- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 9,739
We definitely have different experiences with how people look at diamonds Jon!
When I show two stones of a similar price to a client, and one is noticeably larger, that's one of the first optical properties people notice.
Yes of course sparkle, life, fire and contrast are part of the equation, but removing the physical size eliminates one of the most obvious optical properties.
So, let's say 9 out of 10 will agree to around 80% to reject.....but the balance of well cut stones presents a different sort of split.
I would not use a round diamond to make a point in a thread about ovals as the parameters are so very different.
Shallow rounds are probably one of the areas I'd agree with 9 out of 10 not liking them- maybe even 95 out of 100 rejecting fish eye shallow rounds.
But Ovals, Pear Shapes. Marquises can have depths in the 50's and still look amazing.
I agree that contrast can generally aid in fighting color absorbtion. However, it's not a hard fast rule.
Sometimes the right amount of leakage is incredibly beneficial to a diamonds optics with regards to scintillation.
In the best of cases an Oval Mod Bril in a J-K-L color can look whiter due to scintillation and leakage than a given Oval Brilliant which may have more contrast and less leakage.
Likely we'd both agree truly well cut examples are rare when looking at OMB, and OB - even if we wouldn't necessarily choose the same one.
When I show two stones of a similar price to a client, and one is noticeably larger, that's one of the first optical properties people notice.
Yes of course sparkle, life, fire and contrast are part of the equation, but removing the physical size eliminates one of the most obvious optical properties.
AS far as 9 out of 10 people agreeing....Jon, if presented with 100 random oval diamonds of the virtual database, let's say we'd both probably reject the same 80 on the basis of cut. Of the remaining stones, we might each pick 5-10 as really well cut. But probably not the same 5-10 stones.Not when it's greater than 9 out of 10 people.
So, let's say 9 out of 10 will agree to around 80% to reject.....but the balance of well cut stones presents a different sort of split.
I would not use a round diamond to make a point in a thread about ovals as the parameters are so very different.
Shallow rounds are probably one of the areas I'd agree with 9 out of 10 not liking them- maybe even 95 out of 100 rejecting fish eye shallow rounds.
But Ovals, Pear Shapes. Marquises can have depths in the 50's and still look amazing.
I agree that contrast can generally aid in fighting color absorbtion. However, it's not a hard fast rule.
Sometimes the right amount of leakage is incredibly beneficial to a diamonds optics with regards to scintillation.
In the best of cases an Oval Mod Bril in a J-K-L color can look whiter due to scintillation and leakage than a given Oval Brilliant which may have more contrast and less leakage.
Likely we'd both agree truly well cut examples are rare when looking at OMB, and OB - even if we wouldn't necessarily choose the same one.
300x240.png)