Does light return have anything to do with beauty?

[Rockdiamond]

HI everyone!

The topic of "light return" is actually rather controversial.
Some claim it''s science. It''s been a hot topic around here lately.

My point is that if it is science, the results are not necessarily related to how one perceives the beauty of the diamond.
I would suggest that the conditions necessary to trace the light moving through the diamond are not indicative of real world viewing. This removes the relevance of the scientific aspect.
Furthermore, even if we could replicate the light return results in everyday viewing, many will not necessarily feel that the diamond returning more light is prettier.

The camp that claims these are scientific calibrations seem to miss the point of beauty, and how we perceive things like a diamond.

Do you think a diamond is more beautiful- or "better" - if a machine proves it returns more light?

 

[Karl_K]

David,
You are missing something here.
No one is claiming or at least should be claiming that raw light return level is the measurement for beauty.
There is far more to it than that.

For example I could make Octavia about 5%-%7 brighter in raw light return easily but it would lose the patterns and good looks it has now.
Every cut has different trade offs.
That is what makes each cut unique.

 

[kenny]

Once again David is on PS fighting against good cut, obviously to protect the sales of the diamonds he sells.

How tiresome.
People see right through it.

 

[Rockdiamond]

HI all!
Karl, how important do you feel light return is, as a number?

Kenny, on the thread David Atlas started, it was very apparent that not all of us see a diamond the same way- that includes cut. This has consistently been my position for years.
Therefore I could just as easily say that YOU are the one suggesting badly cut stones.

With well over 750 videos and literally tens of thousands of photos published, I think I've put forth what I love about the cut in diamonds.

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 11/4/2009 4:28:55 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
HI all!

Karl, how important do you feel light return is, as a number?

It depends on what number is used.
For example a b-scope score is a horrible way to select an SE/EC.
DC light return stereo is more useful but it is not a design goal in itself.
If I can get a higher number while maintaining all the other aspects I want in a design I consider that a good thing.
If I have to compromise the look I want to get it then it is not a good thing and will be ignored.
I feel a reasonable level of light return is a part of diamond beauty and good design.

 

[John P]

b]>>

For most people? Sure. Otherwise we'd leave them like this.

 

[Cehrabehra]

the way they have engineered diamond cuts to return light in a particular, predictable way is science - it's physics, optics. But the outcome, the dancing colors that leap out of the stone are the beauty

ETA: Wow, the responses here are getting a bit strained, so I'm careful where I step, but IMO there is more than one way to love a diamond. Some diamonds are appreciated for certain performances and others appreciate different aspects and performances. I think when it comes to rounds (and this is MY opinion) that the science as improved upon what rounds do and diamonds are more beautiful because of it. Where cushions are concerned I think it runs a gambit. Some want a cushion to do what a round does, and others appreciate that cushions sometimes don't do what a round does as well as a round, but they make up for it with perhaps non conventional views that can be even more beautiful than what a round can do.

 

[T L]

In colorless white or cape diamonds, it''s all about cut. In colored diamonds, not so much I would imagine.

 

[E B]

Date: 11/4/2009 8:24:57 PM
Author: tourmaline_lover
In colorless white or cape diamonds, it''s all about cut. In colored diamonds, not so much I would imagine.

I agree.

 

[Lestat]

In my personal opinion, if a diamond was engineered that had perfect light return, it would be just like looking at a blank canvas, all white. On the other end of the scale, too little light return is just a black hole. It''s all down to the patterns (or lack of pattern) and contrast that people find attractive.

I like what Karl said in another thread about diamond designing being "painting with light", and I believe it''s a good metaphor which can be used to see how people find diamonds beautiful. It''s just like art. You can take a painting by a master artist, some people will find it breathtaking and others will not despite everyone telling them it''s beautiful and they should see it that way. Some people prefer certain artists and works of art over another, and that doesn''t mean that one is necessarily more beautiful than the other, it''s personal preference. Also, as your understanding of art and your experience widens, your tastes may mature and change so you can better appreciate art that before would not have appealed to you.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and while I believe that you can definitely compare how people react to different cuts to statistically find some patterns that will appeal to the masses more than others, to find a scientific cut formula for a diamond that will please everyone is very unlikely if not impossible.

Just my 2 cents

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 11/4/2009 3:32:32 PM
Author:Rockdiamond
HI everyone!

