Do marquise have fire and brilliance?

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Garry,
I will post the video link for the non-JA video, but first I would like to address this statement that you made:

but please not JA's rotating 360 as they are back lit and provide no real info about cut

Can you clarify what you mean? I have trouble understanding this claim, because:

(1) The background in the JA videos is the neutral gray platform on which the diamonds rest. By "back lit", do you mean the diffuse reflections coming from this gray material? Or did you mean "side lit"? The JA set-up seems very similar to the "Vibox 360 pavilion" videos on Cutwise -- are these also "back lit"?
Thos back lit gre=ay backgrounds are great to show inclusions DRK, but not good for cut analysis as they do not replicate a diamond in a setting on a hand or body.
(2) In those cases where I have had access to both a JA video and and ASET, the type of chunky VF reflections that I look for in the videos (when evaluating mq scintillation) correspond to areas of red or green in the ASET. If my process of evaluating scintillation was confounded by back-lighting in the JA videos (which is what your comment implies, I think), shouldn't those false-positive flashes come from leakage zones (ASET black/white)?
ASET et are a single face up look - to get the best info I demand 3D files so I can tilt stones from left to right so I can see what is happening for each eye. The video's are available for many stones in 3D or stereo - if you have the gear you can see what a stone really looks like. Alternatively, look at various stones with one eye closed and you will notice that 2 eyes give a very different effect - much better look in most cases.

Fair enough, and I see your point with the first image you posted, but take away the back light and your second image could have been my stone!

I don't have enough information to determine if I agree or disagree with this statement, although I'm really not sure how you are able to make such an assessment without seeing the video of the second mq (or seeing it in person).

Would you be able to upload a ViBox 360 Pavilion video of your marquise? That would help me see whether your mq is similar to my 2nd exemplar (as you believe) or not (as I believe, given the information currently available to me). Sorry, I do not do it because I think its a waste of peoples time and misleading - but there is a inclusion video there that has a similar effect

http://www.cutwise.com/stone/15_56720196?format=video360Girdle

Sorry DRK, busy day

 

[drk14]

Sorry your better than most marquise looks to me to have the biggest white bow tie - definitely not a fan I find a middle star pattern works best

I personally prefer the star pattern, too, and I agree that the still image and the ASET of that marquise look off-putting, but did you look at the video of that diamond?

There are plenty of marquise that will be prettier than this one in still photographs, but that will have no life (scintillation) except for in the belly region. I was trying to find examples of mq that have scintillation in the tips, because that was the topic of discussion (i.e., the descriptors "better than most" or "well cut" are meant only to describe the ability to generate non-pinpointy flashes throughout the mq body). Other than that, I have no special attachment to this particular mq!

 

[Rockdiamond]

That's simply not the way I'd assess a diamond. I would look straight into the table, tilt slightly.

Actually, that's pretty close to what I do with the JA videos. If you pause the video at the right spot (by clicking on it and holding the mouse button down), you will have a view straight down, into the table -- if you then drag your mouse slightly back and forth (while continuing to hold the mouse button down), you can simulate the effect of slightly tilting the diamond. This lets you observe the on/off flashing of VFs, so that you can evaluate their size, number, and distribution. Maybe not as effectively as observing the stone in person, but it beats looking at a static image (or even an ASET, imo -- although the ASET contains other useful information).

Blow chunks
Ugh.
I need a nice cold drink filled with some cool, chilling crushed ice

omg, that gave me a good laugh!

If I'm ever in NYC, I'd love to come to your shop to see some top notch crushed ice!

We will have a seat waiting for you anytime! If you come on either a Tuesday or Friday, there's an amazing taco truck that we have lunch from –do you like them spicy?

 

[drk14]

Garry,
Thanks for your response.

Thos back lit gre=ay backgrounds are great to show inclusions DRK, but not good for cut analysis as they do not replicate a diamond in a setting on a hand or body.

I'm still not convinced that the gray platform confounds my approach to evaluating scintillation in videos.

In any case, in case it helps further the discussion, here is another video. This marquise (of yours), in my opinion, performs better than the other mq of yours that you posted.

Here is the ASET:

And here are the links to the videos:
Office lighting
Spot lighting

I think that this diamond performs (form a scintillation perspective) as well or better than the other two examplars I had picked out, and significantly better than your other mq.

 

[drk14]

We will have a seat waiting for you anytime! If you come on either a Tuesday or Friday, there's an amazing taco truck that we have lunch from –do you like them spicy?

