Side stone and light return!?!

[moremoremore]

I have a temp setting and am wondering if the addition of fairly substantial side stones mounted right next to a center stone block the light and hurt light return? Should I mount the sides lower than the center in my perm. setting for that reason? Thanks!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

As a rule side stones that add up to less than the weight of the center stone should be set lower.

The amount of light entering the pavilion is slight in well cut stones.

 

[twilight]

The light return of a center stone would be more negatively affected by closing the opening underneath the center basket more than side stones. I wouldn''t worry about side stones having an effect on the center''s light return. As far as the setting, if you are trying to achieve a classical 3 stone look than yes you should have the two side stones set lower than the center. The center stone is the show stopper so you don''t want to take away from its beauty. I think setting all 3 stones on the same level would really take away aesthetically from the piece and make the ring look more like a right hand ring than an engagement ring. Good luck.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Wow- that is so weird- just as I saw this post Seinfield came on the TV ( see moremoremore''s Elaine avitar)

To me this question brings up two points-
1) Light return measuements are useless for judging diamonds, and this question ponts out why- once the diamond is set, it will react to light differently. Therefore, it would seem that you''d need to have the diamond set before checking it''s light return- which in my opinion is a meaningless number anyway. No one needs a machine to tell them if they love the ring when they open the box.

2) Raising the center diamond in a three stone ring will not neccesarly mean the center gets more light.
In my experience setting all three stones pretty much girdle to girdle produces the most comfortable, best looking ring. When there are gaps betwen the stones, I feel it takes away from the design.
Although, I am usually setting straight sided stones like trapeziods, or trilliants
With three rounds it might be different.
In my experience this is not affected by the weight of the side stones.

 

[Superidealist]

Date: 12/28/2004 6:40:30 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

Light return measuements are useless for judging diamonds, and this question ponts out why- once the diamond is set, it will react to light differently. Therefore, it would seem that you''d need to have the diamond set before checking it''s light return- which in my opinion is a meaningless number anyway.

Following this line of reasoning to its obvious conclusion, since set and loose diamonds react to light differently, loose diamonds may appear differently when set. The logical conclusion: Don''t look at loose diamonds when buying as their appearance is meaningless.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I am with you David - set 3 similar sized stones girdle to girdle with a slight tilt away from the center stone - but only if the side stones add up to at least the center weight or ideally have a diameter of about 10% less.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Date: 12/28/2004 6:58:56 PM
Author: Superidealist

Date: 12/28/2004 6:40:30 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

Light return measuements are useless for judging diamonds, and this question ponts out why- once the diamond is set, it will react to light differently. Therefore, it would seem that you''d need to have the diamond set before checking it''s light return- which in my opinion is a meaningless number anyway.

Following this line of reasoning to its obvious conclusion, since set and loose diamonds react to light differently, loose diamonds may appear differently when set. The logical conclusion: Don''t look at loose diamonds when buying as their appearance is meaningless.

I wrote thatI believe light return measurements are meaningless- I never said not to look at the diamond loose- of course that''s the only way to properly judge a diamond. Check the light return with your eyes. This is best done loose.

Although I never came to D Riley''s conclusion, the fact is that no matter how nice the diamond looks when it''s loose, if it''s not set well, or if it''s put into a bad design, the new owner will likely not enjoy the diamond.
How many times have we heard of someone doing all the reasearch, getting a great stone only to have some bonehead screw up the setting- spoiling the entire experience?


Garry, my preference on 3 stone rings is as you said- gidle to girdle, with a tilt away from the center. The only place we differ is that I don''t generally use weight as a determining factor. That is to say- when selecting trilliants for a radiant, you want the trills to be as long as the longest side of the radiant- this may or may not equal 1/2 the center''s weight, yet still will look good set on the same level as the center.


In the case of a three stone ring, it is essential to have stones with similar brilliance- personally, I would never trust the picking to a light return measurement. This must be done by eye.

 

[Superidealist]

But if a diamond reacts differently to light when set, might it not also appear different when set? Why then is it best to check a diamond''s light return with your eyes when it is loose?

 

[moremoremore]

No soup for you. Come back one year! Well, I would think that a diamond will look diff once set...but wondering if having the side stones next to the center impacts the stone more than a plain solitaire. Guess not.

I look at my stone (wish I had a good profile shot) and I guess the sides are lower. Not girdle to girdle but a tiny bit off to the side (15%?) and the top of the sides are right under the girdle of the center.

