ring of death

[marian]

i am confused. i have looked at this diamond over and over and can''t tell. one minute i think it has the ring of death the next i don''t maybe i just don''t know what i am looking for . should this stone have a ring of death. T: 56%,overall depth:61.9(61.888 or so), crn:15.1%,angle:34 degrees,pav:42.8%,41.2 degrees.

 

[lisa1.01fvs1]

Do you have any photos?

 

[marian]

no i don''t what angles with certain depths, cause ring of death ..does anyone know

 

[lisa1.01fvs1]

I think this will help http://diamonds.pricescope.com/fisheye.asp

 

[Ellen]

Date: 4/16/2008 6:58:40 PM
Author: marian
no i don''t what angles with certain depths, cause ring of death ..does anyone know

The "ring of death" can occur in what we call steep/deeps. i.e. CA 35 and over coupled with a 41 or more PA. Your stone has a good crown and pavillion relationship. Not sure what you''re seeing.

 

[niceice]

Well you see Marian, the earth’s rotation around the sun shifts ever so slightly each year. You may realize this is why we have leap year. Along with this comes a gradual misalignment of stratosphere/upper ionosphere relative to the sun’s position…this logically affects the way the sun’s rays strike the earth’s atmosphere. In FACT, the bending of those rays as they now enter most temperate and tropical zones is different than when the ring of death was originally introduced as a concept several years ago. It is in fact sufficient enough that there is NO MORE RING OF DEATH (yay!) in proportions sets that they were once associated with! Isn’t that cool? I estimate the next time we need to be concerned about them is approximately 2061 AD (coincidentally this is also next time Halley’s Comet will become visible).

Until that time feel free to diamonds that have crown or pavilion angles of 41/35 or so…unless “somebody” introduces some kind of new groundbreaking research…in which case we all might fall into the active volcano and burn alive.

Sorry knowing what I know about the background concept of that theory, I just couldn’t resist. Practically all diamonds will show a little bit of reflection of the girdle if the diamond is viewed at enough of a tilt – which is why sometimes you can see it and other times you can’t. Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don’t (Almond Joy’s got nuts, Mounds don’t) it’s all in the tilt and the lighting that you’re looking at the diamond in at the moment.

 

[Ellen]

Todd, that's interesting. You're one of the few experts (like 2 now) I've seen on here that would recommend 35+ with 41+.

 

[niceice]

Date: 4/16/2008 8:34:47 PM
Author: Ellen
Todd, that's interesting. You're one of the few experts (like 2 now) I've seen on here that would recommend 35+ with 41+.

I'm being totally Facisious

The only part of my post that has any validity is with regards to the reason why Marian is seeing the effect at times and not at others...

 

[lisa1.01fvs1]

My stone is C:35.2 and P:40.9 and I have never seen "the ring"

Am I missing something?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/16/2008 11:39:40 PM
Author: lisa1.01fvs1
My stone is C:35.2 and P:40.9 and I have never seen ''the ring''

Am I missing something?

If it has a 56% table and is well cut it don''t have one.
If it has a 59% table close one eye with the stone 8 inches away you might see just the hint of one.
The plain truth is it was overblown in some combos and a real issue in others.

 

[lisa1.01fvs1]

Thanks strmrdr table is 57.

Don''t see it even with one eye closed and 8" away.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/17/2008 2:49:44 AM
Author: lisa1.01fvs1
Thanks strmrdr table is 57.

Don''t see it even with one eye closed and 8'' away.

That answers that then dont it :}

 

[Ellen]

Date: 4/16/2008 11:06:49 PM
Author: niceice


I''m being totally Facisious

The only part of my post that has any validity is with regards to the reason why Marian is seeing the effect at times and not at others...

Well I knew you were kidding up to a point, but then somehow I thought you were being serious about that combo. That''s what I get for thinking.

 

[Imdanny]

yay!

 

[lisa1.01fvs1]

Date: 4/17/2008 3:36:47 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 4/17/2008 2:49:44 AM
Author: lisa1.01fvs1
Thanks strmrdr table is 57.

Don''t see it even with one eye closed and 8'' away.

That answers that then dont it :}

Yeah but in my own PS/OCD way now this has me worried (as eyes open close and blinking and pulling diamond up and back from face)

Not that I would do anything about it but the mind plays its tricks.