Thanks, David. My Scandinavian digestive system prevents me from partaking in spicy foods, unfortunately, but I do like tacos if they are of the milder variety (or smothered in sour cream lol)!

 

[Rockdiamond]

Drk- I'm posting from a phone so seeing the videos is a bit problematic.
But based on the ASET I believe I'd agree with your choice in Garry's Marquise's.

Another thing you wrote that really strikes a chord is your statement about performance. You qualified the term by specifying scintillation in particular.
Far too many questions/ answers will simply state that one stone performs better than another with no qualification at all.
The term "Light performance"'itself is very misleading exactly because it does not specify what aspect of performance is being referred to.

Garry mentioned sparkle per dollar earlier and that aspect of performance gets overlooked far to often imo.

When shopping for round diamonds I find a lot of value in GIA graded VG cut grade stones for this exact reason.
You might give up an imperceptible amount of scintillation, or fire for a very noticeable difference in price.
But if posters are warned about non specified "performance problems" they are far less likely to consider the big picture.

Yes we can get them to make non spicy tacos for our Scandinavian friends

 

[drk14]

Garry,
If you wish to continue this discussion, perhaps this will help:

Of the four mq that you currently have posted on Cutwise, the one I like the best (by virtue of having "chunky" flashes over a fairly large area) is 56610071 (the one I posted just above).

Conversely, the one that in my opinion has the most "crushed ice" in the tips (i.e., largest gradient in VF size/activity from the belly to the tips) is 54730463. It would be nice to also have a "Vibox 8 Office" video of the latter, but I don't want to make extra work for you...

Do you see any qualitative difference between these two IRL? May be hard to tell at that size, but I'm curious about your opinion.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Garry,
If you wish to continue this discussion, perhaps this will help:

Of the four mq that you currently have posted on Cutwise, the one I like the best (by virtue of having "chunky" flashes over a fairly large area) is 56610071 (the one I posted just above).

Conversely, the one that in my opinion has the most "crushed ice" in the tips (i.e., largest gradient in VF size/activity from the belly to the tips) is 54730463. It would be nice to also have a "Vibox 8 Office" video of the latter, but I don't want to make extra work for you...

Do you see any qualitative difference between these two IRL? May be hard to tell at that size, but I'm curious about your opinion.

I will have three of them in my hand sometime this week DRK - let me look at them and give you a human interpretation also.
Also when I get a chance to hook up to my 3D screen I will look at the 3D video of those 3 stones on CutWise - if anyone else has that capacity - it does make a big difference to see in 3D stereo compared to mono photos or videos.
Here is a DiamCalc image of the 0.51ct which appears to have the most leakage - but in stereo it should not as one eye will see leakage and the other will often see light return in the same area. This is not a proper 3D view, but you can get the idea.

 

[Serg]

Garry,

{quote}
This is not a proper 3D view, but you can get the idea.
{quote}
Interesting Idea to show difference between cyclops and human stereo vision .

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

double post

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Hi DRK,
I can not remember exactly where we were up too, but I looked at the first 3 of these stones 0.51, 0.61 and 1.02ct side by side in several different lightings together with one of my gemologists (with really good close up vision). (the 0.73 is sold)
http://www.cutwise.com/?show-filter...s=|marquise&format=video360Girdle&stereo=sets

having trouble with those links
51 http://www.cutwise.com/stone/15_55680179/?view_state=view&format=video360Girdle
61 http://www.cutwise.com/stone/15_56610071/?view_state=view&format=video360Girdle
1.02 http://www.cutwise.com/stone/15_56720196/?view_state=view&format=video360Girdle

The 0.61ct was the most attractive. Of course there was more fire in the 1.02 larger stone. But the zone inside the table - above and below the central large virtual facet area - was not very different for any of the stones. The 0.61ct had more sparkle in the tips.
The 0.51ct appeared to be almost as large as the 0.61ct even though there is a considerable difference in their dimensions. That led me to wonder if the 0.51 maybe had better light return?
but overall they are what I look for in current nice marquise.
Until Sergey and Co finish developing and commercialize better marquise - its the best I can offer my clients.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Garry- the term "better light return" seems out of place in a discussion of Marquises.
For sure there's some stones with unattractive light return.
So we might be able to compare two and say, "this one's better" in some cases.
But in my experience, there's plenty of cases where a comparison of two marquise diamonds reveals different, yet equally attractive light return.
Some might consider a lesser number of larger flashes better, others might consider more, yet smaller flashes to be better- and neither is "wrong"

 

[Rockdiamond]

A little food for thought:

If we were to design the "perfect Marquise" what would the LxW ratio be?
We'd have to say 2:1 is the basic standard- but what it someone likes a longer or fatter profile?

