Does the pattern on a princess also determining quality of cut? Or, is it all in the sparkle?

[squarediamondlove]

I am new to this web site, but I have been reading posts on this sight for quite a while since I got my engagement ring. My question is how does one rate a princess cut? I know that the rule of thumb is that there is a greater chance that the diamond will render optimum fire and brilliance if the table is smaller than its depth. Also, that different combinations, which sometimes include non-typical measurements e.g. such as a larger table or depth, may render a beautiful sparkle in a diamond. However, aside form the specifications, does the DESIGN inside the stone ever play a factor in determining how good the cut is? Princess cuts, unlike RB, are so different in their shape. Different princess stones have different PATTERNS inside (are cut differently). Some have less facets and look more simple and others are more detailed in appearance. (I personally prefer ones with more detail). So, does this matter at all or is this factor overlooked when an expert says the cut is very good? Are they just referring to the sparkle?

Also, generally, what factors does one consider when judging the stone to by of very good quality/cut? what weight does one apportion to color, inclusions, symmetry, polish, cut, design/pattern, and etc?

 

[belle]

hey kaleidoscopic

welcome to ps!

for me a great princess is one that is alive with sparkle. there is a difference between bright light reflecty sparkle and a well cut stone that has sparkle that is alive within the stone. if you compare a well cut princess to one that is not so, you will immediately see the difference.

 

[squarediamondlove]

I know what you mean. My stone looks actually bigger when it sparkles.

I was in a store recently and saw a princess that sparkled like a mad man with large flashes of light everywhere. It was stunning. However when I saw inside to see the shape or pattern of the stone, it was extremely plane and didn''t speak to me at all. Is this just subjective?

Also I have noticed that princess diamonds on goodoldgold.com have more intricate patterns.

 

[belle]

princess cuts, for the most part, are still cut for weight which does not lend to great performance. as demand for performance increases you will see more premium cut goods available. since online jewelers don''t have the advantage of bright lights to make their diamonds look good, they have to rely on actual performance. you will see many vendors carrying above average princess cuts for this exact reason.

 

[squarediamondlove]

can you explain again what you meant by big sparkly flashing out of the stone and sparkle within the stone and what their significance is?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/17/2005 12:07:34 PM
Author: Kaleidoscopic


Also I have noticed that princess diamonds on goodoldgold.com have more intricate patterns.

What do you mean by ''pattern'' ? Is this something mentioned on some page at GoodOldGold?

I suspect you are talking about ''contrast'' and ''optical symmetry'' - for the sake of using some terms you might find with a search here.

True enough, there are variations of princess cut - some do have more facets (called ''chevrons'' on the pavilion) and there are a couple of options for the crown too (look up ''french corners'').

Anyway, I doubt one of the slightly different cut patterns is consistently ''better''. And the differences might be subtle indeed, while the difference between any one diamond with great optical symmetry and contrast and one lacking severely in either definitely shows. The larger the stone, the more obvious.

Just my 0.2

This post doesn''t do more than line up some key words for searching around this forum. There isn''t allot about princess cuts - I can remember some relevant posts gravitating about the AGS0 princess cut and some issues can be extrapolated from similar discussions about round brilliants to some degree.

 

[belle]

Date: 11/17/2005 12:21:17 PM
Author: Kaleidoscopic
can you explain again what you meant by big sparkly flashing out of the stone and sparkle within the stone and what their significance is?

the ''sparkle'' of diamonds comes from light reflecting off of the facets. when these facets are cut and aligned properly, they will reflect light off each other in a harmonious and pleasing way...they look very lively.
a poorly cut stone relies on bright flooding light to hit a few of these facets to reflect a flash of sparkle back to your eye. you will see a few sparkles here and there as the stone is moved or as you move by it but a well cut stone has proportions and facet arrangement that work together to reflect light directly back to your eyes. you don''t have to move the stone around trying to catch a random sparkle.
i feel like i''m not doing such a good job explaining what i mean

i think you have to see the differences to understand what i am trying to say. if you have seen a stone that is ''alive'' you know what i am talking about.

 

[squarediamondlove]

How do I know if my stone has good contrast?

Also, by optical symmetry, are you talking about what the symmetry of a dimond is, as rated on GIA report?

 

[squarediamondlove]

I think I understand what you mean Belle.

My thing was that usually you are not round all these light that give you maximum sparkle. Usually you are in defused lighting or office lighting. This is when the pattern of your dimond stand out more and if matters more significantly.

