Is a pendant less reflective than a ring?

[Hospatogi]

I can assume a pendant gets less movement than a ring and perhaps has less light play. Therefore does than mean a well cut 3/4 carat diamond is less brilliant in a bezel set pendant than it would be in a bezel set ring?

 

[WinkHPD]

I can assume a pendant gets less movement than a ring and perhaps has less light play. Therefore does than mean a well cut 3/4 carat diamond is less brilliant in a bezel set pendant than it would be in a bezel set ring?

I have seen discussions in the past about what particular aspects of good cutting you want for the best pendants.

In theory, top cut diamonds gather most of their light from 45 - 75 degrees from perpendicular. (The red area in the ASET image) Most top cut diamonds have some, but not a lot of green, which is the 0 - 45 degree angle from perpendicular. So, since your pendant is hanging from a neck, much of the light that is coming from the ceiling is now striking the stone from that 0 - 45 degree range and the stone should be less brilliant.

Maybe if I could measure it I would agree, but I have never mounted a well cut diamond that did not look fantastic regardless of the light now supposedly coming from the "wrong" angle. So long as the bezel does not extend too high up on the crown of the diamond you should be okay.

I am not saying that there will not be some loss of brilliance. but I am saying that you are unlikely to notice it. There may be some exceptions, such as the occasional person whose diamond goes dull when mounted in a bezel. Most do not, some do, or so we hear from time to time. I have observed such a diamond only once personally and it was long enough ago (20+ years) that I did not know what I know about cutting now, so I did not even know what to write down to ask about. Back then, I do not think any one knew. I would love to see that diamond again though and get a modern report on it, as I am sure it would be illuminating.

Wink

 

[Karl_K]

People move their hands to get the best light when looking at their rings, much harder to do with a pendant.
The obstruction is much less for a pendant so some cuts are brighter in a pendant.

I disagree with Wink somewhat the ability to return light from the 0 to 45 range is very important with a pendant.

These are worst case, they real world is far from symmetrical lighting.

Tolk RB


Fic


Much of the return from that range in an RB(first image) is sourced from the crown facets so high bezel is a bad idea for a pendant and could make a huge difference.

 

[Karl_K]

Wink,
Something to consider the person wearing the pendant will never likely see it at its worse.
In order to see it they have to be looking into a reflective surface which becomes a light source in the 45 to 90 range.
However an observer viewing the person wearing the pendant will see it.
I have noticed it several times as a diamond stalker.
There are times I wish I had a video camera handy to capture it.

That said there is far more light in the 0-45(which becomes 45-90 in a pendant) range than the AGS system gives credit to so like I said above those images are worse case and not real world realistic.

 

[WinkHPD]

People move their hands to get the best light when looking at their rings, much harder to do with a pendant.
The obstruction is much less for a pendant so some cuts are brighter in a pendant.

I disagree with Wink somewhat the ability to return light from the 0 to 45 range is very important with a pendant.

These are worst case, they real world is far from symmetrical lighting.

Tolk RB


Fic


Much of the return from that range in an RB(first image) is sourced from the crown facets so high bezel is a bad idea for a pendant and could make a huge difference.

I don't think we disagree at all. It is important in a pendant, agreed. It is just that there is always less green than red in a well cut diamond's ASET image so logically I would expect to see less brilliance and sparkle in a pendant, yet in real life I do not. I agree that light does not only come from one source so a pendant, as all diamonds are, is often receiving light from thousands of places at once including reflections from windows, floors, etc etc. A well cut diamond makes use of all of these lights as they are true equal opportunity light reflectors.

Wink

 

[Hospatogi]

Thank you very much Wink and Karl K ! I have a newly cut OEC that I am bezel setting. I was going to do a small halo around it to make it look bigger. I was also going to do ajour design on the back to make it look prettier if it flipped. I am rethinking this considering your comments. Would ajour also potentially effect light refraction?
Maybe just a simple bezel with thin milgrain set low is my best option for my 3/4 carat OEC!

 

[WinkHPD]

Thank you very much Wink and Karl K ! I have a newly cut OEC that I am bezel setting. I was going to do a small halo around it to make it look bigger. I was also going to do ajour design on the back to make it look prettier if it flipped. I am rethinking this considering your comments. Would ajour also potentially effect light refraction?
Maybe just a simple bezel with thin milgrain set low is my best option for my 3/4 carat OEC!

The old OECs were cut to catch a lot of light from the side, since the lights back then were lamps on the walls rather than bulbs in the ceilings. I would think that would make for an especially nice pendant stone. Well that and the fact that I love the OECs. Are the new ones cut to show the light from the sides like the old ones were? I love that the OECs have such large flashes of light and thus usually more dispersion too.

In my email your reply mentioned an ASET of the OEC, do you have one available for us to see?