The topic of 'light return' is actually rather controversial.
Some claim it's science. It's been a hot topic around here lately.

My point is that if it is science, the results are not necessarily related to how one perceives the beauty of the diamond.
I would suggest that the conditions necessary to trace the light moving through the diamond are not indicative of real world viewing. This removes the relevance of the scientific aspect.
Furthermore, even if we could replicate the light return results in everyday viewing, many will not necessarily feel that the diamond returning more light is prettier.

The camp that claims these are scientific calibrations seem to miss the point of beauty, and how we perceive things like a diamond.

Do you think a diamond is more beautiful- or 'better' - if a machine proves it returns more light?

agree, most people do prefer this beautiful "salt & pepper" stone.

 

[John P]

Date: 11/4/2009 8:33:27 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 11/4/2009 8:24:57 PM
Author: tourmaline_lover
In colorless white or cape diamonds, it's all about cut. In colored diamonds, not so much I would imagine.

I agree.

Bite your tongues!

Colored diamonds definitely rely on cut, though I suspect it's in a way that agrees with your sentiments.

Instead of cutting proportions to return light with most intensity (like well cut brilliants) the goal with color becomes to exaggerate the body color. This can be accomplished with proportions that will bounce light back into the center of the stone or even leak light through the pavilion - both serve to illuminate body color.

Remember that in terms of analysis a colored diamond is still a diamond: Brightness, dispersion, sparkle and liveliness are still considered when analyzing the stone. I remember our friend Yoram pointing out that you can have two fancy colored diamonds of same hue/intensity: The first cut in a way that manages to capture the color grade, the second with same hue/intensity but cut to proportions which give it more liveliness, sparkle & dispersion... The second might be worth twice as much as the first, based on cut.

I always give a nod to those who can analyze colored material (diamonds and other gemstones) and understand how to bring out the beauty with most effect. They are certainly in a different world of cutting, but cut remains king there too.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 11/4/2009 7:53:28 PM
Author: John Pollard
<< Does light return have anything to do with beauty? >>

For most people? Sure. Otherwise we'd leave them like this.

Great Photo John!

Of all the people who might look at this- what percentage do you think would love the diamonds depicted just as they are?
I'd be surprised if it was as low as 10%- but a percentage surely would
Having had the amazing opportunity to handle a lot of rough, as I know you have John- don't you sometimes secretly wish they'd leave it as is?

What happened here in this thread shows how hot a topic this is.
Is a diamond badly cut if it is judged to have "poor light return"?
Kenny, I apologize if I responded in too strong a manner.
I'm sure you would recommend diamonds that you loved, and that any you did could be considered well cut.

Since I have looked at so many fancy colored diamonds- where cut is also King ( but color is President) there are far more varieties of facet pattern, and depth table combos maybe I'm more open to different looks.
If all diamonds were cut using the same "light return" parameters, they'd all look pretty similar.
This is exactly what you want in small goods- such as the diamonds used in micro pave, or eternity bands.
When they're grown up- like one carat sized- I don't believe every one should be cut to look the same.

 

[HopeDream]

As a consumer, light return is very important to me, and yes, I believe the machines.

The more light a stone can refract back out as fire and briliance, the prettier the diamond. This equasion has 2 basic variables:

1) The quality of the diamond

2) The quality of the light entering the diamond

I live my life to have adventures. This means traveling all sorts of places and being in many, many, many, different lighting environments. I have no control over how much light enters my diamonds, but I want to be darn sure that the diamond is optimised to shine back out whatever light it catches. Lit by the stars, a single candle, or a hundred stadium lights, my diamond is going to look it''s best because it can make the most of any light it gets.

For me part of guaranteeing beauty is managing risk - I get the best of what I have control over, so that whatever life throws at me, I can say at least I have the best. I never wonder if things would have been different if only I had upgraded to a more premium model (Yes I''m the sort of neurotic that worries about these things).

I wonder if jewel salesfolk ever lose touch with just how much diamond perfomance can vary in different environments, simply because they so often see their diamonds under perfect lighting conditions on the sales floor. If you''re always seeing diamonds sparkel under perfect light, I bet after a while all the diamonds seem to be equaly as sparkly.

 

[stone-cold11]

If it is not adding to the beauty of the polish stone, but dead weight that I am paying to the cutter/vendor, then no, it is ugly no matter what anyone else says.