Should/would Marquise Modified Brilliant Diamonds be judged on the same scale as Marquise Brilliant?

 

[Serg]

A little food for thought:

If we were to design the "perfect Marquise" what would the LxW ratio be?
We'd have to say 2:1 is the basic standard- but what it someone likes a longer or fatter profile?

Should/would Marquise Modified Brilliant Diamonds be judged on the same scale as Marquise Brilliant?

It is more difficult to develop a design with High Light performance for high LxW ratio as 2.0-2.2, than develop such design for Low LxW as 1.6-1.8

 

[Rockdiamond]

Got it.
Serg- if you were to choose your favorite ratio, what would it be?
Would you choose this ratio based on light performance or other factors?
Part of my question is about what would be considered "high light performance"

I am very interested in seeing the designs you come up with, and I applaud your work.
At the same time, I am also interested in seeing new designs from other cutters with different ideas.
For example- will you ever work on a Marquise Modified Brilliant design?

 

[Serg]

Got it.
Serg- if you were to choose your favorite ratio, what would it be?
David,
around 2.0

Would you choose this ratio based on light performance or other factors?
It is compromise between Light Performance and visual shape Taste

Part of my question is about what would be considered "high light performance"

It is very long story/ What is Ideal weather?

I am very interested in seeing the designs you come up with, and I applaud your work.
At the same time, I am also interested in seeing new designs from other cutters with different ideas.
For example- will you ever work on a Marquise Modified Brilliant design?
what is MMB design?
did you see my post here from 18 Aug 2015 16:02?
http://cutwise.com/share/6_HPD%20Marquise%20Summer%202015?format=video8Fire
http://cutwise.com/stone/6_HPD%20Marquise%20Summer%202015?format=video8Office
was it MMB?

 

[Rockdiamond]

I can't really tell from the videos which design yours are
Basically the pavilion mains come right to the girdle on MB, and the MMB has a few additional facets there.
The modified design is more common on Fancy Colored MQ's - but I've seen it on colorless stones as well.

I've seen some remarkable colorless MMB's that were quite shallow- giving great face up size- while still providing lovely light performance.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Al Gilbertson from GIA did some surveys and found people liked really long marquise - from memory 4:1.
However i question the validity of both the method (showing the same static DiamCalc photo stretched etc) to as I recollect mainly GIA admin staff.
I am sure if they were shown the best available cuts in each length the results would have been closer to 1:1.8

In my 40 years experience I have seen emerald cut Lengths shorten to where 1:1.33 is actually very popular today.

 

[thecat]

I prefer fatter ones, lower ratio. Chubby is good. Same for ovals. The below is the only exception where it isn't all that fat. This shape would look good for both oval and pear. Any idea what ratio this is?

http://www.diamondsbylauren.com/index.php/jewelry/loose-colorless-diamond-90ct-d-vs2-oval-shape-gia-tall-beauty-r5048

 

[Rockdiamond]

I prefer fatter ones, lower ratio. Chubby is good. Same for ovals. The below is the only exception where it isn't all that fat. This shape would look good for both oval and pear. Any idea what ratio this is?

http://www.diamondsbylauren.com/index.php/jewelry/loose-colorless-diamond-90ct-d-vs2-oval-shape-gia-tall-beauty-r5048

Hi thecat- thanks for bringing up the fact that some people would choose a fatter, or thinner stone based on personal taste.

The stone you asked about is 1.62:1

To ascertain the ratio divide the larger measurement by the smaller one.
The stone you linked to is 8.23 x 5.08
8.23/5.08=1.62

Taste definitely plays a role.
IN the 1980's marquise were far more popular than ovals.
Consequently a lot of "Marq-ovals" were cut.
The cutters would put tips on almost anything.
Talk about some butt ugly marquises......

Cutting standards have improved to much over the years.
The best cut stones of the 1980's would compare favorably to today's best cut stones.
But the average is far better today.

 

[thecat]

RD, thanks for the ratio formula and short history of marq/ovals

 

[thecat]

I prefer fatter ones, lower ratio. Chubby is good. Same for ovals. The below is the only exception where it isn't all that fat. This shape would look good for both oval and pear. Any idea what ratio this is?

http://www.diamondsbylauren.com/index.php/jewelry/loose-colorless-diamond-90ct-d-vs2-oval-shape-gia-tall-beauty-r5048

I mean to say the 1.62:1 ratio looks good for oval and marquise, not pear

 

[Rockdiamond]

When we're considering LxW ratios many aspects will come into play.
I would not rule out a 1.62:1 ratio on a pear

To give you some idea of the potential variance, here's a shot I took the other day for a client.
The 1.50ct looked HUGE compared to the 1.51ct.....