 

[belle]

actually kaleidoscopic, my point is, a well cut stone will look alive and sparkly in most everyday lighting conditions and not just bright jewelry store lights. optical symmetry (something more to do with the ''pattern'' you are referring to) is not graded by labs. the graded symmetry is something different.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

http://www.ideal-scope.com/using_fancy.asp this link shows how to use an ideal-scope with tweezers and rotate the stone.
You seem to be putting a lot of effort into this Kaleidoscopic - so may I suggest you get an ideal-scope and read up on how to use it from the other links at the site. (disclaimer - I sell them and will retire on the $5 profit)

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/17/2005 12:58:15 PM
Author: Kaleidoscopic


How do I know if my stone has good contrast?

Not sure how to put it... Look on the symmetry thing below. To me ''contrast'' is the play of light from one face to the next. ''Good contrast'' means that facets turn one by one on and off catching light and there are no large patches of several adjacent facets that turn on/off at once. I am very sure there is a better way to tell this story.

I don''t remember of one compact presentation of the thing. You will find some discussion about ''contrast brilliance'' and ''pattern'' and ''scintillation'' on this forum and tutorials. These are related issues.





Also, by optical symmetry, are you talking about what the symmetry of a dimond is, as rated on GIA report?

No, not the same as the (meet-point) symmetry on the report. Try THIS.



... my 0.2

 

[researcher]

Hi, Kaleidoscopic!
I too have to say that I''m confused by your use of "pattern" to describe differences in princess cuts. I have seen tons of stones (I was a freak when it came to choosing my stone) and the only difference I know of is the number of facets. But, it is not too noticeable. The difference you may be seeing could be due to the depth of the stone, and the size of the table. Stones will reflect light differently depending on their cut, so getting the right combination is critical. If you''re interested in determining the quality of cut of your stone I second getting an ideal scope. It''s hard to use at first with princess cuts (at least it was for me), but once it''s set up correctly you can really get a good idea of your stone''s performance. Also, do you have any information on the stone''s crown and pavilion angles/percents (e.g., from a Sarin report)? The crown gives insight into the fire (colored light) of your stone just as the table size can determine brilliance. If you want some great info on princess cuts, go to GOG. Jonathan did an amazing job of describing princess cuts in depth. Also, Paul, the king of AGS-0 princesses wrote a great article that can be found here.

Hope this helps!

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/21/2005 1:00:37 AM
Author: researcher

Hi, Kaleidoscopic!
I too have to say that I''m confused by your use of ''pattern'' to describe differences in princess cuts. I

Let me see if I got it right...
if so, the one to the left could be described as having great ''pattern'' and the oter one not quite:

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Very good Ana.
But the one on the left would look flat as a tack beside the one on the right if it was less than 1ct because the facets are too small.
Even at 2ct this stone might be boring

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/21/2005 5:21:25 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

But the one on the left would look flat as a tack beside the one on the right if it was less than 1ct because the facets are too small.

Thanks

... there isn't anything indicating size in those pictures (as in most). Perhaps I could dig out a similar pair of the fewer-facet variety. Those were just meant to clarify the posts above regardless.


Would it be wrong to say that this 'pattern' thing as much as brightness up to some resolution (i.e. whatever can be seen without magnification) ?

I have pretty good eye sight, but a 5mm square on hand as I type is just a bright dot altogether.

On the other hand, an entire 'generation' of posts about IS images only talk about the symmetry of whatever pattern there is there, not the red/black/white balance.

 

[squarediamondlove]

So the way it appears to me, the one on the left appears to be more symmetrical (I''m not sure if its optical symetry comming into play), however the one on the right seems to have more depth so it looks to have more dimension. Visually, the way that you have them displayed, the one on the left appeals to me because of the symmetry, however I do not think it has a lot of dimension.

Given all the comments that you have made, I think what I was refering to is a combination of faceting of the diamond, its contrast, and optical symmetry (the overall look the diamond has when it is in office or defused lighting environment.

 

[squarediamondlove]

Can a diamond sparkle comparbly well if it lacks very good/good optical symetry and contrast?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/21/2005 11:01:47 AM
Author: Kaleidoscopic

#1. ...the one on the right seems to have more depth so it looks to have more dimension.


#2. Can a diamond sparkle comparbly well if it lacks very good/good optical symetry and contrast?

About #2. That is the question... IMO, not really. Although the right hand example in the previous example had neither near the top of the line.


About #1...and 'depth'. I've tried to find pictures of two princesses with precise pattern, hoping thet 'depth' is what tells them apart. Is it so? Your description of princess cuts sounds better than most technical ones to me... I hope you don't mind the questions. They are merely trying to trace your visual impression back to some 'lingo' used on this forum. And this is the last such post, trust me

Basically, these two should have both brilliance and pattern very much there, if I got it right. I have to leave it to someone else to find what exactly allows a combination of nice brilliance and depth & mangled pattern.

