Sapphire cuts?

[Begonia]

I'm beginning the long slow process of looking for a blue sapphire. I know nothing. I'll read as many threads as I can before asking for help. Right off the get go tho, are there some cuts that make sapphires sing more than others?

 

[chrono]

I would say it is a combination of the colour intensity and cut quality, rather than the cut design.

 

[Begonia]

Ok then!
Thanks Chrono.

 

[normanintheskywithsapphires]

Is it not true that a round shape has the highest potential for brilliancy? The one geometric shape that can through back the maximum light? Just theoretically?
Or can trillion be as 'efficient'? Pear seems to have the least potential?
Perhaps a resident cutter can say?

 

[chrono]

If all else is equal, then yes, rounds are more brilliant, but the attractiveness of a coloured gemstone isn't defined by brilliancy alone.

 

[PrecisionGem]

Rounds are certainly the fastest designs to cut, and are easy to make a good design in a round. I feel that a well designed trillion produces the nicest looking stone. Odd symmetry I think has a slight edge over even. I find that 5 sided stones perform well, and will at times cut a round based on 9 facets rather than the traditional 8.

 

[Begonia]

I hardly know what to ask but can you show examples of those rounds?

 

[Alnitak]

When it comes to color, cut can most definitely impact the perceived depth of color, as well as brilliance. In addition, because sapphire is pleochroic and often has bands/zones of color, orientation of the stone can also significantly impact color. Sadly most blue sapphires (and most colored stones) are cut for weight retention and not ideal brilliance and color. I agree with Gene that a well-cut trillion can perform a lot like a round, and so can a optimized square brilliant. It's the ovals and rectangles that tend to have some loss of performance, especially as the lenght/width ratio exceeds 1.25-1.33.