Settings for Max Brilliance

[Cehrabehra]

My husband has a physics degree and he seems to think that the best setting for a diamond would be one that completely enclosed it and would force light back out... I tend to think that if it were enclosed it would be black in there and absorb the light. Anyone? I saw this setting and it reminded me of what my husband is talkinga bout: http://www.whitehousebrothers.com/detail.php?id=97

Also... and I don''t have an example to post... but if there was flat high polish platinum UNDER the diamond, wouldn''t that help reflect more of the light out of the diamond than say, skin? Anyone have an opinion on that?

 

[ladykemma]

it''s a nice idea but the reality is that grease, dead skin cells, and gook get back there and you need to be able to clean it out.

 

[ladykemma]

here is a picture of my 5 stone ring. it has the shiny reflective surface underneath and behind like you were describing.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/9/2006 4:31:53 PM
Author: ladykemma
here is a picture of my 5 stone ring. it has the shiny reflective surface underneath and behind like you were describing.

Do you have a side picture of it? How do you like it? Do you think that shiny reflective surface enhances the light return? Hi, nice to meet you BTW

 

[ladykemma]

Date: 7/9/2006 4:36:05 PM
Author: Cehrabehra

Date: 7/9/2006 4:31:53 PM
Author: ladykemma
here is a picture of my 5 stone ring. it has the shiny reflective surface underneath and behind like you were describing.

Do you have a side picture of it? How do you like it? Do you think that shiny reflective surface enhances the light return? Hi, nice to meet you BTW

nice to meet you. here is a view that shows more of the side. alas my hubby has the camera out of town...

because i own light leaky stones, it works for me. but some of the people who own more precisely cut stones would have a different opinion. Nearsighted, most of my stones are slightly deep. need light from the underside.

theoretically if you are getting perfect light return from a perfect cut, your husband's setting would work.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/9/2006 4:48:21 PM
Author: ladykemma

Date: 7/9/2006 4:36:05 PM
Author: Cehrabehra

Date: 7/9/2006 4:31:53 PM
Author: ladykemma
here is a picture of my 5 stone ring. it has the shiny reflective surface underneath and behind like you were describing.

Do you have a side picture of it? How do you like it? Do you think that shiny reflective surface enhances the light return? Hi, nice to meet you BTW

nice to meet you. here is a view that shows more of the side. alas my hubby has the camera out of town...

because i own light leaky stones, it works for me. but some of the people who own more precisely cut stones would have a different opinion. Nearsighted, most of my stones are slightly deep. need light from the underside.

theoretically if you are getting perfect light return from a perfect cut, your husband''s setting would work.

There are some terms in here I''d like to know more about... one is when you called your stones "nearsighted" as that is slightly deep... now would a shallower stone be considered "farsighted"?

When your hubby is back in town, I''d love to see a side shot.

When you say my husband''s setting would work - are you talking about the shinny metal under diamond thing, or the light-blocking bezel thing? And by light blocking bezel he means a super-high polished, yet enclosed bezel.

 

[ladykemma]

this is the info from the HCA chart.

Diamonds that rate below 2 (red on the chart) are unlikely to you too much leakage darkness, overly thin or thick girdles and fish-eyes. But there are other negatives that HCA can''t predict. Many people who can focus closer up than 10 inches (25cm) prefer diamonds that are marked in the upper zone marked on the chart below. talking about us nearsighted folks we tend to like deep..

Insert colorful chart here
Figure. This chart indicates some diamond proportions and information that you may find useful.

Shallow stones (lower left on the chart) look darker if you have excellent close up vision because your head obstructs more light sources which makes a shallow diamond appear darker. But shallow diamonds have a bigger spread, and are great for pendants and earrings, where normal social viewing distances apply.

Stones near the center of the red region (the lowest scores) are least affected by symmetry variations. Alternatively hearts and arrows diamonds, which have excellent optical symmetry, but often HCA scores around 2, may out-perform diamonds with lesser symmetry and lower HCA scores.