 

[squarediamondlove]

As for a smiple yes or no based on first impression, I think I prefer the one on top better because of the depth or dimension (I''m not sure if the depth is what makes it look like it has dimension or a combination of factors). However, upon closer inspection, the pictures seem to used different lighting (or different lighting angles) so it becomes more difficult to tell which I like better (I am clearly no expert so its hard to visulize the stone in similar lighting situations) On a closer look, I would have to say I like the brightness (whiteness) and the detailed faceting on the bottom stone but the depth/dimension on the first. (Since their from GOG I''m sure their both excellent stones)

I would love if someone can comment back on what one would look for (just with ones eyes) in these pictures to determine the quality of the stone.

 

[squarediamondlove]

Here are another 2 pictures. I find the one on top (#1) to be more attractive overall than the one on the bottom (#2).


#1

 

[squarediamondlove]

This one looks more basic, simplistic and a bit dark (less attractive). Visually the #1 appeals to me. Is this merely subjective?

 

[researcher]

Thanks, Ana, for the clarification!

Kaleidoscopic, it's hard to compare photos with different colored backgrounds because stones reflect back the colors around them. That being said, you can look for things in the photos such as the table size, size of facets, and optical symmetry. Have you gone to the GOG site yet? You really should read the tutorial, and check out various princess cut stones. One thing to remember about photos is they are static images, and diamonds are anything but static. That's why the ideal scope images are great--they tell you how the light is being reflected back to the observer. In looking at ideal scope images AND the actual images of the stones you can get a better idea of the brilliance and scintillation.

Some good examples of stones to look at include:

Slightly rectangular with table > depth
AGS-0 stone
Another AGS-0 stone with a different "pattern"

 

[researcher]

BTW, the top stone you posted appeals more to me as well

 

[researcher]

Now, I''m not sure how well this comparison will show up, but hopefully the photos below from Gary''s site will help you to see the differences cut quality makes on the pattern of light return in princess cuts. If the photos I''ve attached don''t show up, go to the following link. Hope this helps!

 

[researcher]

Shoot. I had a feeling it would come up small. Sorry about that!

 

[squarediamondlove]

Date: 11/21/2005 1:24:26 PM
Author: researcher
Thanks, Ana, for the clarification!


Some good examples of stones to look at include:


Slightly rectangular with table > depth

AGS-0 stone

Another AGS-0 stone with a different 'pattern'

Out of the ones you listed here for example. The first one I completely do not like. The second stone, I love the large flashes of light (sparkle) and the shape/pattern is attracive. For the third, I think I faver this one's sape/pattern a bit more, though I do not like that there is a bit more light leekage. Is the reason the second stone has larger flashes of light due to the diamond having less facets or is it just a better cut?

Studying some ideal scope images has answer part of my question on appearance. However, is there a way to rely on the naked eye to tell you how good the cut of the stone is (if you do not have an idealscope handy)? Meaning, if someone agave you a diamond, and you knew nothing about it, how can you tell if it is a good cut?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/21/2005 5:41:12 PM
Author: Kaleidoscopic


Is the reason the second stone has larger flashes of light due to the diamond having less facets or is it just a better cut?

Fewer facets... both are great technically, as far as I can tell.




However, is there a way to rely on the naked eye to tell you how good the cut of the stone is (if you do not have an idealscope handy)?

If you have seen allot of diamonds, and if that (as usual) is not feasible, knowing what some top choices look like definitely helps. Just, my take on it of course.

This discussion may well evolve into just that sort of instructions with some luck

 

[squarediamondlove]

The problem with going to stores and looking at diamonds is that most princess cuts in stores are not close to ideals. My stone is not even ideal, probably a very good cut if I had to guess (I have no brilliantscope, Idealscope or Saprin images), and it almost always outshines (outsparkles) all the others. Plus most lighting in the stores seems to hide the stone rather than display it. All I see out of the darkness is sparkle and no dimension or contrast that office lighting gives you.

Is there anything else on line, besides the sources already provided, that would be useful on the matter?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/22/2005 3:47:12 AM
Author: Kaleidoscopic


Is there anything else on line, besides the sources already provided, that would be useful on the matter?

I would think of GIA''s cut study and there is a myriad of articles about diamond cut on the websites related to DiamCalc and GemAdviser (at OctoNus, their maker). You may find the newsletters at IdealScope.com interesting. However, most of this is about rounds and the all important comments about visuals are scattered everywhere in text.

There have been a couple of long & technical threads about the AGS0 princess cuts on this forum - those could be tracked down among the posts of the experts (e,g, search Paul Sledger''s posts - ''Paul Antwerp'').

... but these may only contain bits and pieces. And the question ''what to look for without tools'' is THE QUESTION!

As far as I know...


There might be a good source online, if you open a new thread for this