 

[Lorelei]

Light return has everything to do with beauty, the question is how much of that light is needed to produce a beautiful diamond? Can a diamond with less light return be beautiful? Of course. I find beauty and magic in all sorts of diamonds, doesn't necessarily have to be the top cuts for me to find it, people have different ideas of beauty and see it in different ways. A diamond to me does not have to be perfect to be beautiful. The more diamonds I see the more I find this to be true.

 

[outatouch0]

Does light return have anything to do with beauty? YES unless we are talking about how something smells when blindfolded. If we are talking about visual beauty then, essentially, the only thing our eyes detect is light. I know I am a relative neophite here but I fail to see how this can be a "controversial" topic.

 

[Upgradable]

Date: 11/5/2009 5:36:04 AM
Author: outatouch0
Does light return have anything to do with beauty? YES unless we are talking about how something smells when blindfolded. If we are talking about visual beauty then, essentially, the only thing our eyes detect is light. I know I am a relative neophite here but I fail to see how this can be a ''controversial'' topic.

.....out of the mouth of babes.......

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 11/4/2009 8:16:54 PM
Author: Cehrabehra
the way they have engineered diamond cuts to return light in a particular, predictable way is science - it's physics, optics. But the outcome, the dancing colors that leap out of the stone are the beauty


ETA: Wow, the responses here are getting a bit strained, so I'm careful where I step, but IMO there is more than one way to love a diamond. Some diamonds are appreciated for certain performances and others appreciate different aspects and performances. I think when it comes to rounds (and this is MY opinion) that the science as improved upon what rounds do and diamonds are more beautiful because of it. Where cushions are concerned I think it runs a gambit. Some want a cushion to do what a round does, and others appreciate that cushions sometimes don't do what a round does as well as a round, but they make up for it with perhaps non conventional views that can be even more beautiful than what a round can do.

Great post Sara! It is my position that just like a cushion, there are different types of looks in a round ( or fancy shaped) diamond that could all be considered equally beautiful- yet some are "downgraded" here on PS due to what a machine says about light return.

Hopedream brought up a good point too- it's surely true that some salespeople only look at the diamond in a showcase.
For a buyer of diamonds it's critical to make sure that the stones you buy look good in a variety of lighting environments- as well as once they are set.
My position ( as is much of the trades) is that the eye is the best judge- superseding results of any machine.
For this reason the entire science of measuring light return is not widely accepted by the diamond trade- including many who place a great cut at the top of the list.
Of course here at PS there are other viewpoints from well respected professionals. I'm not saying they are wrong- just that there are different opinions about this at high levels in the diamond trade.

 

[oldminer]

The "characterisitics" which can be scientifically quantified can tell us a great deal about how human beings, as a general group, perceive beauty, but these same measured characterisitics do not define beauty for each and every individual. However, no can tell me that majority agreement counts for nothing. When average, and most above average, folks shop, they want to know as much as possible about what the majority look for when making a decision. They can choose to disregard some information, but to make an intelligent choice requires a thought process based on more than a best first guess or just how something looks on the surface.

If the trade would decide on light performance standards and the right lighting model, we could more readily compare diamonds to one another for these measured characterisitics. Would it be a perfect science? No! Whould it be useful?, Yes! Would some folks choose to swim against the current? Of course! Would a small minority of dealers try to isolate a niche business in unusual cuts or colors? Yes!. Would some small minority of dealers try to find a niche business in those diamonds which happened to "measure" high? Yes! Would the average consumer still buy relatively average diamonds? I'd bet a quarter there always will be those who do not research purchases and buy more by weight than any beauty quotient. These ordinary purchasers will be the vast majority of all consumers, at least in the USA, for a long time to come.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 11/5/2009 10:02:03 AM
Author: oldminer
The ''characterisitics'' which can be scientifically quantified can tell us a great deal about how human beings, as a general group, perceive beauty, but these same measured characterisitics do not define beauty for each and every individual. However, no can tell me that majority agreement counts for nothing. When average, and most above average, folks shop, they want to know as much as possible about what the majority look for when making a decision. They can choose to disregard some information, but to make an intelligent choice requires a thought process based on more than a best first guess or just how something looks on the surface.

