Marquise cut

[hambone]

Do they really look larger per carat than other cuts. I have been looking lately and I have a hard time telling. They don''t seem to be as popular of a cut as they used to be. I actually really like the cut.

 

[StevL]

They are not as popular as they once were, but they are beginning to make a little come back.

Many of the marquise, pears, and ovals are cut from macles (maacles). Think of it as a sliver of a rough diamond (it comes from a twinned crystal). This rough doesn’t usually give enough depth to cut a round diamond and the general shape lends itself to an elongated fancy shape. Because of this many will end up very shallow.

If this were the case then the diamond would be cut shallow and it will appear fairly large for the actual weight of the diamond. The diamond is carrying very little weight from the depth of it, most from the length and diameter.

Is this good?

If all you care about is size, they don't have a lot of dispersion and scintillation. They tend to look glassy or watery among other things.

 

[weemodin]

I personally like the marquise; however, the pear looks larger per carat than does a round, too, and I find that it can also be stunning (and unique). Plus, if you're wanting size, a pear or marquise stone will (usually) cost less per ct. than will a similarly situated RB.

 

[marquisemadness]

I just got a marquise ering. I too love the shape. I think it really does look bigger than it is. You can see a picture of it in the "show me the ring" section (Finally got the ring). I opted for D/SI2. The inclusions are not visible to the naked eye. It is very "sparkly" and very white. It is definitly not the most popular cut and my Fiance and I looked at a lot of diferent ones before we found the one I actually got. I had specific proportions in mind, so we spent a lot of time looking.

marquisemadness

 

[Kay]

Yes, marquise diamonds do tend to look large for their actual carat weight. I have a 1.17 carat marquise, and I've had people ask if it was 2 or 3 carats. In my experience, the apparent "largeness" of the marquise is not due to a shallow cut. Any shape stone that has a shallow depth will look larger than its weight, but will not have the same sparlke and fire as a well cut stone. A marquise looks large because the length measurement is much longer than the diameter of a round diamond of the same weight. The length is what catches most people's eyes, and they don't notice that the width is less than a round of the same weight. My stone is not shallow -- it has a depth percentage of 61.5% and is a class 1A stone on the AGA charts. It looks large, has tons of fire, and is not at all glassy.

Even the best cut marquise is not going to have the same brillance as an ideal cut round brilliant; if you buy a marquise it is because you love the unique shape. It is also harder to find a really well cut marquise than a round. Start by reading the cut grade charts so you have an idea of the best range for depth and table percentages, crown heights, etc., and then go look at stones in stores to see what length-to-width ratio you prefer. According to the charts, a length-to-width ratio of between 1.8:1 and 2.2:1 is best, but you may prefer a stone that is in the thicker or thinner end of that range. Good luck!

 

[valeria101]

Yeah, I think they do look "large" esp. if not "fat". Perhaps most associate the notion of what "size" is for a diamod with the largest crossection face-up. This would be diameter for a round and obviously the length for a marquize. Hence their relatively large "size".

As a side-notye, the same optical illusion works for squares: it's funny to see people comparing the diagonal of the square with the diameter of the round when wanting to point out that "princess cuts are larger than the rounds" and the crossection when the other result of the argument is desired

Just look on the thread where Jonathan introduced the square-ish Jubilee cut if you don't believe me !

 

[valeria101]

As in... which is "bigger" below ?