The importance of "Fire" in your diamond

[oldminer]

AGA will soon be launching a technologically and scientifically accurate diamond light performance system. We would like a bit of consumer and dealer input. As it stands now, we will be giving the following attributes of light behavior numeric scores: Brilliancy, Scintillation, Intensity and Fire. The first 3 may also have a combined result, but at this time I anticipate Fire will not be mixed into the components of overall light grade.

Up to this point, the industry has been creating the image in people''s minds that a higher reading automatically is a better result. That makes sweet marketing, but it isn''t true. A diamond needs more than highest brilliancy to look "diamond-like". If you have too much scintillation, a diamond would look like tiny micro sparkles, not diamond-like at all. If it has too much intensity, a diamond would become less scintillating and overly bright. Too much brightness eliminates scintillation.

To have a superb diamond-like, appearance requires high yet BALANCED readings, not simply all the highest ones. Fire does not even need to be described to know a diamond is a superb performer. Fire will be automatically present in a great looking stone.

Did any of you select a diamond because of fire? Maybe it was a small part of the overall process, but I doubt it was a deciding factor. Most diamonds have some fire because it is inherent in the material and typical of common cutting styles. Few companies stress fire, although I know 8* does say they get more by creating high symmetry. They sell fire as a feature, but I know of no other firm which does.

Here are the questions:

1. Does fire belong mixed into light behavior grading or would you prefer it to be reported on its own, unmixed?

2. Did any of you select a diamond because of fire?

3. Can anyone describe why they feel fire may have a direct effect on overall, total appearance?

Thanks.

 

[chrono]

From my personal preference as a consumer,
1. Fire on its own, unmixed.
2. Yes (but I made sure the other readings i.e. scintillation and brilliance were well balanced)
3. It's just a preference for me. I'm more for a fire gal than a brilliance person. I know most good diamonds will look "white" but I prefer the rainbow display effect. I know I'm not answering your question at all because I just don't know the answer to such a complex question.

 

[strmrdr]

1- on its own
2- yes sorta
3- fire is attention getting but once it has your attention the rest has to be there too or its a dud.

Who doesnt walk out into sunlight and move their diamond around to watch the fireworks and tilt it just so to watch the fire?

 

[ame]

1. Fire on its own.
2. Yup, that was one of the biggest sellers for me.
3. If it's not firey it might look flat and kind of spit-like.

 

[aljdewey]

Hi, Dave:

1. Yes, fire should absolutely be in its own category.

2. Yes, fire was the MOST important element of selecting a diamond for me - it had to have exceptional fire. To me, the colored flashes and rainbows are mesmerizing, and they are what I think a beautiful diamond is all about.

3. To me, fire adds the body...the nuances...that make a diamond fascinating.

I don't know if this analogy will make sense to those who aren't avid cooks, but I'll try anyway. When you cook with wine, the wine adds body and life to the finished dish. It enhances all the other elements/ingredients of the dish by adding punctuation. It adds counterpoint to the spices and onions and other ingredients. You could cook the exact same recipe, and it would taste markedly different if you omitted just the wine. To me, this is what fire in a diamond does.

Another way to express it....adding fire to a diamond is like adding an entire orchestra to a single violin player. The result is much more complex...it has more depth.

 

[jesrush]

Dave,

When finding a RB center stone for my girl's e-ring, I started out focusing on brillance: Whichever stone in joe schmoe jewelery store appeared the brightest immediately caught my favor. But once I started looking at well-cut stones from "superideal" vendors I started having trouble telling them apart.

For example, I took an .78 AGS0\HCA1 from NiceIce and put it next to a .80 AGS0\HCA1.9 from Whiteflash and--not knowing which was which--tried to pick the "brighter" stone from the two. I repeated this experiment seven times in varied light conditions, and I split about fifty-fifty. I would pick the WF stone one time and the NiceIce the next.

Frustrated by their similarity, I decided to focus on another criteria--fire. I repeated the experiment described above with the SAME stones, but this time I ignored white light return and focused on colored light which was more subtle and required more observation time. Interestingly, when this second "experiment" was complete and I tallied the numbers, I picked the same stone five of seven times.

Intrigued, I conducted the same "blind" experiment again, this time looking for scintillation. When complete, I'd picked the same stone that "won" in fire six of seven times for scintillation

From here the decision was easy... the presence of fire definitely contributed to my decision making process and it really deserves its own category

-J

 

[luvmysparklies]

Here are my thoughts:


1. Does fire belong mixed into light behavior grading or would you prefer it to be reported on its own, unmixed?

No. I would love for fire to be reported on its own, unmixed. As fire is a very important factor for me, so I would like a reading that addresses this feature all on its own.

2. Did any of you select a diamond because of fire?

I absolutely chose stones with and because of fire.