Deeper stones in the upper green and blue zones have more leakage and often appear dark just inside the table and the outer girdle edges; they are best set in open backed rings so light can get in the bottom or pavilion. But small ''vee'' shaped leakage zones near the outer edges of a diamond, as seen with an Ideal-Scope, can add to a diamonds contrast and brilliance.

 

[Mara]

if a stone is well cut it should have light enter into the top of the stone and return a max amount out back through the top of the stone. this is where an idealscope comes in handy as you can measure light return to your eye which means you can find out how much is coming back out through the top of the stone vs how much is being lost out the bottom or sides.

if you put a leaky stone in a bezel or completely enclosed setting, i would imagine it would still leak light out the sides and bottom but that would be enclosed, the light doesn't get 'forced' back out into your eye if it is still leaking out into the bottom.

many experts on here have said that you can completely enclose a well-cut ideal make type stone with metal and it should still return the same amount of light to your eye as it would in a very open setting. it has to do with how the diamond is cut. certain cuts of stones, aka ones that might be a little more leaky or deep, may be better in a very open setting so that you can see more of the stone and maximize what is coming out the top. but a well-cut stone, put it in anything and really watch it shine. i got my sister a tiny ACA in a bezel and that thing is like a tiny blazing dot on her neck.

ladykemma has a good point re cleaning though, you do want to ensure that you can get into the pavilion of the stone to clean it out. you'd be amazed at what can collect in and behind tiny crevices....that's why i like a fairly open setting to be able to keep the diamond clean.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/9/2006 5:16:57 PM
Author: Mara
if a stone is well cut it should have light enter into the top of the stone and return a max amount out back through the top of the stone. this is where an idealscope comes in handy as you can measure light return to your eye which means you can find out how much is coming back out through the top of the stone vs how much is being lost out the bottom or sides.

if you put a leaky stone in a bezel or completely enclosed setting, i would imagine it would still leak light out the sides and bottom but that would be enclosed, the light doesn''t get ''forced'' back out into your eye if it is still leaking out into the bottom.

many experts on here have said that you can completely enclose a well-cut ideal make type stone with metal and it should still return the same amount of light to your eye as it would in a very open setting. it has to do with how the diamond is cut. certain cuts of stones, aka ones that might be a little more leaky or deep, may be better in a very open setting so that you can see more of the stone and maximize what is coming out the top. but a well-cut stone, put it in anything and really watch it shine. i got my sister a tiny ACA in a bezel and that thing is like a tiny blazing dot on her neck.

ladykemma has a good point re cleaning though, you do want to ensure that you can get into the pavilion of the stone to clean it out. you''d be amazed at what can collect in and behind tiny crevices....that''s why i like a fairly open setting to be able to keep the diamond clean.

ITA on the cleaning - in my head ''my'' ring has a very open setting... but if the ring were *fully* enclosed, I don''t imagine it would make much difference if dust got down there... who knows though LOL

Do you know if ideal-scopes work on long stones?

BTW those pics you took of your friend''s e-ring are simply beautiful That must have been so much fun!!

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/9/2006 5:10:07 PM
Author: ladykemma

this is the info from the HCA chart.

Diamonds that rate below 2 (red on the chart) are unlikely to you too much leakage darkness, overly thin or thick girdles and fish-eyes. But there are other negatives that HCA can''t predict. Many people who can focus closer up than 10 inches (25cm) prefer diamonds that are marked in the upper zone marked on the chart below. talking about us nearsighted folks we tend to like deep..

Insert colorful chart here
Figure. This chart indicates some diamond proportions and information that you may find useful.


Shallow stones (lower left on the chart) look darker if you have excellent close up vision because your head obstructs more light sources which makes a shallow diamond appear darker. But shallow diamonds have a bigger spread, and are great for pendants and earrings, where normal social viewing distances apply.

Stones near the center of the red region (the lowest scores) are least affected by symmetry variations. Alternatively hearts and arrows diamonds, which have excellent optical symmetry, but often HCA scores around 2, may out-perform diamonds with lesser symmetry and lower HCA scores.