Wink

 

[Tekate]

HI Mr. Wink: I have very much enjoyed your postings on this thread I plan - at some point - in the next few months to years to get a new diamond pendant.. I had a 1.50 OEC F color stone that was my original e ring then divorce - pendant, back to my ex's mom.. I loved that stone.. it shot off rainbow colors.. I was planning on getting an OEC probably from GOG their AVR... BUT if these stones are more inclined to be better set in a ring then I would think maybe I will not do this..I very much enjoy both your and Mr. Kark K's remarks.. one learns to much!!! and if I EVER EVER get enough money for a 2 carat yellow round diamond I will send it to you in a flash.. your video is my favorite ring of all time. bar none. thanks again.

kate

 

[Karl_K]

Wink and myself cant comment on an AVR per the rules of PS.
That said in general an OEC is usually well suited for a pendant.
Have your vendor of choice shoot you a video of it to see if a specific one works well.

 

[Hospatogi]

Yes I do have an ASET. It's a Canera Old European cut diamond. Sorry I think I see the vendor logo in the picture. I'm not sure you can comment but in case you can I will link the stone instead. http://www.victorcanera.com/diamonds/gajj14
Is this why watch companies use single cut melee? Because when viewed from the side give off more sparkle than full cut melee?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Thank you very much Wink and Karl K ! I have a newly cut OEC that I am bezel setting. I was going to do a small halo around it to make it look bigger. I was also going to do ajour design on the back to make it look prettier if it flipped. I am rethinking this considering your comments. Would ajour also potentially effect light refraction?
Maybe just a simple bezel with thin milgrain set low is my best option for my 3/4 carat OEC!

My opinion as an owner of a bezel pendant and a newly cut ideal cut OEC (AVR) is ABSOLUTELY set that stone in the bezel diamond halo and with the ajour back!!! That is exactly what I would do! Your stone is idea cut so it does not depend on light coming in from the sides or back! My diamond in the bezel is bright all the time and never in a million years would it have crossed my mind that it was less brilliant than on my hand.

I cannot WAIT to see this pendant!!! (I will probably copy you! )

 

[Karl_K]

Yes I do have an ASET. It's a Canera Old European cut diamond. Sorry I think I see the vendor logo in the picture. I'm not sure you can comment but in case you can I will link the stone instead. http://www.victorcanera.com/diamonds/gajj14
Is this why watch companies use single cut melee? Because when viewed from the side give off more sparkle than full cut melee?

All I can do at this point is repeat what I said above: "in general an OEC is usually well suited for a pendant."
Then say one with a 19.5% crown height and good pavilion angles isn't likely going to have a problem with a reasonable bezel.

In general watch companies use single cuts because the broader flashes fit the style of the watch better.
That and tradition also plays a part.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I just had an idea - an ASET for pendants.
The ASET is above the diamond where the light sources are more likely to be.
I use this to try to explain that we do not want a diamond to be only bright on the top or the bottom.
We want some light coming from everywhere.
The result is quite interesting. Yes?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

For Old Mine Cut

 

[Hospatogi]

Thank you much Garry! This is extremely interesting!

 

[Hospatogi]

Thanks Diamondseeker ! Don't I just love to complicate things hehe! I'm excited to see how it turns out too! And most importantly I hope mom loves her bday present!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Thank you much Garry! This is extremely interesting!

Hi Hosp,
It does not depend on the diamond, it depends on where the light is.
This is for a ring that is facing the observer (blue) and the lights. Same old cut range of proportions

 

[Hospatogi]

Hi Garry thank you so much for taking the time to put together those illustrations. I always learn something new here and it's pretty fantastic to have a diverse community where we can all share and learn from one another. I will definitely keep all of this in mind as I move forward with the pendant design for my mom. Im super excited to show all of you how it turns out in a few weeks!

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Reading this thread, I could not help but chuckle. In that sense, I come to the defense of the poor diamond, being accused of being less reflective, while all circumstantial evidence produced points at the diamond just being the victim of circumstances.

A diamond is a diamond, and light is light, and since the diamond is always going to work in the same way with light, it is not the diamond's fault if light-circumstances are different. The topic is thus not in line with the replies, as the replies hint at light-circumstances being different, and thus another kind of diamond might be more appropriate.

Frankly, I wonder to what extent light-circumstances are different in a pendant than in a ring. Let's analyze, but with real-life in mind.

