Solasfera and the BrilliantScope

[AshNZ]

Okay PSer''s, I thought I was starting to get a handle on what I wanted. I have seen Brian Gavin and WF stones here in Houston and I am narrowing my color range to D & E''s only (sadly, I am color sensitive and can tell the difference even between the D and E). Then I discover a link to the Solasfera website - a well set up and pretty informative place.

I have been checking out Jonathans videos comparing the Solas vs other top tier H&A''s (great vids by the way - 3 light settings and a slow and methodical ''rocking'' of the tray means you can actually compare diamonds). I actually think I see a difference in the videos, the Solasfera has more light return because more facets are working - I don''t see a difference in the broadness of flashes between the Solas and a H&A.

The Solas blows the Gemex Brilliant Scores out of the water (many of which don''t have perfect symmetry or low HCA scores - most don''t have ex/ex/ex/vg). Is it as simple as that? The Solasfera cut out performs the Standard 57? Or do I need to know ''how'' the BS measure performace?

I don''t know how the BS works but IF it ''counted'' individual ''sparkles'' then it would certainly favour RB''s with more facets.

When I searched PS for Solasfera threads, the feedback seemed to around the type of light show, not the quality when the Solas was compared to the Standard 57. ''Busy'' was a term used to descibe the Solas, however this was also countered. Undoubtably the Solas has more pinflash feedback, however - the size of the major facets in the pavilion isn''t actually that much smaller (~27-30%? when you include the extra Pavilion facets) so the broadflash will be relatively similar right? If yes, then the Solasfera sounds like a great cut.


Luckily I am heading to NY in two weeks so I will pay GOG and DavidS a visit.

Ash

 

[Rhino]

You''ll be doing the best thing possible and that is seeing and comparing for yourself. What you may want to do however is decide if you''d like to stick with us or DavidS because the sames diamonds can''t be in two places at the same time if there was a particular comparison you wanted to make.

Just one correction about a comment you made about the BS. More facets does not mean better GemEx score. We''ve tested many modified rounds on the BrillianceScope and not all of them score what the Solasfera does. If you come here to Long Island I can go into more detail on the pros/cons of the GemEx with you as well as showing you not only 91 faceted Solasfera''s but also show you how 81 and 129 faceted diamonds cut for light performance look alongside of it as well in a number of lighting environments.

All the best,

 

[kenny]

I just wanted to add that we have a Solasfera and an ACA, a very finely cut 57-facet round diamond.

Both are within one point of the same weight, 82 and 83 point, and both are equally breathtaking but different looking.
I realize this is not a very scientific description but I'll assure you that you will be delighted with a Solasfera.

I don't agree they look busy in a negative way.
It is a much less "busy" look than a radiant or a princess.
Just because people have gotten used to the 57-facet look does not mean another look in a round is inferior or less attractive.

When I get time I'll have to get some pics up with both in the same pic.

 

[AshNZ]

Date: 10/27/2009 4:02:48 PM
Author: kenny
I just wanted to add that we have a Solasfera and an ACA, a very finely cut 57-facet round diamond.

Both are within one point of the same weight, 82 and 83 point, and both are equally breathtaking but different looking.
I realize this is not a very scientific description but I''ll assure you that you will be delighted with a Solasfera.

I don''t agree they look busy in a negative way.
It is a much less ''busy'' look than a radiant or a princess.

When I get time I''ll have to get some pics up with both in the same pic.

Kenny - would love to see it, especially if you can capture the nuances (difficult I know). If you had to describe the difference what would you say?

From what I have seen/read - my assumptions are the Solasfera will have more light return when viewed from close up, however I have no idea what to expect from ''across the room'' performace... Is this where facet size really makes a difference?


Rhino - see you soon

Ash

 

[kenny]

Well, again this is not scientific, just my opinion.

I'd say the Solasfera has more flashes but the flashes on the ACA are larger.
Which is better? Flip a coin.

ACAs and other fine rounds have what they call "Contrast leakage" triangles around the girdle.
Solasfera does not have these, instead it returns light there.

I guess you could argue that more light return makes the Solasfera's brighter.
It sure looks like you are wearing a flashlight sometimes.

Those contrast leakage triangles can be minimized or eliminated by by the diamond cutter changing the angles of the facets near the girdle in a process called painting and digging.
Eightstar is a famous cut that does this.
Like the Solasfera it has a solid blood-red idealscope - no leakage.

Solasfera eliminates the leakage by having 10 sections instead of the usual 8.

People will argue over whether it is better to have that contrast leakage or have more light return.
My answer is to buy one of each.

 

[AshNZ]

Date: 10/27/2009 4:28:58 PM
Author: kenny
Well, again this is not scientific, just my opinion.

I'd say the Solasfera has more flashes but the flashes on the ACA are larger.
Which is better? Flip a coin.

ACAs and other fine rounds have what they call 'Contrast leakage' triangles around the girdle.
Solasfera does not have these, instead it returns light there.

I guess you could argue that Solasfera's are therefore brighter.
I sure looks like you are wearing a flashlight sometimes.

Those contrast leakage triangles can be minimized or eliminated by by the diamond cutter changing the angles of the facets near the girdle in a process called painting and digging.
Eightstar is a famous cut that does this.
Like the Solasfera it has a solid blook-red idealscope - no leakage.

Solasfera eliminates the leakage by having 10 sections instead of the usual 8.

People will argue over whether it is better to have that contrast leakage or have more light return.
My answer is to buy one of each.

My understanding is that it is the additional facets above and below the girdle, not the addition of two more pavilion facets that maximises edge-to-edge performance. The extra two pavilion facets are designed to reduce the 'spider' 8 arrow pattern (by turning it into a 10 star - were each arrow is thinner and less noticeable).

Perhaps someone will design an 8 Star Solasfera for me - this is what I need! Imagine that, the performance of a ACA type 8 star and the edge-to-edge performance of an EightStar without painted girdles!


One of each would be nice

Ash

 

[kenny]

Imagine cutting a pie into 10 pieces instead of 8.
Regular round brilliants have 8 sections - 8 hearts - 8 arrows.
Solasferas have 10 of each.

Go look at pics and count them.

I believe by adding 2 sections the slight leakage that occurred at the edges of each of the 8 sections is eliminated.

A 6-section round would have even larger contrast leakage triangles.

 

[AshNZ]

I know their are 10 pavilion facets, I just don't think adding pavilion facets is what really reduces the light leakage (happy to be proven wrong

):

http://www.goodoldgold.com/show.php?image=5728/Sarin.jpg

It is the 'other' facets above and below the girdle to work their magic.

Ash

 

[stone-cold11]

Yap, it is the extra facets that reduce the control leakage, more main facets cuts these control leakage should still be there, unless digging/painting is used.