Deeper stones in the upper green and blue zones have more leakage and often appear dark just inside the table and the outer girdle edges; they are best set in open backed rings so light can get in the bottom or pavilion. But small ''vee'' shaped leakage zones near the outer edges of a diamond, as seen with an Ideal-Scope, can add to a diamonds contrast and brilliance.

Ack! I don''t see the chart - just "insert chart here" LOL! I''d love to see it though - do you have a link?

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/9/2006 4:22:58 PM
Author:Cehrabehra
My husband has a physics degree and he seems to think that the best setting for a diamond would be one that completely enclosed it and would force light back out... I tend to think that if it were enclosed it would be black in there and absorb the light. Anyone? I saw this setting and it reminded me of what my husband is talkinga bout: http://www.whitehousebrothers.com/detail.php?id=97

Also... and I don''t have an example to post... but if there was flat high polish platinum UNDER the diamond, wouldn''t that help reflect more of the light out of the diamond than say, skin? Anyone have an opinion on that?

Hi Cehra.

You can share with your husband that the best cut diamonds do what he suggests on their own, as a result of good cutting: When a diamond''s angles are cut for best light return the pavilion facets act as mirrors. This means the majority of light entering the crown is returned right back to the viewer''s eye. Such diamonds will perform at their best regardless of setting. You may know that this level of cut precision is not common in most markets, but many of the diamonds you''ll see discussed on PS have these proportions.

The biggest problem with enclosing a diamond is that there is no way to clean the pavilion. Diamonds attract grease and dust and when the pavilion is dirty it changes the refractive index of the diamond, causing it to perform differently. This is why many rings have cleaning holes underneath.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/9/2006 5:45:13 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 7/9/2006 4:22:58 PM
Author:Cehrabehra
My husband has a physics degree and he seems to think that the best setting for a diamond would be one that completely enclosed it and would force light back out... I tend to think that if it were enclosed it would be black in there and absorb the light. Anyone? I saw this setting and it reminded me of what my husband is talkinga bout: http://www.whitehousebrothers.com/detail.php?id=97

Also... and I don''t have an example to post... but if there was flat high polish platinum UNDER the diamond, wouldn''t that help reflect more of the light out of the diamond than say, skin? Anyone have an opinion on that?

Hi Cehra.

You can share with your husband that the best cut diamonds do what he suggests on their own, as a result of good cutting: When a diamond''s angles are cut for best light return the pavilion facets act as mirrors. This means the majority of light entering the crown is returned right back to the viewer''s eye. Such diamonds will perform at their best regardless of setting. You may know that this level of cut precision is not common in most markets, but many of the diamonds you''ll see discussed on PS have these proportions.

The biggest problem with enclosing a diamond is that there is no way to clean the pavilion. Diamonds attract grease and dust and when the pavilion is dirty it changes the refractive index of the diamond, causing it to perform differently. This is why many rings have cleaning holes underneath.

Hi John

I will pass this info to him (I have him read selected posts ha!). I think I''m settled on the enclosed bezel info... have any thoughts about the high polished metal (with easy cleaning and light access) directly under the diamond? Not only am I curious about that particular design suggestion, it sounds like it would be a very *comfortable* ring to wear, being a solid band around your finger.

ALSO and this is probably most important, I''m really looking forward to your thoughts on cushion philsophy. Pins and needles man!

 

[ladykemma]

does anyone know how to post the HCA chart on here?

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/9/2006 5:52:49 PM
Author: Cehrabehra

Hi John

I will pass this info to him (I have him read selected posts ha!). I think I'm settled on the enclosed bezel info... have any thoughts about the high polished metal (with easy cleaning and light access) directly under the diamond? Not only am I curious about that particular design suggestion, it sounds like it would be a very *comfortable* ring to wear, being a solid band around your finger.

If the diamond is a top cut it won't matter what's underneath since its light return is independent. Think of it like this: When you place a mirror on wall made of plaster or wood or black paint, the image you see in the mirror remains the same. So it is with light return from premium cut round diamonds, since the pavilion facets act as mirrors.