 

[cflutist]

When we're considering LxW ratios many aspects will come into play.
I would not rule out a 1.62:1 ratio on a pear

To give you some idea of the potential variance, here's a shot I took the other day for a client.
The 1.50ct looked HUGE compared to the 1.51ct.....

Thanks for posting this David. I knew back in the early 80s that I liked "fat" marquise, which is what my aunt brought back from her buying trip to the LA diamond district. An although most people like fat pears, I like the 1.62:1 l:w ratio of my pear.

 

[drk14]

Things have been busy at work, sorry I haven't been able to chek in to this thread for a while. I see there are a number of new posts, which I have not yet had time to read -- but I wanted to first reply to Garry's follow-up post about his mq diamonds that we were discussing...

Hi DRK,
I can not remember exactly where we were up too, but I looked at the first 3 of these stones 0.51, 0.61 and 1.02ct side by side in several different lightings together with one of my gemologists (with really good close up vision). (the 0.73 is sold)

Garry -- Thanks for doing this. A shame about the 0.73 ct not being available, because I had predicted that this one would be the most different in appearance from the others...

The 0.61ct was the most attractive.

So that's good, because that was my other prediction from watching the videos.

But the zone inside the table - above and below the central large virtual facet area - was not very different for any of the stones. The 0.61ct had more sparkle in the tips.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "more sparkle"? Are you talking about "pin-pointy"/"crushed-ice" type scintillation, or moderately chunky/broad type scintillation (i.e., not significantly dissimilar from the scintillations in the belly region)?

Specifically, going back to your original post in this thread (which I had objected to):

Most marquise [...] exhibit two types of cut.
Crushed ice at the tips, [...] Othewise its a brightness effect. [...] So Marquise are rather like a cross between crushed ice and round / cushion cuts.

[--Edited for clarity: deletions marked by ellipses.]

If you consider the appearance of your 0.61-ct mq, would you still characterize it as having "crushed ice at the tips", providing mainly a "brightness effect" in those regions? Or is the difference between the belly area and the tip areas not as drastic as implied by your original characterization?

My apologies if any of my questions have already been addressed in the posts that I have not yet read. Will read through the remainder of the thread as soon as I am able.

 

[drk14]

Just to add my take on the comments about L/W ratio, first, defining an "ideal" ratio is largely a matter of personal taste. However, one should also consider the setting. Specifically, if setting a mq (or other elongated fancy) in a halo, a higher L/W ratio for the center stone may be preferrable, because the outline of the halo will necessarily have a lower L/W ratio than the diamond. For example, in my fiancee's engagement ring, the center diamond is almost 2.25:1, while the inner (pink) halo has a 2:1 ratio, and the outline of the outer halo is approximately 1.75:1. In my opinion, this double-halo design would not have been as successful if the center diamond had been closer to the "ideal" 2:1 ratio (this would result in much chubbier outlines for the halos, especially the outer one).

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Things have been busy at work, sorry I haven't been able to chek in to this thread for a while. I see there are a number of new posts, which I have not yet had time to read -- but I wanted to first reply to Garry's follow-up post about his mq diamonds that we were discussing...

Hi DRK,
I can not remember exactly where we were up too, but I looked at the first 3 of these stones 0.51, 0.61 and 1.02ct side by side in several different lightings together with one of my gemologists (with really good close up vision). (the 0.73 is sold)

Garry -- Thanks for doing this. A shame about the 0.73 ct not being available, because I had predicted that this one would be the most different in appearance from the others...

The 0.61ct was the most attractive.

So that's good, because that was my other prediction from watching the videos.

But the zone inside the table - above and below the central large virtual facet area - was not very different for any of the stones. The 0.61ct had more sparkle in the tips.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "more sparkle"? Are you talking about "pin-pointy"/"crushed-ice" type scintillation, or moderately chunky/broad type scintillation (i.e., not significantly dissimilar from the scintillations in the belly region)?

Specifically, going back to your original post in this thread (which I had objected to):

Most marquise [...] exhibit two types of cut.
Crushed ice at the tips, [...] Othewise its a brightness effect. [...] So Marquise are rather like a cross between crushed ice and round / cushion cuts.

