Silly question... wondering about light performance in larger vs. smaller stones?

[Lynn B]

This is actually two questions...

(1) A conversation at work got me wondering if smaller diamonds seem to have more "sparkle" than larger ones? One of my co-workers INSISTS this is the case! As the proud new owner of a 1.5 ct, SAY IT ISN''T SO!

(2) I saw a ring setting that is actually 4 princess cut stones, each about .50 ct. They are invisibly set all together (two on top, two right below) to look like one large square stone.

Assuming all else is equal (that all the stones are great cut, color and clarity) would those 4 smaller stones (with 4 crowns/pavilions, etc.) appear to have more brilliance, fire, etc., than one large 2 ct. stone?

If this question has been addressed before - please forgive!

Thanks,
Lynn

 

[limey]

Actually a very interesting post. Hopefully you get some good answers. I would say that it is the same old answer - CUT! I would hazard to say that the average big diamond is cut to leave in weight (like the 1+ ct from Cosco posted a few days ago that presented itself as 20 points lighter). The resultant diamond has bad number all over and will "sparkle" less. The market for well cut big diamonds is very small, 99% of e-ring buyers are looking for the wrong C's in the wrong places. So your friend isn't necessarily wrong.

I do not believe that B'Scope or ISee2 discriminate on size. Aren't you wearing a 1.5 ct now, doesn't it bling like crazy proving that big diamonds can out sparkle so long as they are cut well?

 

[hoorray]

I'm no good at searching for specific things.....

Just recently there was a discussion about whether the size of the facets would change the way the fire and white light return looked...eg. bigger flashes from bigger facets. Since larger stones have larger facets, that was the whole gist. And....I can't seem to find it. It might have been the recent thread between Rhino and Strm.....

Maybe they will speak up -- it's an interesting question.

 

[Magnum]

If by "sparkle" your co-worker means twinkling kind of like little stars in a big sky, I might agree. If your co-worker means overall fire and brilliance I would say no. Comparing my 0.614 carat stone to my fiancee's 1.31 carat stone, both excellently cut stones, I can definitely tell a difference in how the stones sparkle. My stone, being a lot smaller, has smaller flashes of light, whereas her's has bigger, bolder flashes of white and colored light. You can see the arrows in both light up, but with mine you have to look a little closer to tell that it's an arrow lighting up, whereas with hers, it's totally obvious. The flashes of light, both white and colored are a lot bigger, which makes sense, because the facets are bigger. You might be able to argue that there's a little less scintilation (almost imperceptable) in her stone (I wouldn't argue that. I think there's plenty) but it is more than made up for by the big bold flashes of brilliance and fire. I personally like seeing those big bold flashes of light. It has been argued by Serg, that if the stone gets too big (I think upwards of 3 carats, but I could be wrong on the size he specified) the flashes of light are too big and you lose too much scintilation and contrast. For that reason, he has suggested that it might be better to cut much larger stones with more than 58 facets to increase the scintilation/contrast that might have been lost with larger facets. But that's just one side of the argument, although definitely well respected. A 1.5 carat stone should have plenty of scintillation with the normal 58 facets, so I wouldn't worry about that. So to answer your questions, I would say that smaller stones have a twinkling kind of sparkle, whereas larger stones, while still having some small sparkles, also have big, bold flashes of light.

 

[Lynn B]

Thanks for the responses.

Interesting!

My big stone (RB, 1.53 cts) is in a semi-mount setting w/ 2.5 TCW of princess and baguettes. I definitely see a difference in the "twinkle" factor of all the different stones. It is exactly like Magnum said... the smaller stones (they must be well-cut, too, they ARE sparklers!) twinkle w/ smaller flashes of light; whereas the big stone has bigger, bolder flashes of light. (I LOVE the total look of the ring - it's an awesome combo!)

But what about Question #2 in my first post above? (This is just for curiosity's sake now!) Assuming the four .50 ct stones are all extremely well cut; and assuming the 2 ct stone is also extremely well cut -- will the 4 stones together noticeably "sparkle" more (because of there being 4 times as many pavilions and crowns to reflect light from?!) than the one, bigger stone?

What do we think?!

Lynn

 

[Magnum]

I think it's kind of the same principle. I would guess that there would be more sparkles of light, but much smaller, in the four stones together, whereas the single large stone would have less sparkles of light, but the ones it did have would be bigger, bolder, and more noticeable.

Here's something else to think about. I'll use round stones in this example because I know what the average diameter for certain carat weights are, but the principle would hold for princess stones as well. What you're seeing when you look down on a stone is the surface area of the top, which is derived from two dimensions, but the carat weight is directly proprtional to volume, which is made up of three dimensions. So, that's why a stone that's two times as heavy in terms of carat weight (i.e. a 1 carat and a 2 carat stone) does not appear twice as big when you look at it. So, four average 0.5 carat round stones have a total surface area of 84.9 mm^2, whereas a single 2 carat stone has a surface are of 52.8 mm^2. The surface area of the four stones put together is 60% greater than the surface area of the one 2 carat stone. You can't really put 4 rounds right next to each other without any gaps, but you can put four princess together, and i would guess that it's probably a similar result. The four princess would probably appear 50-60% larger, as far as the area you look down upon.

 

[Lynn B]

Interesting, Magnum... THANK YOU very much!

(And your MATH SKILLS have me EXTREMELY impressed!

)

Lynn

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Hi,
Good answers Mag.
I had a problem posting for a few days.

Re # in the larger deeper stone because rays have travelled through more diamond they can be more concentrated / intensified (bad description - I will ask Sergey to help).

In the case of princess cuts there will be almost no fire from the smller stones because the speckles are so tiny. But the space and dead zone between the stones causes a type of additional contrast that is usually lacking in princess cuts. The same analagy with 4 rounds might not be useful, because even small rounds have good contrast.

It is true that very big rounds (say +5 or +10ct??) should not perhaps have perfect symmetry because the facets get so big they become boring - some types of lessor symmetry could solve this, or additional facets like say a Leo with the additional 8 lower gridle type facets for larger stones.

 

[victorianblue]

The stone weight is provided as 2.22 carat. You have pointed out a issue that is of interest. You mention that a "jeweler" has a "grace" of say two levels in color.

Does this also mean that a jeweler may also have a "grace" with respect to the other characteristics of the diamond and the quality?

Would this type of allowance or method of acceptance within the jewlery/diamond industry/market not negate the need to even have a grading system in effect? Please elaborate-would like to know more on this.

 

[victorianblue]

My last message was posted in the wrong spot--please accept my appologies