Exactly how bad are Windows in diamonds?

[Rockdiamond]

Hi everybody!
As production of lab grown diamonds advances, there is a small percentage of grower/cutters cutting less traditional cuts. Recent discussions about a new style of antique style cut we're seeing in lab diamonds got me thinking about windows in general.
THe stones discussed were tall ( 1.35:1+) small table, high crown style stones. But this applies to other long rectangular cuts as well. Also certain Marquise, Pear Shapes, Ovals, Emerald Cuts. Not traditionally cut stones- but rather unusually cut stones...antique style.
Speaking of this type of cut, in general:
Longer stones have longer facets on the pavilion.
As you tilt these sorts of diamonds, you're going to be able to see through them - but usually a slight movement will result in that window turning into a facet flashing bright- or even a fire event ( rainbow)
In the case of these new antique style stones, there's a very steep crown. In cases of steep crowns, you get an entirely different view into the diamond.
Are these negative aspects? It really depends on the individual.

Look at it this way- 95% of all diamonds are round brilliant.
In cases of stones designed to avoid leakage, leakage is a bad thing.
But what if the designer of the cut doesn't put leakage avoidance as a priority?
These antique style cuts - and in general stones cut for a more unique look..... are boutique. Not for everyone.
In discussions where the barometer is set at round brilliant...whoa!! This sort of stone is terrible. Leaky.
But if the person looking loves the antique style and the associated characteristics, they can be very beautiful- even if they are leaky and have windows.
There are people who love rose cuts- portrait cuts! They're not "wrong", right?
What do you think?

 

[Ibrakeforpossums]

Such a timely post. Thank you.
Today I was looking at Yoram's portrait cut with a small Asscher under it. The stuff of dreams.

 

[lovedogs]

Such a timely post. Thank you.
Today I was looking at Yoram's portrait cut with a small Asscher under it. The stuff of dreams.

That ring is seriously a thing of dreams. I asked the price once and was sad (but totally unsurprised) that it was far out of my budget

 

[Rfisher]

I have mixed feelings that a majority of the lab-antique-style-cut-lab-grown diamonds don’t seem to be cut the same way period antique stones were cut.
Not right /wrong tho. Just opinion.

It seems like these new ones fall into the category to look like either the vintage cushion cut to ideal performance ones or the style this post addresses.
Not like you feel you are actually
might be looking at old stones.

For some reason I don’t get it’s the same as ‘hey portrait cuts/rose cuts behave like this’ type of feeling/comparison. But again- tastes vary and that is what it boils down to.

Again - no right /wrong, just opinion.

Or maybe I’m ignorant and the old stones that still exist - exist because they look as they do.
And all the old ones that look like what’s commonly now found in the antique lab cuts that this post discusses …….were ultimately recut to modern standards - so we just don’t see them around.

 

[Lisa Loves Shiny]

I think some unfortunately there are not that many well cut lab OMCs to choose from right now unless you pay a premium. Some people probably set out to get an authentic looking OMC but settle for what they consider a nice enough OMC lab in their desired price range.

I think people who choose specialty cuts such as portrait cuts want a unique diamond with a different type of subtle beauty. I've heard portrait cuts described as "looking like clear water" and rose cuts as having a "shimmer". Those are beautiful attributes that I would find enjoyable to look at.

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

I'm just waiting for a lab producer to figure out that they need to map a few antique old mines in their programs to mimic the wonky cut and offer them in m-z range and I'll be buying. They'd have a nice little niche boutique market if they did.

Still waiting....

 

[AprilBaby]

Windows may be fine but personally I hate them.

 

[Rockdiamond]

It's obvious that people's taste varies. I don't ever blame people for loving or hating something about a diamond......from my perspective, as a seller, it really helps to know what our clients think! If someone hates windows, we know what to avoid.
There is an issue when consumers come looking for advice, and people's taste somehow becomes factual. "Windows are bad", or " I would never buy a leaky diamond"...things like that really affect people reading.
The result is that a taste-based issue gets relegated to being judged as if there are facts about which design is "better". This is a very old PS consideration......

Not like you feel you are actually
might be looking at old stones.

Important to remember that old stones weren't cut to a "standard" per se.
That's part of their charm I think.
So as we progress down the lab diamond route it's natural that there's not really a consistency in design- and probably that's a good thing.
Even in the case of Mined diamonds cut to look like antiques, there's no real standard.

I did a video comparing a modern cushion to one that has a design that does allow a bit of windowing.

