Does more facet mean better light reflection performace?

[cooperchien]

I see some Jewlery stores like Ribbins Brother saying that they have a way to cut more facets on a diamond. It sounds like more facets = better light reflection performace.
Is it really true? Suppose everything else such as crown height %, Polish, and etc is equal, does more facet really mean better light performance? Or is there a limit on how much light a diamond can actually reflect and more facet does not help?

 

[Moh 10]

No.

Towards the top of this screen click on KNOWLEDGE and select Advanced Tutorial.

Read every page.

Stay away from Robbing Brothers.

 

[neatfreak]

No. It results in smaller slivers of light being returned because the facets are smaller. But not more. What really counts is an ideal cut.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 12/15/2008 6:40:55 PM
Author:cooperchien
I see some Jewlery stores like Ribbins Brother saying that they have a way to cut more facets on a diamond. It sounds like more facets = better light reflection performace.
Is it really true? Suppose everything else such as crown height %, Polish, and etc is equal, does more facet really mean better light performance? Or is there a limit on how much light a diamond can actually reflect and more facet does not help?

"Better" is a matter of interpretation cooper.

There are modified rounds (more than the standard 57 facet) cut for light performance which do in fact have more reflections of light than a 57 facet round. Some consider this better/more beautiful than a 57 facet ideal cut (Hearts and Arrows types being the pinnacle of 57 facet cutting) and others don''t.

When I am showing this comparison to people I don''t make any presumptions and allow the person to make their own choice as what they, and more importantly their fiance interpret as being most beautiful or better to them. I''ve showed modified to folks and have heard quite a variety of responses from unbelievably gorgeous to too busy. The best bet is to see them for yourself, or if possible your fiance as well and learn what it is she and/or you prefers most.

All the best,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 12/15/2008 6:50:55 PM
Author: neatfreak
No. It results in smaller slivers of light being returned because the facets are smaller. But not more. What really counts is an ideal cut.

Hi neat,

Have you ever seen a Star129 or Solasfera alongside an H&A in spot lighting?

 

[John P]

The more facets you put on a diamond the busier/more active it looks. As facets become smaller their individual performance is not as robust, so the general consensus is that these cuts are more appealing in larger sizes where there is more surface area available to distribute - and/or in bright lighting like you see in jewelry stores. Here, as with many aspects of diamond beauty, it's good to be open-minded. What's important is what appeals to you, personally.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 12/15/2008 7:06:45 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 12/15/2008 6:50:55 PM

Author: neatfreak

No. It results in smaller slivers of light being returned because the facets are smaller. But not more. What really counts is an ideal cut.

Hi neat,


Have you ever seen a Star129 or Solasfera alongside an H&A in spot lighting?

I have seen them together and while I think that one certainly looks busier I am not convinced that it returns more light overall.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 12/15/2008 7:22:52 PM
Author: neatfreak

Date: 12/15/2008 7:06:45 PM

Author: Rhino

Date: 12/15/2008 6:50:55 PM


Author: neatfreak


No. It results in smaller slivers of light being returned because the facets are smaller. But not more. What really counts is an ideal cut.

Hi neat,



Have you ever seen a Star129 or Solasfera alongside an H&A in spot lighting?

I have seen them together and while I think that one certainly looks busier I am not convinced that it returns more light overall.

ditto in smaller sizes.
defining more is the problem...
In spot lighting they will have more smaller "dots" separated by smaller spaces.
Is the total light return higher, define total.
Is it likely about the same in spot lighting for equivalent c/p angles yes likely.
In soft low lighting in smaller sizes the RB wins hands down and an OEC or asscher kicks the RB''s fanny.
Every cut is a compromise.

 

[beaujolais]

Ugh, I hate lots of facets.

 

[Winks_Elf]

I''m with Sonoma on that one...the additional facets are just too distracting to me.

 

[RBD hunter]

Ya know it still comes down to personal preference.
I have a yellow gold Movado wedding band,
channel set with 10-10 pointer 114 facet diamonds
sure lights up nice in the out doors

G-H in color and seems to pull in/reflect a lot of light performance.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 12/16/2008 12:32:10 AM
Author: RBD hunter
Ya know it still comes down to personal preference.

I have a yellow gold Movado wedding band,

channel set with 10-10 pointer 114 facet diamonds

sure lights up nice in the out doors

G-H in color and seems to pull in/reflect a lot of light performance.

sunlight is direct light.
Go have a candle light dinner and see how dull they are....

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

There are actually three aspects to this question:

1. In comparing a multi-facet-stone (MFS) with a standard facet-arrangement (SFA), the average cut-quality will generally be higher on the SFA. That is because there will most probably be cut-standards for the SFA, that are non-existent for the MFS. One cannot simply assume that the MFS will be cut with the best combination of angles.

2. Size of the stone plays a very important role here. Too often, I see producers of MFS proving their claim with a huge glass or CZ-model. With more facets, the virtual facets of the stone become smaller. With less optical symmetry, they become even smaller. Depending on the size of the stone, virtual facets can become so small that the stone looks only busy, but not sparkly. And very important, this also reduces the likelihood of observing fire.

3. Finally, there is the aspect of taste. Some people may prefer a certain look over another. Taste however is a cultural matter, in the sense that tastes are acquired. In the case of diamonds, it would take a lot of observations and comparisons in various lighting environments to really understand the differences.

Live long,

 

[oldminer]

Most MFS styles are modifications to facet arrangment with an eye to exclusivity and branding, but pretty much empty claims when it comes to increased performance. A few, such as those mentioned by Johathan have a basis to make legitimate claims about their performance and beauty. The choice remans subjective to each consumer. What happens with large diamonds is not necessarily the same with smaller diamonds. Models based on a 5 carat diamond size wil look very different in a 1 carat size. The 5 carat model may prove something positive about beauty and added light return, but it may fall short in the real world of 1 carat sizes.

Robbins Bros. has tools to prove light performance. Why not give them a test drive to see how effectively they can prove what they are telling you about certain MFS styles. Have them compare them to standard ideal cuts.