Thanks for the info gentlemen...

Can the small inside prongs of the side stones reflect on the outside edge of the center stone?

 

[laney]

This discussion begs the question... what about bezel set stones?

When posters have asked about light return on bezel set stones (which the sides and bottom are covered) the responses usually were that "on a well cut stone" light enters and exits through the top of the stone - so that type of setting wouldn''t take away from the brilliance of the stone.

I know moremoremore''s stones are cushions but.....

If a bezel setting doesn''t affect brilliance - why would 3 stone (side by side) at the same level affect it? When the sides would still be "open".

As for the "look" of the design - maybe setting the other stones down or angled may be preferable - but not for light return.....right???

Anyone?

 

[DiamondsRagirlsbestfriend]

For those who like the "girdle to girdle" setting, does this setting offer that feature? I''m in the process of having my three-stone emerald cut ring set into this style at Whiteflash as we speak.

 

[DiamondsRagirlsbestfriend]

Egads - that last picture was terrible. I''m trying again...

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 12/28/2004 10:28:51 PM
Author: DiamondsRagirlsbestfriend
For those who like the ''girdle to girdle'' setting, does this setting offer that feature? I''m in the process of having my three-stone emerald cut ring set into this style at Whiteflash as we speak.

I think that is a solitaire style with side stones - not a 3 stone - it has too much slope for a 3 stone.

David - I guess i meant when all 3 stones are the same shape. But i agree - fancy cut shoulder stones are really hot downunder at present too.

Re the loose examination - how do you suggest people examine a:
1. loose fancy shape?
2. Loose colored diamond?
3. loose round brilliant?

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Best friend- yes- that looks like a "girdle to girdle" setting.

I love the way a nicely done bezel looks- but a diamond looses a little sparkle as compared to prong setting. That''s because a bezel covers a the girdle.


The prongs do reflect into the stone they are holding- for example a K-L diamond set in white metal may look whiter than it does loose.
Diamonds do reflect all kinds of light from different angles, but I would say that side stone prongs don''t reflect into the center stone to a noticable degree.
.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Garry,
If the diamond has a GIA report I will look over the stats. If a stone has obvious defects -such as an Emerald Cut wth a depth of 80%- I won''t go any further.
If the diamond''s specs on the GIA report look good, ( or on diamonds without GIA reports) I''ll look in the parcel paper.

I''ll bet you''ll agee that well cut diamonds look good even when they are table down in a parcel paper- which is the first glance look- then I flip the diamond over in the paper.
Then examine the diamond closely- under the loupe. That gives me a very good idea of how I like the cut.
I examine the diamond from 2-4 feet ( arm''s length) - I like to put my fingers together and let the diamond sit between them.
If the diamond is colorless, or near colorless, I use a white paper folded so that the diamond is in a position to look down thru the pavillion to check the color.


For folks who are not familiar with loupe and tweezer, arms length, or close visual examination is usuallly the method.

Of course this is not a "scientific" method - it''s based on emotion and visual impact. Which are two of the main reasons folks buy diamonds in the first place.


moremoremore- the "Soup Nazi" is less than 10 blocks from my office!! I''ve eaten his soup many times.
I''ve tried to ask him a question, and gotten a drity look- but he still serves me soup.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Gee you must be a big bloke David!
The furthest i can get a stone from my eyes is 3 foot (ha ha ha)

Date: 12/29/2004 1:23

8 AM
Author: diamondsbylauren
I''ll bet you''ll agee that well cut diamonds look good even when they are table down in a parcel paper- which is the first glance look- then I flip the diamond over in the paper.
Actually no - I do not think i can tell a well cut diamond from a not so great one when they are upside down.
Then examine the diamond closely- under the loupe. That gives me a very good idea of how I like the cut.
In diamond cut grading classes I take i try to make the loupe the last thing that is used - examining with a loupe tends to get us examining ''features'' and may influence our judgement on the ''benefits''. But it is not a big deal. A loupe blocks most of the light from above the stone and can lead to a preference for leaky diamonds because when we use a loupe we usually have back light from a desk lamp to make inclusion spotting easier.
I examine the diamond from 2-4 feet ( arm''s length) - I like to put my fingers together and let the diamond sit between them. Great - the very best way - when i asked this question of a guy who does not like HCA very much - he admitted to using tweezers - definetly favours leaky diamonds. Close to the skin is about as realistic to the back light available to a clean diamond.
If the diamond is colorless, or near colorless, I use a white paper folded so that the diamond is in a position to look down thru the pavillion to check the color.


