Question for Oldminer or other Experts

[pyramid]

I noticed in a very old post where you were saying that Tiffany & Co tended to go more for the Brilliant white light than the Dispersion with the cut of stones they choose. I am interested to know if that is always the case. I have copied below specs from another poster''s Tiffany ring and notice it has a high crown angle and small table so I thought this would lend itself to more Fire as Whiteflash ACA''s have been said to do. Is that the case here do you think.

The thing is I like the White Brilliant look too and although would not be buying from Tiffany I am wondering what type of specs I would need to look for to get that look.

61.8% Total depth
54% Table Size
Crown angle of 34.8
43.3 pavillion depth percentage
no culet

 

[oldminer]

Tiffany has a corpaorate branding policy in place which makes their diamond buyers and cutters stick to fairly tight specs. These diamonds are highly brilliant, but not overly dispersive. Of course, all well cut diamonds show dispersion, but it is my belief that they a corporate preference for a certain amount of dispersion which they consider not excessive. It is a fine point and of only miinor impact.

 

[pyramid]

Thanks Oldminer.

However I have read here that Whiteflash tend to go for more dispersion but the specs of the Tiffany diamond in my post has a 54% table and 34.8% crown angle. A lot of Whiteflash diamonds have the same crown angle and as Tiffany has this small table would that not make for more fire than brilliance?

 

[oldminer]

John Pollard of Whiteflash could give you their corporate response and I hope he will. I imagine that the smaller measures of lower girdle facet length combined with many other nuances of measurement might explain why stones of apparently identical gross measurements are not actually identical in al small measurement or in their appearance. The devil of appearance is in the fine details of the cut. This is why I always call for direct assessment of performance in diamonds rather than reliance upon calculated results based on measuring some, even many, parameters. You just can''t measure all the parameters and predict accurately how they interact in every situation.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 6/21/2007 5:31:58 PM
Author:Pyramid
I noticed in a very old post where you were saying that Tiffany & Co tended to go more for the Brilliant white light than the Dispersion with the cut of stones they choose. I am interested to know if that is always the case. I have copied below specs from another poster's Tiffany ring and notice it has a high crown angle and small table so I thought this would lend itself to more Fire as Whiteflash ACA's have been said to do. Is that the case here do you think.

The thing is I like the White Brilliant look too and although would not be buying from Tiffany I am wondering what type of specs I would need to look for to get that look.

61.8% Total depth
54% Table Size
Crown angle of 34.8
43.3 pavillion depth percentage
no culet

A lot of diamonds on the market have tables close to 60 & crown heights in the neighborhood of 14%.They can be nice, bright diamonds when well cut. As you’ve noted, ACA are cut with smaller tables and crown heights in the 15% range; contributing to the visual balance of fire and brightness that we like.The T&Co diamond you’ve identified has a 16% crown, so in that sense it is similar.

As Dave said, there are many fine details of cut which determine the nuances our eyes perceive so these observations are general.Does that help, Pyramid?

 

[pyramid]

Thanks Oldminer and John.

Yes I think it is the minor faceting I was not really fully aware of, I knew about them but not that they would affect the brilliance so much with Tiffany diamonds. I was thinking that the Tiffany diamond someone bought on this board was similar to the Whiteflash measurements so how could it be seen as more brilliance and less dispersion.

It is not that Whiteflash said their diamonds are more into dispersion but I read a poster's view that said she thought they were and then Oldminer had written in an old post that Tiffany went for more Brilliance white light.

I know about the 60% table making stones more brilliant and I think because this Tiffany stone had the opposite I was wondering how it was also to be seen as more towards white light.