advice, but alas, I really cannot speculate on whether or not WF will ever think to have more than one flavor of speciality round. Since they cut their own stones, I think it would be worth investigating.... optical symmetry could be had with chunkier facets as well... and I think there are a lot of women who would love to have the option, but realistically you have to assume there will not be this option and you have to make your decision based on what we know now

I think that if you really want a better performing stone, it almost doesn''t matter what you get, if it is ideal and giving wonderful light return, you''re going to be happier with it than the stone you have now and that will thrill you.

If you really want fire, I would stick with a table no bigger than 55 and try to get up over 35* crown angle if possible... and just make sure all of the other angles correspond to ideal proportions with that. The reason for the small table and steep crown is so that the crown height is higher.... close to 20% would be awesome. The bigger the crown, the more space for fire to hit those crown facets. As for the lgf, john''s diagram is a good one... the shorter they are, the chunkier the fire will be, particularly through the table. I would concentrate more on having the angles I wanted and then the LGF though, unless you''re willing to wait a long time for the right stone to come along. And if this isn''t the stone you keep for the rest of your life, might as well try out a few different mini-flavors along the way. I say miniflavors because they''re all kinda vanilla, just a matter of french or vanilla bean, or perhaps a bit of marbling.... we''re gonna have to wait to see if WF ever does something so avante garde as to create exotic flavors like chocolate or strawberry

 

[mela lu]

yah yah yah yah yah!! That is what I was hoping to hear!!

I love the convenience and upgrade policy - which makes this purchase so *easy* knowing that when the time comes (baby, 10 year anniversary) I can always trade-up a classic RB to at "flavor B" as you named it...and just as I was re-checking your nick-name - I realized that you and I were writing at the same time

haha. great minds.

Thanks for that last post!

I really respect your opinion. I have read your posts and followed your story closely...so thanks for your input!

I really think I''m going to go for it! As you said - enjoy it for a few years, pop out a couple youngin''s and see where we''re at then! HEE!

Thanks Sara!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Ellen]

Date: 5/29/2007 3:24:54 PM
Author: Cehrabehra

Date: 5/29/2007 12:44:52 PM
Author: Ellen
If you decide to go with a round, you might check out the Solasfera, it supposedly puts off more fire than a regular round. There''s a video of one at GOG.

I think that needs to be qualified - I think there are more *flecks* of color, but they''re even smaller than those in 8main stone so ''more fire'' is greater in quanity only because it is much smaller in quality. Going in the opposite direction from the chunky fire of an oec!

Cehra, I''m just going on what Jon said to me right after I''d gotten my stone, but before I''d really test driven it, and was remarking it didn''t seem to have a lot of fire. He suggested one of those if I really wanted a lot.

*shrugs*

Which is really funny now, considering how fiery mine really is, and that it beats my OMC so far....