A good way to illustrate this is how the ideal-scope works:

With the ideal-scope, light going in the crown becomes color-coded red. Meanwhile, there is a white light shining up underneath the diamond.

Here are ideal-scope photos from diamonds of fine, average and poor cut quality. Remember - there is a white light shining up underneath all of these examples:

The reason you see no white under the table of the fine cut diamond is because all the light coming in the crown is coded red, and that light is all being reflected and refracted back to your eye. With the average and poor cuts some of the light entering the crown is escaping through the bottom of the diamond: These facets act as windows, rather than mirrors, and the light shining up from under the diamond is visible through them.

So...With a premium cut (like on the left), if a light shining up through the bottom of the diamond can't be seen then no setting underneath the diamond - high polish or no - will have an influence on its performance.

By the way, finely cut diamonds may have small, triangular patterns of white along the edges, and outside of the center of the diamond.

These small areas of contrast leakage are perfectly acceptable. The (slight) difference you might see in the actual diamond would be many, tiny rapid 'pinfire' flashes in this one's scintillation - while diamonds with the 'fine cut' ideal-scope image from the example above will have fewer, larger spots of 'broadfire' scintillation visible from a distance (another question you have posed here, Cehra).

These differences are not absolute. Some diamonds even have an overlap of qualities and to see the differences can be an acquired visual taste - but they are worthy of note.

Date: 7/9/2006 5:52:49 PM
Author: Cehrabehra

ALSO and this is probably most important, I'm really looking forward to your thoughts on cushion philsophy. Pins and needles man!

The question is on my list Cehra. I'm looking forward to answering it. Hope you have had a great weekend.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/9/2006 6:41:45 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 7/9/2006 5:52:49 PM
Author: Cehrabehra

Hi John

I will pass this info to him (I have him read selected posts ha!). I think I''m settled on the enclosed bezel info... have any thoughts about the high polished metal (with easy cleaning and light access) directly under the diamond? Not only am I curious about that particular design suggestion, it sounds like it would be a very *comfortable* ring to wear, being a solid band around your finger.

If the diamond is a top cut it won''t matter what''s underneath since its light return is independent. Think of it like this: When you place a mirror on wall made of plaster or wood or black paint, the image you see in the mirror remains the same. So it is with light return from premium cut round diamonds, since the pavilion facets act as mirrors.

My understanding of cushions though, is there will be light leakage. If you put a clear window up against shiny metal, it would reflect more back than to just hold it up to your skin. particularly if there is a culet. It seems logical enough, but I''m seeking verification.

Date: 7/9/2006 5:52:49 PM
Author: Cehrabehra

ALSO and this is probably most important, I''m really looking forward to your thoughts on cushion philsophy. Pins and needles man!

The question is on my list Cehra. I''m looking forward to answering it. Hope you have had a great weekend.

I am having a great weekend, John! I do appreciate your time and consideration. I''m just feeling impatient and excited! Sorry if I''m a bit obnoxious. You guys are infectious!!!!!

In the meantime, I think I found a cut I like... but I''m gonna be really picky about it... ooooh yeah... still need more info, but my eyes are looking here right now:
http://www.diamondsourceva.com/Education/Shape/diamonds-shape-cushion-cut.asp

 

[SuzyQZ]

Cehrabehra:

Both of my rings have a high polish underneath the diamonds. I think the "mirror effect" underneath lets me see the sparkles from a top AND bottom view. I don''t know if the mirror effect actually makes the diamonds sparkle more or enhance their appearance, but I do like the "double" view of the sparkles I get from above and underneath.

Like you, I thought that an enclosed setting would be counterintuitive and diminish a diamonds sparkle, but many have told me that is absolutely not the case. A well cut diamond will shine well without regard to the setting. I like the "mirror" under the diamond effect and looking at the open pavillion from the sides because I think it adds another dimension to my viewing pleasure. So nothing scientific here, just an emotional preference. Also my rings are super easy to clean.

