Pear cut comparison

[lumpkin]

There has been some discussion on color and cut of fancy stones on various threads, so I thought I''d add some pictures for comparison.

I have been considering trading my pear, which is GIA graded M IF. It is 2.00 ct., 9.92 x 6.69, 67.7% deep, has a very thick to extremely thick girdle, symetry and polish both good. On paper it sucks. It''s too deep, the girdle is bad, the spread is bad and the color would scare most people away. But something about this diamond works.

I have been having trouble setting it in a setting that shows it to it''s advantage, as some of you may know, so I decided to see what my original vendor had.

They had a GIA graded F I1 (eyecleanish) 1.22 ct., 9.14 x 6.01, 60.2% deep, very thin to thick girdle, symetry and polish both VG. I received it today and also have pictures of it. The red circle shows the carbon spot at about 11:00 on facing up on the diamond. Ideal proportions and great color made this stone pretty attractive on paper. To me it just doesn''t have the fire and scintillation mine does. I wonder what you guys think.

 

[Lorelei]

Lumpkin it''s a pretty stone but that carbon spot would drive me nuts I think! I prefer your other one but that is just my opinion. If it also doesn''t have the performance of your existing stone, maybe pass and keep looking. It''s hard to tell that from a picture, but your eyes won''t lie!

 

[lumpkin]

I also took a picture of my 2 ct pear in its setting along with the 1.22 ct F I1 pear to see what I thought. Although the dimensions face up are only about 3/4 of a mm, there is a significant size difference. Anyway, this might make for an interesting discussion on buying fancy cuts and evaluating the cut quality. I find it interesting that the high light return of the more ideal cut is not as attractive (to me) of the fire and scintillation of the average cut. The more ideal cut also has a much bigger bow tie. The average cut has a different cut pattern on the crown facets adjacent to the table on the tip (I hope I am referring to those facets correctly.

And PLEASE forgive my nails. I've been raking leaves and doing yard work. I'm not hand model ready, LOL!

 

[lumpkin]

Date: 10/28/2005 12:04:16 PM
Author: Lorelei
Lumpkin it''s a pretty stone but that carbon spot would drive me nuts I think! I prefer your other one but that is just my opinion. If it also doesn''t have the performance of your existing stone, maybe pass and keep looking. It''s hard to tell that from a picture, but your eyes won''t lie!

Oh, it''s definitely going back. I knew within 10 minutes of looking at it it was going back. However, I thought the pictures might really spark some interesting discussion about buying diamonds on paper by the specs. It just isn''t that simple, at least with fancy cuts like pears.

Thanks for your kind words, Lorelie. It''s funny how we second guess and let these things nag at us. When I took my pear out of its paper a year and a half ago, it literally knocked the breath out of me. Why I would second guess now is probably due to all the discussions on the board about color and light return and cut quality. Now I can feel confident that I did indeed make a good choice originally and be at peace with it. However, had the other been the better stone, I''d have had no trouble sending it back and trading.

 

[Lorelei]

I think you are making totally the right decision Lumpkin, sometimes it is good to see what else is out there to make us fall in love with our diamond all over again! I think that is the thing, with fancies the eyes are so important, they are hard to judge on the numbers, like you said your M pear knocked the breath out of you and that is exactly how it should be! It is also interesting with the bow tie, mine hardly has any, you really have to tilt the diamond to see it and then it is only a hint. Now you can be at peace as you said, and know that you have a fabulous and unique diamond and I love the M colour

 

[cinnabar]

Date: 10/28/2005 12:05:15 PM
Author: lumpkin
I also took a picture of my 2 ct pear in its setting along with the 1.22 ct F I1 pear to see what I thought. Although the dimensions face up are only about 3/4 of a mm, there is a significant size difference. Anyway, this might make for an interesting discussion on buying fancy cuts and evaluating the cut quality. I find it interesting that the high light return of the more ideal cut is not as attractive (to me) of the fire and scintillation of the average cut. The more ideal cut also has a much bigger bow tie. The average cut has a different cut pattern on the crown facets adjacent to the table on the tip (I hope I am referring to those facets correctly.

I totally agree with you, Lumpkin, this matches my experience perfectly. My pear was rated only "good" on cut quality due to being somewhat shallow (58%) and having a slightly thick to very thick girdle; additionally it''s quite a way outside the "trade preference" length to width ratio at 1:1.37. However, I love my pear to bits and it''s massively firey (rather than white-sparkley) even in dim light. Especially in dim light actually. I love that fire. Mine has no discernable bowtie, which is my major criterion when picking a pear. I wouldn''t be as bothered by the carbon spot in your I1 than I would be in that huge ugly bowtie it has.