For folks who are not familiar with loupe and tweezer, arms length, or close visual examination is usuallly the method.
A good way to do this is to put the stone in a 3 or 4 claw grabber - and then it can be held up from the finger in the position it would likely sit in a ring.
Of course this is not a ''scientific'' method - it''s based on emotion and visual impact. Which are two of the main reasons folks buy diamonds in the first place.Actually matching as closely as possible customer behaviour when buying and wearing diamonds is what good scientists should do. GIA used black trays for much of their study (they later changed to grey). This is not great science because it makes leakage black and this adds to contrast which strangely can contribute to making a diamond appear more brilliant than if the leakage was not pitch black.
Anthoer little trick of mine is to push the diamond pavilion into blu tac - the stuff you use to put posters on kids bedroom walls - what is it called in USA? This can somewhat mimick the effect of a dirty pavilion - grey or white plasticine is even better.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 12/28/2004 9:32:45 PM
Author: moremoremore
Can the small inside prongs of the side stones reflect on the outside edge of the center stone?

Remember those colored diamonds set in like-colored gold prongs or bezels (yellow, pink…) to half the color stand out ? Of course the setting shows – these are transparent things, surely. And a bit of tilt throws reflection of the prongs (and everything else) through the stone.

I guess the ultimate example of this would be a colorless diamond set in weirdly colored prongs – how about red and green ? See below:

(ring pictures by Whiteflash)

 

[moremoremore]

Thanks everyone.

Ana...I THINK that since adding the shoulder stones and a thicker 'basket' (if that's the right word) my center stone, sometimes...might be a teeny tiny bit darker only at its outermost edges and only right where the prongs of the side stones are...and only in conditions where there isn't much light...now I'm sitting by a window and it's not happening! So it's not all the time and maybe I'm crazy! LOL... But it makes sense to me tht it would and from your pix! I was just trying to think of what I will do with my premanent setting. Thanks!

Diamondr- that is exactly what mine is . I will take pix of my profile for you later. I think that's a pretty standard look for the three/shoulder stone look! I'm diggin it.

David- LOL..I'm *sure* he's never heard *that* before LOL...Don't do it man, there may be something extra special put in your soup!

 

[PhillipSchmidt]

Great post everybody

 

[headlight]

I personally think that all three stones in a three-stone ring, irregardless of the composition of shapes should be all on the same "plane". Thus, when you look at the profile view, the baskets are all in alignment. The mounting posted by "bestfriend" demonstrates this.
If you side stones are smaller than your center stone, the center will sit up a bit higher anyway due to its larger measurements. Also, if the mounting is created properly, the sides will sort of "gently" angle down each side of the finger, further adding to the "illusion" that the center is off-set from the side stones.
Another thing to remember is that if the side stones are smaller than the center, the center stone will still be the "star" of the design. The reality is that a three-stone ring, when done right, is a design where the stones sort of "blend" together, as from quick or distant glance, one cannot differentiate where one stone ends and the next one starts. For those who really want a setting where the center stone is "front and center", a three-stone is not the right mounting.
There are three-stone rings out there where the baskets do not line up (the center stone one is raised), and these, in all honesty, are not quality jobs. If someone prefers that, then by all means they should have it, but it is an indication of poor workmanship.
I will try to post a pic of mine, but I can''t seem to post since the PS software was updated.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

I'm of the belief that the reflection from the side stone prongs does not cause enough reflection to affect the center.
In the photos Ana posted, we're looking at colors much brighter than metal- either platinum or gold. Plus the reflcetions in the stones are the same color as the prongs actually holding the stones- I do not feel that the colors reflected in are from the side stone prongs but rather the prongs holdig the center diamonds themselves.

Let's also remember that generally, the only time two different color metals are used is whe there are two different colors of diamonds.

Here's a few shots where the white stones look very white even though they are set next to a yellow center, set in yellow prongs.

Here's one set opposite

I don't feeel the yellow prongs take anything away from the center in the ring above- an F color. If there's a slight reflection of yellow into the center, it would be caused by the yellow diamonds next to the center- not their prongs.

Of course this can't be proved - we're talking more about the way each of us sees this individually- there's no right or wrong here.