3. Can anyone describe why they feel fire may have a direct effect on overall, total appearance?

My description is this: I have always been attracted to things that exhibit the rainbow colors. To me, since one of the "jobs"

of a diamond (besides exhibiting white light and scintillation) is to break white light up into colors, my definition of a great stone is one that displays the rainbows to a very strong extent. It is part of what makes a diamond a diamond, what attracts some people to wanna have a closer look at your stone--the playful display of color. All of this is, to me, is why fire has a direct effect on overall appearance.

I know that there is a thread dealing with the pixels in the Brilliancescope, but in all honesty, when I looked at the BS scores on my stone the color light was waaaayyy over to the right, with the scintillation score being in the middle of "high" and that cinched it for me. I thought that from the scores, the stone would exhibit somewhat bolder flashes of colored light and when I got the stone, I very pleased to find that it did.

 

[lmurden]

I didn't have enough information to really know how much fire I would have, but the first thing I notice was how much fire my diamond had and I was extremely happy. Actually one of my co-workers complimented me oh how much fire my ring had.

 

[purduephotog]

I know what I have been looking for in a stone yet not seen (or been able to find).

I want to have my attention dragged to the rock when it's on someone's hand at a distance of 10 to 20 feet from small little flashes of colour, in a darkened room. I've seen this on a few very well cut stones that people have had- and enjoyed the effect immensely (hence the fics I keep searching for)

I would buy a diamond based upon those micro flashes more than the 'brightness' of the stone.

If that helps any

Jason

 

[Gale]

Hi Dave,

First let me say that I am an uneducated consumer with a dangerous amout of knowledge. Sure, I spent a lot of time on PS before I purchased a diamond, and the insight provided here really helped a lot. Basically speaking, however, I am a neanderthal. When evealuating a diamond, I looked for fire return first. It was my top priority. No fire - no sale. Sure, brilliance is an amazing quality, but an assortment of rainbows to amuse me seemed like a better thing. I have sparkle, sparkle, sparkle. But without rainbows, rainbows, rainbows - I would not have made the purchase I did. The evaluation of Fire on a separate basis would have proven invaluable to me just a few months ago whwn I purchased my stone.
Thanks for the question.

 

[oldminer]

Thank you for the many varied replies. I can see that "fire" has importance to many of you.

I have been asked by a well known vendor to expalin that Fire is a rainbow effect, like light passsing through a prism. Many consumers feel they want a "firey" diamond but really confuse this with a "Brilliant" diamond. Brilliancy has to do with "efficiency of light returned to the eye". The amount of light going into a diamond limits the amount that may come back to the eye. The percentage of light returned to the eye is the efficiency, the brilliancy, rating of the stone. You would not want a 100% efficiency as the light would appear to be light a light bulb and not interesting to the eye. It needs scintillation and intensity to be what we consider attractive as a diamond. A well cut diamond will display some Fire, spectral colors. The amount of fire may or may not play a part in how or why a diamond is right for you. There are a lot of people with diamonds that look very nice, but have very little fire.

We thought it was important to make sure consumers have a real hanlde on what Fire is being defined as. The distinction being to separate Fire from Brilliancy so that they are not confused with terminology.

 

[Rhino]

----------------
On 9/1/2004 3:08:25 PM purduephotog wrote:

I know what I have been looking for in a stone yet not seen (or been able to find).

I want to have my attention dragged to the rock when it's on someone's hand at a distance of 10 to 20 feet from small little flashes of colour, in a darkened room. I've seen this on a few very well cut stones that people have had- and enjoyed the effect immensely (hence the fics I keep searching for)

I would buy a diamond based upon those micro flashes more than the 'brightness' of the stone.

If that helps any

Jason----------------

Jason... you should find the opportunity to see and view an Eighternity diamond. They are the epitome of microflashes combined with superior fire.

 

[Rhino]

Dave,




I would love to participate. I would even drive down to PA for a day and bring all sorts of specimens from poop to our rarest goods.




In response to your questions I'd pretty much agree with what others have said.




1. Fire by itself.


2. If a diamond does not have superior fire I don't even waste time with it.


3. In answer to this last question I would clarify that *fire* only has a direct effect on overall appearance in direct light conditions. I always remind our clients that the overall appearance of a diamond changes depending on the light conditions they are being viewed under. The stronger the light conditions, the more the diamond should function in it's role as a prism. The weaker light conditions place more emphasis on brilliance than they do fire.




Peace,

 

[Hest88]

Well, Dave, I agree with the rest. Fire absolutely must have its own category. If I were to buy a RB fire would be the most important thing. My mom, OTOH, loves brilliance and scintillation, but I'm all about the rainbows.