I''m convinced that the cutter who made my stone took every care to make it "work", and if that meant going outside the supposedly ideal parameters, then that''s what he did.

I knew when we started the search for a diamond that fancies show color more readily than rounds, so I went for a D deliberately. I didn''t have the RB luxury of saying "ideal cut masks color" and I wanted ICY WHITE

I wouldn''t be happy with an H in a pear, I''d be fussing about whether I could see yellow, but once you go down to M and accept that it''s got an "antique" style all of its own, I think I''d be OK with that. If you can find the perfect setting, you know you already have the perfect pear for you. Your flawless M is beautiful and special and someone went to the same trouble as they did with mine, to cut it to its best advantage.

I don''t anyone will ever be able to come up with a set of rules that produce a gorgeous fancy that works both on paper and to the eye. I''m thrilled that whoever cut my pear didn''t worry about trying to be a conformist, as I suspect that a deeper cut and a shallower girdle would have made my beautiful pear into a dog.

 

[cflutist]

Lumpkin,

Between the two, I like your current stone better. The bowtie in the newer one would bother me more than the inclusion would (which could be easily hidden beneath a prong).

Good luck in your search. I know it is frustrating as there are not as many nicely cut pears around as RBs.

 

[lumpkin]

Date: 10/28/2005 1:30:49 PM
Author: cinnabar


I totally agree with you, Lumpkin, this matches my experience perfectly. My pear was rated only ''good'' on cut quality due to being somewhat shallow (58%) and having a slightly thick to very thick girdle; additionally it''s quite a way outside the ''trade preference'' length to width ratio at 1:1.37. However, I love my pear to bits and it''s massively firey (rather than white-sparkley) even in dim light. Especially in dim light actually. I love that fire. Mine has no discernable bowtie, which is my major criterion when picking a pear. I wouldn''t be as bothered by the carbon spot in your I1 than I would be in that huge ugly bowtie it has.

I don''t anyone will ever be able to come up with a set of rules that produce a gorgeous fancy that works both on paper and to the eye. I''m thrilled that whoever cut my pear didn''t worry about trying to be a conformist, as I suspect that a deeper cut and a shallower girdle would have made my beautiful pear into a dog.

On another thread Gary Cut Nut talked about "painting" a stone, where the girdle is thick and the crown angle is more shallow. I''ll try to find that thread and post a link. It was a very brief referral to that term, though, so it won''t be much help. I''d love for someone to shed a little more light on that for us.

I have to say that I thought I would prefer the icy white of the one I was considering, but it really didn''t "pop" either. I think it''s that giant bow tie. I don''t care for that characteristic. And actually, the carbon spot doesn''t bother me, although I think trying to hide it with a prong would be awkward because placing a prong at 11:00 and 1:00 would seem sort of "wrong" to me, but it actually was not that visible at a 10" distance. Those photos really show the flaws in detail -- in fact there may be some more carbon spots that I didn''t even pick up with the loupe. I''ll have to take another look when I have more time. To me the second one looks an awful lot like some CZ earrings I used to have

. A bit plasticy. I think my sweet spot is the H color, if I use this diamond as a color meter.

Cinnabar, do you have some pictures of your pear posted? I''d love to see it. It sounds lovely.

 

[lumpkin]

Date: 10/28/2005 12:52:42 PM
Author: Lorelei
I think you are making totally the right decision Lumpkin, sometimes it is good to see what else is out there to make us fall in love with our diamond all over again! I think that is the thing, with fancies the eyes are so important, they are hard to judge on the numbers, like you said your M pear knocked the breath out of you and that is exactly how it should be! It is also interesting with the bow tie, mine hardly has any, you really have to tilt the diamond to see it and then it is only a hint. Now you can be at peace as you said, and know that you have a fabulous and unique diamond and I love the M colour

You know, I think I love the color too. It is kind of vintage looking. I had a nail client in her 80''s. When she got married her aunt gave her one of a pair of earrings and I''m sure it was about a carat and a half. It was a markedly tinted, but extremely clean OEC set in a platinum ring. I used to kid her that I was gonna steal that diamond off her hand -- we always had a great laugh about that. She told me that the other earring went to her cousin, and she just put it in a safe deposit box. "It was just an ugly old yellow diamond" to her cousin, and my client would have dearly loved to have it. "Can you imagine earrings like this???" she would ask me. We really enjoyed that diamond. I really treasure some tint in the antique cuts.