To me, they're both beautiful.
I noticed that the old style stone kind of did better in normal lighting as opposed to bright photography lighting.
Both have personality....different personality.

 

[SparklieBug]

It may be the lighting, or the difference in cut, but my eye is consistently drawn to the diamond on the left. So beautiful, the both of them!

 

[Rockdiamond]

It may be the lighting, or the difference in cut, but my eye is consistently drawn to the diamond on the left.

I totally noticed that the stone on the left seems ...whiter?
But when I took them out from under the bright light, the difference seemed much less.

 

[oncrutchesrightnow]

Buy what you like. Still, even if your taste varies from what other consumers consider to be ideal, don’t pay premium prices for items that are less popular.

Maybe the uneasy feeling some of us get is not from the vendors who accurately depict their wonderfully wonky stones but rather from vendors whose stones are going to window but the marketing photos never show the windows. Consumers should know that the stone they see online that always seems to be tilted a little off center in the photos might not reflect as much light when they are looking down at it on their finger in real life. If you don’t mind windows then you are in luck because you should pay less. Another example, IIRC certain lab grown rough is shallow, which is one reason we might be seeing a bunch of shallow antique-inspired cuts. Consumers should know that the diamond they see online, that looks like an antique cushion with a giant poofy crown viewed top down, but that never seems to have photos showing the side view, is actually a pancake with big facets and a culet. If you like a pancake with big facets and a culet, then you are in luck, because you should get more finger coverage for less money unless and until people start demanding more pancakes. The key is that the consumer should know what they are getting and should not overpay.

A unique dynamic of the antique-inspired LGD market is that unlike other areas of emerging consumer technology, one of the earliest adopters of mass marketed LGD antique-inspired cuts started the ball rolling by selling products that continue to outperform products developed later. So precision cuts became the baseline for quality in antique-inspired LGD. Recent adopters have shown up with non-precision cuts (which is a matter of taste) sometimes photographed to disguise windows and pancakes (which is a matter of ethics), while still asking for premium prices. So long as vendors continue to sell window stones with no top down views and pancakes with no side views in an attempt to get consumers to buy something they don’t really want at an inflated price then the fair thing to do is to tell consumers, You are not getting X, you are in fact getting Y, and you should demand a lower price. Vendors who are so proud of their pancakes that they prominently display side view photos can look forward to many referrals of consumers who want pancakes. Vendors who are all about the wonk and display lots of top down views of their windowy stones will benefit from referrals of consumers in search of wonk.

I say this as someone who buys stuff that many other people would not pay for. Three cheers for accurately depicted, fairly priced weird stuff.

 

[acaw2015]

@oncrutchesrightnow I agree with your post.

Given recent discussions and example of this issue, I have myself noticed how hard it is to tell if the stones are pancakes since the stones are often filmed with a generic grey background that mimics a reflection. The numbers won't tell unless the report is very detailed. The depth may seem ok by numbers but then seeing it from the side view all of the "depth" is in the crown.... And although I feel at least semi experienced, I have a hard time seeing what I need to see when viewing from the side because obviously one of the things I want is a puffy crown... Just not one that makes the stone leaky.
Sorry for rambling but this is very annoying to me.

 

[Rockdiamond]

don’t pay premium prices for items that are less popular.

Interesting point. However not accurate if we’re basing it the way mined diamonds have been traditionally traded. Big, spready mined diamonds cut from shallow rough can earn a premium- even if it’s remarkably “boutique “. Another way of saying “ less popular “
On that basis, so many costly earth diamonds which are not “popular “ are pricier than regular ol’ round brilliant diamonds. Think spready marquise or pear shapes that might trade at a premium.
What I’ve been seeing in lab grown diamonds is much more aggressive pricing on some of the newer ones on the market, in all shapes. “Branded” stones will likely always be pricier.
But I think that’s missing the point. I wasn’t considering it from a cost comparison standpoint.
Even a less costly lab diamond is still a decent chunk of change compared to buying a toaster.
My point is that it’s not always a defect.

In terms of how stones are represented, and photographed I agree there’s much to be desired overall. But that’s not going to change due to economic reasons. Stones are all photographed as quickly as possible using a standard setup. In my experience, different sorts of diamonds require different sorts of photography to really show the “personality “.
The vast majority of sellers never touch the diamond they’re selling till they ship it. If even then.
The rotating videos have their good points and bad points.

one of the things I want is a puffy crown.

In many cases the puffy crown is part of why you can see through the diamond. Thinking about it…..virtually all the modern antique interpretations designed to avoid leakage don’t have “puffy”crowns.