Here''s the first of two pictures.

 

[SuzyQZ]

Picture #2

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 7/9/2006 8:38:12 PM
Author: SuzyQZ
Cehrabehra:

Both of my rings have a high polish underneath the diamonds. I think the ''mirror effect'' underneath lets me see the sparkles from a top AND bottom view. I don''t know if the mirror effect actually makes the diamonds sparkle more or enhance their appearance, but I do like the ''double'' view of the sparkles I get from above and underneath.

Like you, I thought that an enclosed setting would be counterintuitive and diminish a diamonds sparkle, but many have told me that is absolutely not the case. A well cut diamond will shine well without regard to the setting. I like the ''mirror'' under the diamond effect and looking at the open pavillion from the sides because I think it adds another dimension to my viewing pleasure. So nothing scientific here, just an emotional preference. Also my rings are super easy to clean.

Here''s the first of two pictures.

Awesome Suzy! Thank you SO MUCH for sharing your rings! I see what you mean about the mirror and I bet that looks fantastic in bright light... I think you''ve sold me LOL BTW, I love how your stones are "naked" from the side... how fun is that? Talk about flashing! bahaha!!

I understand a well cut diamond, it won''t matter. I''m afraid that even the BEST cut cushion is going to have *some* issues though... and even though I''d rather avoid a culet, if for some reason my ideal stone presents itself with one, the mirror thing might be even more important. When I see the taupe/skin through a culet my heart kinda sinks a bit. Generally though I think I like the older cuts. I don''t want the pin flash as much as the broad flash... but some pin flash would be great too

Any other pics? Feel free to bombard me! lol!!!

 

[SuzyQZ]

OK, but remember, you asked!

Here a pic of both my rings

 

[SuzyQZ]

Side view of three stone. My mirror needs dusting, UGH!

 

[SuzyQZ]

starburst of sun

 

[SuzyQZ]

Side view of wedding ring.

Ok, I think that''s enough pictures from me! Don''t want to be a thread hog!

 

[SuzyQZ]

Date: 7/9/2006 8:45:25 PM
Author: Cehrabehra

Awesome Suzy! Thank you SO MUCH for sharing your rings! I see what you mean about the mirror and I bet that looks fantastic in bright light... I think you''ve sold me LOL BTW, I love how your stones are ''naked'' from the side... how fun is that? Talk about flashing! bahaha!!

Yup, they are butt naked to the world and I love it that way! Something about looking at the facets and the diamond from underneath and the sides, it''s just so cool! My settings are unusual and definitely not the mainstream taste. But a diamond, well, its just a thing of beauty. You can''t deny that a diamond is just an amazing thing, and I love looking at them. From the sides, from underneath, anyway I can!

 

[Cehrabehra]

I am SOLD! I am sold I am sold I am sold LOL

Post more, yes, I asked!!! lol

 

[SuzyQZ]

OK one last one. I hope this picture shows you how the fire from the diamond is reflected on the mirror finish underneath. It's really cool. If you like my style of ring you should go to Claude Thibaudeau's website and look at his collections, I especially like the Le Trinite collection. That's where we got the inspiration for my three stone ring.

Here's his link.

www.claudethibaudeau.com/

ETA: No the picture didn't really post big enough. When I view the picture full size on my computer you can really see the fire, but because of internet size constraints, it just doesn't transfer well. Sorry. I tried.

 

[JulieN]

my understanding is that leaky stones in enclosed settings will look dead where it leaks.

 

[SuzyQZ]

Okay, I''ll give this picture one more try. Hopefully it will be a little bigger and clearer.

 

[SuzyQZ]

Here are three Claude Thibaudeau settings that I like. His style is very unique, and definitely not for everyone.

#1 This is one of my all time favorites.

 

[SuzyQZ]

#2 I think this setting looks way high, probably because of the bad camera angle, but you get the idea of his type of style.

 

[SuzyQZ]

#3 I think this one is so elegant with just a little diamond bling in the sides for a surprise!