 

[niceice]

Date: 4/17/2008 6:44:44 AM
Author: Ellen

Date: 4/16/2008 11:06:49 PM

Author: niceice

I''m being totally Facisious

The only part of my post that has any validity is with regards to the reason why Marian is seeing the effect at times and not at others...

Well I knew you were kidding up to a point, but then somehow I thought you were being serious about that combo. That''s what I get for thinking.

Yea, I need to put some kind of indication like a smilie face in place when I''m being obnoxious, half the time my fiancé Valerie has to ask me whether I''m being serious when I''m tagging something... There is merit to the concept being discussed here, but I wish that we could call it something other than "ring of death" because every time I hear it the first thing that pops into my head is like a cartoon of Chicken Little running around the farm yelling up at the sky "ring of death! Ring of Death! RING of DEATHTHTHTHTH!" and I lose focus - you can imagine that I was a lot of fun in school

In 1976 GIA’s Gems & Gemology magazine published an article written by George Kaplan who is considered to be one of the contributors to the modern round brilliant ideal cut diamond design. As a basis for the article, Kaplan Diamonds cut two diamonds which were virtually identical with the exception that one had a 55% table diameter and one had a 65% table diameter, both diamonds had 34.0 degree crown angle and 41.0 degree pavilion angle measurements (the crown is the top half of the diamond and the pavilion is the lower half, the two are divided by the girdle section). At a tilt greater than 10 degrees, the 65% table diamond began to exhibit reflections of the girdle facet within the body of the diamond. The 55% table diamond did not exhibit the same effect until it was tilted to 20 degrees. This is a graphic created by the AGS Laboratory to demonstrate the concept.

 

[marian]

thanks Todd, that made me laugh. i feel better about it now. my other concern about this stone is light leakage. i''ve read and researched but i''m still not sure about being able to tell. this stone takes on different looks under different conditions. it is set in a square setting with other stones around it and pav. kind of sits in a "well", top of pav. and girdle are exposed, sets in 4 prongs. the entire setting is yellow gold.

 

[niceice]

Sorry to leave you hanging, I had to take a phone call. The reason why I introduce the concept of tilt to this thread is because a lot of the ring of death concept is based on observation of the diamond from a straight down (face up) evaluation of the diamond, but the reality is that diamonds are viewed while in motion and thus they are usually viewed at a tilt. Contrast is what makes it possible for us to distinguish between light and dark areas within a diamond and Contrast is directly affected by Tilt.

The manner in which a diamond is set will also affect the Contrast of the diamond, setting a diamond in a bezel setting will create darker contrast and setting the diamond in a four prong tiffany style ring will add less contrast to the diamond.

Here is a graphic prepared by the AGS Laboratory that demonstrates how the amount of "leakage" changes within a Tolkowsky cut diamond depending on the Tilt, the white spaces are considered to be "leakage". A lot of people think that leakage leaves empty space within a diamond, such as a window that can be seen through, but the reality is that these are simply areas that do not return light to your eye "when viewed at that particular angle" and thus the areas within the diamond that "leak light" change depending on the angle that the diamond is viewed from

add to this the fact that the lighting and the viewing environment will also have an effect on to what degree and where a diamond is supposed to be leaking light and you could go bonkers

 

[niceice]

Forgot the graphic!

 

[Cleo]

Date: 4/17/2008 11:37:37 AM
Author: niceice

Yea, I need to put some kind of indication like a smilie face in place when I''m being obnoxious, half the time my fiancé Valerie has to ask me whether I''m being serious when I''m tagging something... There is merit to the concept being discussed here, but I wish that we could call it something other than ''ring of death'' because every time I hear it the first thing that pops into my head is like a cartoon of Chicken Little running around the farm yelling up at the sky ''ring of death! Ring of Death! RING of DEATHTHTHTHTH!'' and I lose focus - you can imagine that I was a lot of fun in school

Your first replay about the moon being in Pisces (or whatever!) cracked me up, but I had to reply to this because when I first read the title of the thread I thought the ring in question was someone''s engagement ring.

I thought someone had ended up with some sort of haunted, cursed, evil ring or something!!!

For an intelligent girl I can be reaaaaaally dim sometimes!

x x x

 

[niceice]

Date: 4/17/2008 1:34:11 PM
Author: Cleo

Date: 4/17/2008 11:37:37 AM
I thought someone had ended up with some sort of haunted, cursed, evil ring or something!!!