- The wearer is generally not the observer of a pendant, whereas a ring-wearer regularly watches his or her ring. True, but how about an observer from across the table, not even speaking from an observer from afar? Should we wear other diamonds in our ring if we want to impress others?
- A major factor in analyzing a diamond's quality is its obstruction-pattern, generally at arm's length, comparable to the observation of a ring-wearer. In a pendant (or earrings for that matter), an observer will never come that close, so the entire effect of the obstruction-pattern probably changes. Again, the same is true if somebody looks at a ring from across the table, or from further away. So, should we consider wearing (buying) other diamonds for a ring if we want to impress others?
- Scintillation being the most important factor in a diamond's attraction, movement of either observer, light source or diamond is important. And granted, a hand is probably moving more than an entire body, a ring thus more than a pendant. Still, I would like to see somebody study the periods where light source, observer and diamond are all motionless. As soon as one of the three moves, there is scintillation.
- Finally, the point generally raised in the posts above is about the position of the main light source, stating that for a ring, the light-source generally comes from above the diamond, whereas in a pendant, the light generally comes from the side. That is probably true when one is actually examining the jewel/diamond, but in real life? How about a situation I frequently sit in: across the table from a lady, wearing a ring, in a pensive pose, supporting her chin with the hand, holding her fingers in front of her mouth (I cannot help it but I seem to be good at getting ladies into a pensive mode ). Sorry, but that position is about as motionless as in a pendant, with light-sources in the same position, and I do not feel a need for another diamond being more appropriate.

To me, this all sounds a bit like over-analysis as, even in a ring, the diamond is not only beautiful, reflective, scintillating when we look at it at arm's length.

Live long,

 

[Hospatogi]

I just read this thread to my husband as we are getting ready for work. He like the little diamond in question also understands being the victim of circumstance. After all it certainly couldn't have been me that lost our house keys though it was just found still stuck in the door and I was the last to return home with them ! I do tend to over think things but this is a very special 60th birthday pendant for my mom and I just want it to be perfect !
So I really appreciate and value everyone's advice and opinions! Thanks again

 

[WinkHPD]

HI Mr. Wink: I have very much enjoyed your postings on this thread I plan - at some point - in the next few months to years to get a new diamond pendant.. I had a 1.50 OEC F color stone that was my original e ring then divorce - pendant, back to my ex's mom.. I loved that stone.. it shot off rainbow colors.. I was planning on getting an OEC probably from GOG their AVR... BUT if these stones are more inclined to be better set in a ring then I would think maybe I will not do this..I very much enjoy both your and Mr. Kark K's remarks.. one learns to much!!! and if I EVER EVER get enough money for a 2 carat yellow round diamond I will send it to you in a flash.. your video is my favorite ring of all time. bar none. thanks again.

kate

Thank you for your kind words Kate.

I am the wrong guy to discuss the AVR with you. Jonathon will be able to answer any questions that you have about whether it is better suited for a ring or a pendant for you though. He is also a student of cutting and will have a great grasp of the details of his stone.

Wink

 

[Karl_K]

Reading this thread, I could not help but chuckle. In that sense, I come to the defense of the poor diamond, being accused of being less reflective, while all circumstantial evidence produced points at the diamond just being the victim of circumstances.

A diamond is a diamond, and light is light, and since the diamond is always going to work in the same way with light, it is not the diamond's fault if light-circumstances are different. The topic is thus not in line with the replies, as the replies hint at light-circumstances being different, and thus another kind of diamond might be more appropriate.

It is funny when I think about it.
Like I always say the first 5 things that affect a diamond performance are:
lighting
lighting
lighting
lighting
lighting

 

[Tekate]

Thank you very much!!! I appreciate your time.. my OEC 1.50 carat stone was beautiful.. it's happily the engagement ring of a young mother now and that is where it should be.. I shall get my stone sometime!!!

thanks again,

Kate

HI Mr. Wink: I have very much enjoyed your postings on this thread I plan - at some point - in the next few months to years to get a new diamond pendant.. I had a 1.50 OEC F color stone that was my original e ring then divorce - pendant, back to my ex's mom.. I loved that stone.. it shot off rainbow colors.. I was planning on getting an OEC probably from GOG their AVR... BUT if these stones are more inclined to be better set in a ring then I would think maybe I will not do this..I very much enjoy both your and Mr. Kark K's remarks.. one learns to much!!! and if I EVER EVER get enough money for a 2 carat yellow round diamond I will send it to you in a flash.. your video is my favorite ring of all time. bar none. thanks again.

kate

Thank you for your kind words Kate.

I am the wrong guy to discuss the AVR with you. Jonathon will be able to answer any questions that you have about whether it is better suited for a ring or a pendant for you though. He is also a student of cutting and will have a great grasp of the details of his stone.

Wink

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Thanks Diamondseeker ! Don't I just love to complicate things hehe! I'm excited to see how it turns out too! And most importantly I hope mom loves her bday present!

Can I adopt you???? (I will if she doesn't love the pendant! )

I'd have AVR's in earrings, pendant, and everything else I can think of it that money tree starts growing in the backyard! So you can't go wrong with a gorgeous excellent cut OEC for any piece of jewelry!