 

[valeria101]

If I remember right, there were two opinions about fire and brilliance on PS: one stating that there is a tradeoff between fire and brilliance, and a more recent statement (was it published after the conference in Moscow?... I think so) that these two can be balanced so that a "perfect" cut will show both the most fire and the most brilliance in different (and hopefully common) light conditions.

If fire and brilliance are reported independently, than the second interpretation will get to define "ideal cuts". If fire and brilliance are reported as one score, than it is the grader's choice what kind of relation between the two (substitution or addition) will do. has a choice been made already about this?



And one more... hoping this is not already seriously off the track:

Is it anywhere near right to say that the range of proportions that deliver high brilliance are much more restrictive than those capable to produce diffraction? If so, a score of brilliance is more suitable to define "ideal" cut proportions - since the range of such proportions would be effectively narrow for any given facet pattern. In consequence, it may be a reasonably important commercial decision on how to construct these indices.

I am usually working with this kind of things (scores) so this kind of questions are pretty much 'instinct' for me by now, for better or worse.

 

[strmrdr]

If Id wanted a lightbulb Id have bought a lightbulb not a diamond. :}

 

[strmrdr]

----------------
On 9/1/2004 5:15:55 PM crankydave wrote:

----------------
On 9/1/2004 5:07:47 PM strmrdr wrote:

If Id wanted a lightbulb Id have bought a lightbulb not a diamond. :}
----------------

???
----------------

all brilliance and nothing else going for it..like a mirror or a.... lightbulb...

 

[strmrdr]

----------------
On 9/1/2004 5:22:56 PM crankydave wrote:

strmrdr

Are you suggesting my opinion is akin to buying a lightbulb?

Dave----------------

no sir

 

[strmrdr]

----------------
On 9/1/2004 5:34:08 PM crankydave wrote:

----------------
On 9/1/2004 5:28:45 PM strmrdr wrote:

----------------
On 9/1/2004 5:22:56 PM crankydave wrote:

strmrdr

Are you suggesting my opinion is akin to buying a lightbulb?

Dave----------------

no sir
----------------

The same burned out light bulb when I put on my pink shirt and red pants? LOL----------------

The burnt out lightbulbs are on sale at zales for $999 a ct and you get 3 small ones for that price.
The smashed ones that are glued back together are on ebay for $499.99 a ct
Well thats what they look like anyway :}
see:

 

[strmrdr]

----------------
On 9/1/2004 5:43:57 PM crankydave wrote:

----------------



I see. You wouldn't know that by the depth percentage or size of the table though would you?

Dave----------------

sure between 50 and 75 and between 40 and 80 :}
Yep there mall store "ideal cuts".

 

[wonka27]

----------------
On 9/1/2004 6:12:42 PM crankydave wrote:

strmrdr

My point was not to discount the numbers, letters and percentages but to remember to use your eyes. One could represent a stone a finest ever mined or cut. But if it's not pretty to the individual what differnce does it make?

Dave----------------

I can totally agree with that. The final, and most important test needs to be your eyes! No one else in the world can decide for us whether a diamond is beautiful or not because it is within our preferences that we find what we truly love!

 

[Dancing Fire]

Dave

1.grading on its own
2.yes,what good is a diamond with little fire
3.a diamond with lots of fire looks more lively,does anybody ever complain about too much fire ?

 

[Superidealist]

You might want to look at this poll from a few months back, Dave.

 

[quaeritur]

1. separate
2. fire fire fire -yes, that's how I picked what I picked
3. it's magical

Seriously, fire was the most important factor for me. I also wanted enough brilliancy -or it would have been a bit of a waste getting the D color- but fire was tops on the list. I'd love it broken out in its own category. As far as total appearance, it's what I look for in a diamond. I hate looking and looking for it and not finding it!

 

[fire&ice]

I'm not sure. I think I am a brilliance girl, especially in the warmer stones.

All I can say is that the e.r. I purchased for my niece had much more fire than brilliance. They looked quite different than my stone. Lovely once on the ears; but, looked darker because they were more colorful(I assume I am looking at "fire"). As a choice, I would want something more brilliant. But, it didn't make these firey stones any less "pretty".

I think this all boils down to personal preference. I like them all. And, at the end of the day, it would seem a balance of all would be nice.

Yes, with the others on meauring separate.

 

[glitterata]

Dave, can you define what you mean by "intensity"? That's a term I don't think I've seen before.

Of my two diamond rings, I wear the lower color, lower clarity one much more often because it has much more fire. I love to watch the play of colors. I can spend hours (well, all right, not actually HOURS, but a long time) tilting it back and forth to see a flash run through the colors of the rainbow, or to catch a particular shade of green or orange, or to get two or three or four different colors to spark at the same time. To me, the fire is the fun part.