 

[Lorelei]

This just proves that diamonds don''t have to be ICY WHITE to look beautiful! I have a feeling warmer colours are definitely gaining more fans on these boards

 

[valeria101]

Date: 10/28/2005 12:05:15 PM
Author: lumpkin

I find it interesting that the high light return of the more ideal cut is not as attractive (to me) of the fire and scintillation of the average cut.

Not surprised at all!

I am not surprised that you find brilliance to be more important than the color and clarity gardes - it just has more to show for it

The 'ideal cut' words are used pretty indiscriminately, but they mean a different thing almost for each source that uses them.

What counts here, IMO, is that 'ideal cut' refers to brilliance ONLY FOR ROUNDS (and the AGS graded princess cuts lately) because for them there are cut standards that evaluate brilliance.

For fancies, the ranges of depth and table do not refer to brilliance at all. Those cut standards can only give an idea of other features (spread perhaps but not quite, durability or such) but not brilliance. Of course brilliance is what you'd want the standards to guarantee - but the data available about diamonds on lab reports is far too scarce to allow guessing how brilliant the diamonds described by those lab reports are.

Of course, you will find rounds called 'ideal cut' without any proof that their optical properties were indeed graded at all. Just like the fancies.

The 'ideal' word is the same... the things it describes, unfortunately not.

I am not saying that this wording is misleading. Only that there is honest fine print that needs to be read every time...

 

[lumpkin]

Take a look at the plot of the F I1''s cut. Notice the tip of the pear on the plot. It is cut differently than the M IF, which I will attach in the next plot. Any experts care to comment on the difference, if there is a name for the two styles, etc.?

 

[lumpkin]

Here is the other plot. I''m very interested in whatever insight can be given into "painting" a stone and various cutting styles for fancy shapes, in particular, pears.

 

[lumpkin]

One more question about the plots. Are they drawn? Is there a machine that scans the gem and plots the cut? The more I get into cuts, the more there is to learn. Hmmmm. Very interesting.

 

[cflutist]

Date: 10/28/2005 2:34:14 PM
Author: lumpkin
Take a look at the plot of the F I1's cut. Notice the tip of the pear on the plot. It is cut differently than the M IF, which I will attach in the next plot. Any experts care to comment on the difference, if there is a name for the two styles, etc.?

My original post was in error.

The F-I1 has a "standard tip" while the M-IF pear has what is called a "French tip", where the bezel facet at the point of the stone is eliminated. This requires that the adjoining bezel facets become "stretched" to accommodate the space left.

I just checked my stone and it has a "French tip".

 

[pearcrazy]

I''m confused about the plot of the F I1 diamond. I see the twining wisps marked and one at the 11:00 spot that I see the carbon spot. Why isn''t that spot marked differently?

 

[lumpkin]

That''s a good question, isn''t it. I have no idea. It is the GIA report that accompanied the diamond.

 

[FireGoddess]

I can''t comment on the facet difference but WOW does that new stone have a noticeable bowtie. I definitely agree with your decision to keep the M IF and return the F I1. The carbon spot in the new stone would bother me as well as the bowtie.

My pear is not ''ideal'' as far as the only available cut charts for fancies is concerned. Mine is overly deep but I think that contributes to its lack of noticeable bowtie. It does make it face up a tad bit smaller, but I love the stone for what it is. Sure it could be spreadier, but it could be darker and have more bowtie as well!

Do you think you are going to keep looking for a higher color pear, or stick for good with the M? Cuz you sure can''t beat the IF clarity you''ve already got!

Mine before the halo setting:

 

[lumpkin]

Firegoddess, that pear of yours is DA BOMB!

I think I''ll be keeping mine. Unless something just reaches out and grabs me. I''m just going to have to suffer through it. (sigh) I actually love my diamond, but as we''ve talked about, it''s difficult to find the right setting. My husband thought I should check into other diamonds before spending any more money on setting this one, just to make sure it isn''t the diamond I''m dissatisfied with. I think I''m reassured. But again, if that one I sent for had rocked my world I def. would have traded.