[--Edited for clarity: deletions marked by ellipses.]

If you consider the appearance of your 0.61-ct mq, would you still characterize it as having "crushed ice at the tips", providing mainly a "brightness effect" in those regions? Or is the difference between the belly area and the tip areas not as drastic as implied by your original characterization?

My apologies if any of my questions have already been addressed in the posts that I have not yet read. Will read through the remainder of the thread as soon as I am able.

Hi DRK - the sparkle around the tips of the stone extended mainly around crown facets for about 15% from each tip. They were not crushed ice looking - they were very bright mainly white flashes that were about 1:4 rectangles and they appeared to be probably 2-3 times wider than the virtual facets they were originating from.

 

[drk14]

Hi DRK - the sparkle around the tips of the stone extended mainly around crown facets for about 15% from each tip. They were not crushed ice looking - they were very bright mainly white flashes that were about 1:4 rectangles and they appeared to be probably 2-3 times wider than the virtual facets they were originating from.

OK, so it sounds like we are now in agreement that it is possible to find marquise that do not have a crushed-ice appearance at the tips. In addition, the 0.61-ct mq that had this quality was also the one that you judged to be the "most attractive".

And my final take-away is that it appeared to be possible to successfully identify the most promising marquise based only on studying videos of the diamond in motion.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi guys,
We're sorely lacking in precise terminology- even in the most basic terms- such as Brilliance, and scintillation. Not everyone will see the same phenomenon as "brilliant"
IN terms of crushed ice , we're not speaking of the same thing IMO.
I know the positive effect you're talking about, and it does indeed look like crushed ice to me. In a very good way.
I liked the way the three stones Garry put up were cut- all very nicely cut IMO.
And every single one has "crushed ice" at the tips.
The angles at the tip of a Marquise Brilliant can't avoid having the facets aligned and positioned in a way that they are acting like long mirrors bouncing off opposing long mirrors. That's going to result in a jumble of small reflections coming back to your eye( aka crushed ice)

On a well cut Marquise Brilliant, there's a different sort of sparkle at the tips, and the center. This is intrinsic to the beauty of the cut.
Marquise Modified actually has a better chance of having a more even light performance- less difference in light performance from the tips to the center. When you lessen contrast it's possible to totally avoid the bow tie on MMB. This is more common on Fancy Colored diamonds, but I've seen it work with colorless stones as well.
The modified pavilion allows large facets near the tips.
But that's going to involve some leakage.

I've never liked that word- "leakage". It could have been called transparency. It's generally not nice in large doses, however a marquise, and other fancy shapes definitely benefit from the small dispersed areas of leakage that ASET shows are present.
Some fancy colored MMB's do very well even with larger areas of transparency.

I'll be very interested in seeing what you guys come up with Garry.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Hi guys,
We're sorely lacking in precise terminology- even in the most basic terms- such as Brilliance, and scintillation. Not everyone will see the same phenomenon as "brilliant"
IN terms of crushed ice , we're not speaking of the same thing IMO.
I know the positive effect you're talking about, and it does indeed look like crushed ice to me. In a very good way.
I liked the way the three stones Garry put up were cut- all very nicely cut IMO.
And every single one has "crushed ice" at the tips.
The angles at the tip of a Marquise Brilliant can't avoid having the facets aligned and positioned in a way that they are acting like long mirrors bouncing off opposing long mirrors. That's going to result in a jumble of small reflections coming back to your eye( aka crushed ice)

On a well cut Marquise Brilliant, there's a different sort of sparkle at the tips, and the center. This is intrinsic to the beauty of the cut.
Marquise Modified actually has a better chance of having a more even light performance- less difference in light performance from the tips to the center. When you lessen contrast it's possible to totally avoid the bow tie on MMB. This is more common on Fancy Colored diamonds, but I've seen it work with colorless stones as well.
The modified pavilion allows large facets near the tips.
But that's going to involve some leakage.

I've never liked that word- "leakage". It could have been called transparency. It's generally not nice in large doses, however a marquise, and other fancy shapes definitely benefit from the small dispersed areas of leakage that ASET shows are present.
Some fancy colored MMB's do very well even with larger areas of transparency.

I'll be very interested in seeing what you guys come up with Garry.

DRK Dont ignore what David has written - I agree that above and below the central bright 'bow' region, all these stones show crushed ice looks.
I think what you mean is they have less crushed ice - but they are a long way from large virtual facets.
But its terminology rather than what you or other 'desire' that we are now discussing. And yes - that is personal