(I'll add one thing...there's a gorgeous .99 AVR right now that I'd like to have which was cut by another fabulous cutter, and I was thinking how I'd love to have it in a pendant or as one of a pair of earrings!)

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Reading this thread, I could not help but chuckle. In that sense, I come to the defense of the poor diamond, being accused of being less reflective, while all circumstantial evidence produced points at the diamond just being the victim of circumstances.

A diamond is a diamond, and light is light, and since the diamond is always going to work in the same way with light, it is not the diamond's fault if light-circumstances are different. The topic is thus not in line with the replies, as the replies hint at light-circumstances being different, and thus another kind of diamond might be more appropriate.

It is funny when I think about it.
Like I always say the first 5 things that affect a diamond performance are:
lighting
lighting
lighting
lighting
lighting

Hey Karl,

I do think that we are not on the same page here, or at least, your chosen wording leaves room for incorrect interpretation.

Yes, lighting affects how a diamond performs, but in the same lighting, a better cut is likely to perform better. If random bypassers compliment somebody about their diamond, it is generally not because of the light-conditions being perfect, it is because the cut of that diamond is better. I am stating the example of bypassers giving compliments, as it is entirely different from checking out a ring at arm's length, often without head-obstruction and from a distance, with light-sources situated in the same area as in a pendant.

Live long,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Reading this thread, I could not help but chuckle. In that sense, I come to the defense of the poor diamond, being accused of being less reflective, while all circumstantial evidence produced points at the diamond just being the victim of circumstances.

A diamond is a diamond, and light is light, and since the diamond is always going to work in the same way with light, it is not the diamond's fault if light-circumstances are different. The topic is thus not in line with the replies, as the replies hint at light-circumstances being different, and thus another kind of diamond might be more appropriate.

It is funny when I think about it.
Like I always say the first 5 things that affect a diamond performance are:
lighting
lighting
lighting
lighting
lighting

Hey Karl,

I do think that we are not on the same page here, or at least, your chosen wording leaves room for incorrect interpretation.

Yes, lighting affects how a diamond performs, but in the same lighting, a better cut is likely to perform better. If random bypassers compliment somebody about their diamond, it is generally not because of the light-conditions being perfect, it is because the cut of that diamond is better. I am stating the example of bypassers giving compliments, as it is entirely different from checking out a ring at arm's length, often without head-obstruction and from a distance, with light-sources situated in the same area as in a pendant.

Live long,

Hey Paul
a better cut looks worse in direct bright sunlight

 

[WinkHPD]

Hey Paul
a better cut looks worse in direct bright sunlight

Maybe down under, but up here they look plenty darn good mate! I think hanging upside down all the time has affected your vision, what with all the blood pooling in your eyes!

Wink

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Hey Paul
a better cut looks worse in direct bright sunlight

Maybe down under, but up here they look plenty darn good mate! I think hanging upside down all the time has affected your vision, what with all the blood pooling in your eyes!

Wink

Try it when your freezing winter has passed Wink and you get a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWOJ6c9JUrA. (Aussie song).

 

[WinkHPD]

LOL! If you ever get up into this part of the world during our "freezing winter" you will see on a sunny day some of the best rays of sunshine in the world as they reflect back off the snow and give you a great tan, provided you are using at least 50 sunscreen so they don't crispy your critter!

Wink

 

[Karl_K]

Reading this thread, I could not help but chuckle. In that sense, I come to the defense of the poor diamond, being accused of being less reflective, while all circumstantial evidence produced points at the diamond just being the victim of circumstances.

A diamond is a diamond, and light is light, and since the diamond is always going to work in the same way with light, it is not the diamond's fault if light-circumstances are different. The topic is thus not in line with the replies, as the replies hint at light-circumstances being different, and thus another kind of diamond might be more appropriate.

It is funny when I think about it.
Like I always say the first 5 things that affect a diamond performance are:
lighting
lighting
lighting
lighting
lighting

Hey Karl,

I do think that we are not on the same page here, or at least, your chosen wording leaves room for incorrect interpretation.

Yes, lighting affects how a diamond performs, but in the same lighting, a better cut is likely to perform better. If random bypassers compliment somebody about their diamond, it is generally not because of the light-conditions being perfect, it is because the cut of that diamond is better. I am stating the example of bypassers giving compliments, as it is entirely different from checking out a ring at arm's length, often without head-obstruction and from a distance, with light-sources situated in the same area as in a pendant.

Live long,

Hi Paul,

cut is number 6 on my list and I sometimes word it:
The top 6 things affecting how a diamond looks at any given time are:
lighting
lighting
lighting
lighting
lighting
cut

I was mainly just saying it was funny when I thought of it the way you posted.