 

[lumpkin]

Date: 10/28/2005 2:46:51 PM
Author: cflutist

Date: 10/28/2005 2:34:14 PM
Author: lumpkin
Take a look at the plot of the F I1''s cut. Notice the tip of the pear on the plot. It is cut differently than the M IF, which I will attach in the next plot. Any experts care to comment on the difference, if there is a name for the two styles, etc.?

The F-I1 pear has what is called a ''French tip'', where the bezel facet at the point of the stone is eliminated. This requires that the adjoining bezel facets become ''stretched'' to accommodate the space left.

Is there any advantage to that? What is that supposed to do for the cut, I''m curious.

 

[cinnabar]

Date: 10/28/2005 2:05:59 PM
Author: lumpkin

Cinnabar, do you have some pictures of your pear posted? I'd love to see it. It sounds lovely.

Yup, here it is:

0.94ct, D, VS2. Ring size 5.

 

[lumpkin]

YUM, Cinnabar. I love that yellow gold in combo with the white, white diamond.

And CFlutist, your pear''s not bad, either!

I love all the gorgeous pears on this board.

When I get off work tonight I''ll be checking back to see what other comments about pear cutting there are. Now I''ve gotta go to a preschool Halloween party, pick up my second grader and scoot to work. I''ll be offline for awhile, but anyone in the industry who can give further insight into cutting, standards, etc. on pears and fancies, please do. I''m so very interested in what you have to say.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 10/28/2005 2:39:48 PM
Author: lumpkin
One more question about the plots. Are they drawn?

No, these are only similar to the stone in question - stock pictures. neither the proportions or the faceting is expected to match the stone. Their only use is as a map for inclusions

Perhaps some diamonds fit the facet patterns sketched out on the clarity plots, but that just happens. Among fancy shapes it is common to see rather wild differences.

I am not sure if one or the other kind of pear tip is better every time - the overall proportions of the cut are far, far more important and there is no relation, as far as I know.

Are you sure that is the right GIA paper?

The lines marked are for twinning, but the dark spot should be an included crystal, just good to be lasered out, IMO. A large included crystal that obviously contributed to the clarity grade should be plain to see on the clarity plot... unless I am missing something. Crystals do not enter in the definition of 'twinning wisps' so there is no reason I can think of not to plot them separately.

 

[Tacori E-ring]

I think you made the right decision. I love you pear. It looks so white. I STILL cannot believe it is an M. My EC is a deeper cut too but I think it makes the cut look so sparkly and beautiful. That mile deep look. Sometimes I wish it wasn''t so deep so that it looked its true size but then I remember seeing it for the first time and how I feel in love with the cut and L/W ratio. The grass IS always greener on the otherside but I think you have a beautiful pear.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Date: 10/28/2005 11:57:44 AM
Author:lumpkin
There has been some discussion on color and cut of fancy stones on various threads, so I thought I'd add some pictures for comparison.

I have been considering trading my pear, which is GIA graded M IF. It is 2.00 ct., 9.92 x 6.69, 67.7% deep, has a very thick to extremely thick girdle, symetry and polish both good. On paper it sucks. HERE'S why I'm so vocal in my opposition to trying to use numerical formulas to figure out if a diamond's well cut- lumpkin, NOTHING in your description of the cut puts me off at all. 67.7 can be a GREAT depth for a pear shape. I would also not be bothered by an extremely thick girdle ( neccesarily) on a pear shape. It's too deep, the girdle is bad, the spread is bad and the color would scare most people away. But something about this diamond works.

I have been having trouble setting it in a setting that shows it to it's advantage, as some of you may know, so I decided to see what my original vendor had.

They had a GIA graded F I1 (eyecleanish) 1.22 ct., 9.14 x 6.01, 60.2% deep, very thin to thick girdle, symetry and polish both VG. I received it today and also have pictures of it. The red circle shows the carbon spot at about 11:00 on facing up on the diamond. Ideal proportions and great color made this stone pretty attractive on paper. To me it just doesn't have the fire and scintillation mine does. I wonder what you guys think.

I think your diamond looks awesome.
Personally, I really dislike a stone with a distinct black spot, while I fail to see why an M color is not attractive- although there's plenty of people who would be bothered by the warmth of it's shade.


lumpkin, have you considered a baguette ring for your pear shape?