If the trade would decide on light performance standards and the right lighting model, we could more readily compare diamonds to one another for these measured characterisitics. Would it be a perfect science? No! Whould it be useful?, Yes! Would some folks choose to swim against the current? Of course! Would a small minority of dealers try to isolate a niche business in unusual cuts or colors? Yes!. Would some small minority of dealers try to find a niche business in those diamonds which happened to ''measure'' high? Yes! Would the average consumer still buy relatively average diamonds? I''d bet a quarter there always will be those who do not research purchases and buy more by weight than any beauty quotient. These ordinary purchasers will be the vast majority of all consumers, at least in the USA, for a long time to come.

BINGO! and that minority of dealers may try to pass off those unusual cuts or colors as alternatives or equals to colorless ideal cut diamonds. That minority of dealers may charge similar prices as ideal cut diamonds and may markup those lower cost diamonds at a higher profit margin because the consumer who has the misfortune of dealing with said dealer cannot make a definitiv comparison of what the majority would perceive as equal in beauty in comparison to the niche stones.

 

[oldminer]

All niche business tend to make the attempt to make more money on fewer sales to a smaller market share. No secret here. I like niche marketing, too.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 11/4/2009 7:53:28 PM
Author: John Pollard
<< Does light return have anything to do with beauty? >>

For most people? Sure. Otherwise we''d leave them like this.

PERFECT reply.

 

[Rockdiamond]

HI all!
Allison, I'm surprised that you don't love rough diamonds!
There's something so special about them.
Both in the way they feel, as well as how light affects them.
Even in the photo the colors of the rough diamonds are so intriguing to me!

Dave- you have a good point. There is a "mass idea" about beauty. For example, the male masses will likely agree that the girl on the cover of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue is beautiful. For the ladies, maybe it's Brad Pitt. However I'll bet dollars to donuts that some ladies hate the way Brad Pitt looks. Some guys will feel the swimsuit model is too skinny ( or whatever)

If we're speaking of diamond beauty, and figuring out beauty "for the masses", how about looking at what GIA did with their cut grade.
They used a huge number of human observations, among other things, to define what an "Excellent" cut is.

It's common for people asking questions here on PS to be told that a lot of less than great diamonds get the GIA EX cut grade.
For example: what is defined here as "Steep Deep."
Should we believe GIA that the EX cut grade means it's considered a well cut diamond, or people posting on an internet forum?

The distinctions frequently drawn on PS imply that one GIA "EX" stone is better than another- instead of different.


I also love "niche" sellers. Pretty much every PS advertiser could be classified that way.

 

[Serg]

reoes light return have anything to do with beauty?

RD,

Does milk have anything to do with ice-cream ?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Serg!
Of course, unless you''re eating toffutti.

It''s a good analogy in that is clearly demonstrates the point.
Lowfat milk can be shown to have less fat than whole milk. The effects of this are a physical reality.
It''s not a physical reality that a diamond measured to have better light return is prettier.

 

[platinumrock]

Date: 11/5/2009 3:00:43 PM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 11/4/2009 7:53:28 PM
Author: John Pollard
<< Does light return have anything to do with beauty? >>

For most people? Sure. Otherwise we''d leave them like this.

PERFECT reply.

Ditto. An uncut diamond without light return is just another glossy pebble. An EXPENSIVE pebble.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Here is a diamond with high light return but not a lot else going for it.

A diamond with poor light return is never going to be the best diamond.

Light return is simply one part of the equation

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/5/2009 7:34:34 PM
Author: platinumrock

Date: 11/5/2009 3:00:43 PM

Author: Allison D.

Date: 11/4/2009 7:53:28 PM

Author: John Pollard

<< Does light return have anything to do with beauty? >>


For most people? Sure. Otherwise we''d leave them like this.

PERFECT reply.

Ditto. An uncut diamond without light return is just another glossy pebble. An EXPENSIVE pebble.

Your hand ful have frosted surfaces - but mine has very clean surfaces - and it still has pretty poor light return Alison

 

[Rockdiamond]

Don't laugh Garry- but I'll be the diamond you created in the calc above looks like it would be gorgeous. Kind of like a super Briolette.
I'll bet that the person drawn to it would love the performance.

I've seen diamonds cut like that square calc- personally, I don't at all care for them.

Looking back, maybe a better title would have been:
Does increased light performance equal increased beauty?


Clearly, for some people, it does.