No, my ex-wife was awarded her engagement ring in the divorce

 

[Cleo]

Date: 4/17/2008 1:40:47 PM
Author: niceice

Date: 4/17/2008 1:34:11 PM
Author: Cleo

Date: 4/17/2008 11:37:37 AM
I thought someone had ended up with some sort of haunted, cursed, evil ring or something!!!

No, my ex-wife was awarded her engagement ring in the divorce

PMSL!!!

x x x

 

[DevineHalo]

interesting information, i have never heard of that phenomenon before...i''m pretty new to diamonds

 

[marian]

graphics are great, and being able to see results of brilliance scopes and firescopes and idealscopes when buying on line are a great deal of help , but buying from a b&m where there are none of these is ,I think, more difficult. i bought a diamond on line once and it sure was easier than this. i have a gia report and a sarin from ags ( a simpler one) angles agreed, %''s did not. i''m trying to use my eyes (and you''re right, (BONKERS!!) one minute the stone looks great, another, i become not so sure.. sitting in the car (don''t laugh) and tilting it , it looks like a crystal & i could count the facets on the crown.its kinda cool but then ? is this leakage? it scores a 3 on hca with angle numbers, but with %''s its lower(under 2). if it should be returned, i only have 2 days until the time is up

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Guys this stone does not have a fish eye - it is over 10 degrees away from it.
It will have a tiny bit of table leakage which is what the RoD is a term to describe.
The leakage will be hard to see clean and easier when dirty

 

[niceice]

Date: 4/17/2008 2:38:13 PM
Author: marian
graphics are great, and being able to see results of brilliance scopes and firescopes and idealscopes when buying on line are a great deal of help , but buying from a b&m where there are none of these is ,I think, more difficult. i bought a diamond on line once and it sure was easier than this. i have a gia report and a sarin from ags ( a simpler one) angles agreed, %''s did not. i''m trying to use my eyes (and you''re right, (BONKERS!!) one minute the stone looks great, another, i become not so sure.. sitting in the car (don''t laugh) and tilting it , it looks like a crystal & i could count the facets on the crown.its kinda cool but then ? is this leakage? it scores a 3 on hca with angle numbers, but with %''s its lower(under 2). if it should be returned, i only have 2 days until the time is up

Marian, you really need to consult the expertise of a local Gemologist (see Resources/Appraisers link above) because an experienced set of eyes will assist you greatly! In my bubble of a "perfect gemological world" I will tell you that I truly prefer a tighter set of parameters, such as:

Total depth between 59 - 61.8%
Table diameter between 53 - 57%
Crown angle between 34.3 - 34.8 degrees
Pavilion angle between 40.6 - 40.9 degrees

But I will also be the first to assure you that other combinations of crown and pavilion angles can work quite nicely and so much of "this" is "personal preference". I tend to steer people towards the center realm of the range dictated for the zero ideal cut proportions rating because it simply eliminates so much of the guesswork.

Consulting an independent Gemologist any time you buy a diamond (from anyone including me) is simply a good idea. The fact is that they see a lot more diamonds than you are likely to in your lifetime and they can detect subtle differences between diamonds and in doing so help you fine tune your selection process to ensure that you end up with a lovely gem! For those of us in the trade, we get pretty adept at sifting out the winners from the losers pretty fast, I pretty much know whether I''m going to continue to evaluate an ideal cut diamond from the moment I open the parcel paper and see it winking at me - if I like it, we''re going to run it through its paces to quantify the precision of the diamond via our online diamond details page - if I don''t like it (for whatever reason) we''re simply going to fold it back up in the parcel paper and send it back to the cutter. The fact is, we see a LOT of diamonds in the course of a year... But most people don''t, which is why they should rely on the expertise of an experienced grader to assist them with verifying the quality of their purchase.

 

[pyramid]

Isn''t the ''ring of death'' a different phenomena than the ''fish eye'' though?

 

[WinkHPD]

Yes, the fish eye is a real phenomina that is easy to see when looking at a stone that is cut sufficiently shallow to show it. the ring of death is a term that was created to talk about a different kind of leakage that it turned out was almost impossible to see because of our stereo vision, although it does show up in the reflectors. It was here for a while then died a natural death when it was shown to be a non issue in well cut diamonds.

It was a long time ago, more than three months, so I do not remember the details and sure hope they will be allowed to quickly fade back into the oblivion that they deservedly sank into...

Wink