 

[cinnabar]

Date: 10/28/2005 4:42:50 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

I have been considering trading my pear, which is GIA graded M IF. It is 2.00 ct., 9.92 x 6.69, 67.7% deep, has a very thick to extremely thick girdle, symetry and polish both good. On paper it sucks. HERE''S why I''m so vocal in my opposition to trying to use numerical formulas to figure out if a diamond''s well cut- lumpkin, NOTHING in your description of the cut puts me off at all. 67.7 can be a GREAT depth for a pear shape. I would also not be bothered by an extremely thick girdle ( neccesarily) on a pear shape. It''s too deep, the girdle is bad, the spread is bad and the color would scare most people away. But something about this diamond works.

David, and others: what does "the trade" think about bowties in pears (and other fancies)? Most people in this thread have been saying that they don''t like the bowtie in Lumpkin''s proposed F/I1 stone. A bowtie is a deal-breaker for me, definitely. Do the pros consider it to be such a kiss of death?

 

[diamondsbylauren]

hey Cinnabar- good question!
Of course there''s no simple answer ( thank goodness, what would I do with all that free time....

)

Seriously, many fancy shapes have an effect, known as a bow tie.
This is caused by the fact that certain facets on the bottom of the diamond are much larger than others.
A brilliant diamond is actually a cricle divided ito 8 parts- like a pie.
Now imagine trying to cut an oval pizzie pie into equal slices- you can''t. Or a pear shaped pizza ( can you tell it''s close to dinner time?)

The differences in the size of the facets can leave large ones at an angle which causes the light to go in a direction away from your eye- causing the dark area- ( also known as "light leakage")

Sometimes the facets which do this are aligned so that even a slight tilt causes a more positive (upward) light relflection, and BAM- the diamond sparkles.
That''s why some "bow ties" can actually be very endearing in fancy shapes.
Other times, you get a "black hole" effect which I try very hard to steer clear of. That kind can give you the "bad kiss"

Hard to say if thye F/I1 fits into that category.
Since photos are taken while the diamond is stationary, sometimes a non offensive bow tie can look much worse than it does when the diamond has slight movements- like when you wear it.

I mean, lumpkin''s stone surely has some of that effect too- looks very nice to me........

 

[valeria101]

Date: 10/28/2005 5:57:32 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren


1. The differences in the size of the facets can leave large ones at an angle which causes the light to go in a direction away from your eye- causing the dark area- ( also known as 'light leakage')

2. Sometimes the facets which do this are aligned so that even a slight tilt causes a more positive (upward) light reflection, and BAM- the diamond sparkles.

That's why some 'bow ties' can actually be very endearing in fancy shapes.

3. Other times, you get a 'black hole' effect which I try very hard to steer clear of.

That's the nicest list of 'bow tie' optics I've found to date. Now you just need a nerd to write the equation!

no worries.... not this one.


It is not too hard to generalize all this - the bow tie comes from the steepest facets of the pavilion. The size of those facets has allot to do with the size of the bow tie, but having a few facets in that area with only the slightest angle (index?) between them doesn't help.

Whether you get leakage (a window = case #3, or reflection at low angles = case #1) or mirror facets (case #2) has allot to do with the proportions on the relevant region of the thing, while whatever variations feasible on the rest don't seem to matter. I've even found examples of ovals, pears and marqs with two 'arrows' on the bow tie region as rounds have from the same reason. What happened there is easy to retro-engineer as a model. Of course, H&A rounds have four of those

- not that anyone ever calls them arrows 'bow tie'

Hope the ramble is not out of place... this is what happens when cut planning software gets in the hands of laypeople.

 

[diamondlil]

I always wondered what a french tip was.

One interesting thing I do have to offer is a scanned page from one of my favorite diamond reference books I''ve had for about 10 years. It shows the various arrangements of the pavillion facts in fancy cuts. For comparison, Lumpkin, my pear has a standard tip and 6 main facets on the pavillion. I always wondered what kind of visual results the different faceting patterns make on the face-up view. Do you know David or CF?

To all pear owners out there, do you know what your pavillion facet arrangment is?

Just curious.

 

[FireGoddess]

I didn''t know what a french tip was either, but it looks like my pear has one. I scoured a bunch of loupe photos I took so I''ll have to make sure by looking at the stone, but my rings are at the jeweler''s for a ''prong checkup'' to make sure everybody''s in there securely.

Does the diamond plot on the stone report reflect your actual cut, or is it just a generic plot for inclusion charting? If the latter, then I''m not sure on the pavilion facets!