Ultra Flat Diamonds

[diagem]

IDEA: lets try to post images of Ultra flat Diamonds...

I will begin...

 

[diagem]

A 1.65 carat OMC cushion Diamond.
8.0x7.9x3.6mm (aka: 45.5% total depth)

Face up image

 

[diagem]

A profile of the Diamond above:

 

[diagem]

A pavilion shot...

 

[diagem]

A shot of the ultra flat crown..., under 29 degree angle.

 

[oldminer]

Pretty to look at. Take an ASET image of it or put it over a printed page and seen what the apparent leakage is. People can really appreciate such a diamond in a pendant, but compared to a more standard depth diamond these will lack some "punch".
For folks who want a subtle blend of brilliance and transparency, these can be lovely.

 

[surfgirl]

DG, what an interesting stone. What does it look like in person in terms of scintillation and fire?

 

[diagem]

Date: 7/30/2007 1:51:42 AM
Author: surfgirl
DG, what an interesting stone. What does it look like in person in terms of scintillation and fire?

SG, it looks just like the face-up image posted above...
Mainly large white flashes...

The interesting part of the visual appearance is the fact that the Diamond is an H-I color but looks F+ in its face-up appearance.


Here is another faceup...

 

[diagem]

Another "different" face up look of the same Diamond, due to a change in focus...

 

[chrono]

Very interesting, Diagem. Thank you for the pictures.

I once wanted to get a "shallower" OEC with 58% or 59% depth but the vendor insisted that it will be a fisheyed stone. This was from a virtual database so I never called in the stone. Is the vendor''s concern true? This flattish stone does not have the fisheye effect. Is it because it is squareish in shape?

 

[JohnQuixote]

Cool specimens DG. Are these primarily from macles and flats?

 

[surfgirl]

So not much in the way of colorful fire bursts? It is an interesting stone! Is the shallowness simply because of imperfections in the rough or was/is there a reason to cut it so shallow? I know Indian style jewelry tends to use shallower, flatter cuts...interesting.

 

[diagem]

Date: 7/30/2007 10:23:37 AM
Author: Chrono
Very interesting, Diagem. Thank you for the pictures.

I once wanted to get a ''shallower'' OEC with 58% or 59% depth but the vendor insisted that it will be a fisheyed stone. This was from a virtual database so I never called in the stone. Is the vendor''s concern true? This flattish stone does not have the fisheye effect. Is it because it is squareish in shape?

No..., it greatly depends on the crown height vs, pavilion depth taking into account the correct angle combo for both.
This is an extreme example of a 45.5% total depth.

 

[diagem]

Date: 7/30/2007 10:40:40 AM
Author: JohnQuixote
Cool specimens DG. Are these primarily from macles and flats?

John... these are images of one ''speciment'' only..., and yes, this Diamond was cut out of a flat rough...

 

[diagem]

Date: 7/30/2007 12:10:39 PM
Author: surfgirl
So not much in the way of colorful fire bursts? It is an interesting stone! Is the shallowness simply because of imperfections in the rough or was/is there a reason to cut it so shallow? I know Indian style jewelry tends to use shallower, flatter cuts...interesting.

SG, it was cut from a flat rough..., but you can notice the feather at the table..., the same feather can be seen on the pavilion image on top...
I was limited to how much lower in depth I could have polished the table (to try to get rid of the feather).

That is a reason this Diamond will be categorized as an SI clarity...

 

[Pandora II]

There''s a girl I work with who has a pear for her e-ring which I reckon is about 1ct, but faces up as about 1.30. She bought a very flat stone as she wanted size more than anything.

I swear I have never seen that stone sparkle. At first I thought it was the lighting in the room where we have meetings - then I wore my e-ring there and my tsavorite went nuts, let alone the diamonds on the band.

I would be very wary about a flat stone after that - though that cushion is nice looking!

 

[diagem]

Date: 7/30/2007 2:04:08 PM
Author: Pandora II
There''s a girl I work with who has a pear for her e-ring which I reckon is about 1ct, but faces up as about 1.30. She bought a very flat stone as she wanted size more than anything.

I swear I have never seen that stone sparkle. At first I thought it was the lighting in the room where we have meetings - then I wore my e-ring there and my tsavorite went nuts, let alone the diamonds on the band.

I would be very wary about a flat stone after that - though that cushion is nice looking!

Thank you...,

This Diamonds diameter is 8.0x7.9mm. at 1.65 carats (actual weight)
If you calculate this diameter at let say 65% td you will get a 2.65 carat Diamond.

This is an extreme example of a very flat Diamond cut correctly to bring out its maximum beauty...

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/30/2007 1:58:02 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 7/30/2007 10:40:40 AM
Author: JohnQuixote
Cool specimens DG. Are these primarily from macles and flats?

John... these are images of one 'speciment' only..., and yes, this Diamond was cut out of a flat rough...

OK, I thought the bottom 2 were a different stone (shame on me for skimming). For a minute there I thought you'd cornered the market on nice work with flats.

Cool stone - do you have more examples?

 

[diagem]

Date: 7/30/2007 2:51:26 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 7/30/2007 1:58:02 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 7/30/2007 10:40:40 AM
Author: JohnQuixote
Cool specimens DG. Are these primarily from macles and flats?

John... these are images of one ''speciment'' only..., and yes, this Diamond was cut out of a flat rough...

OK, I thought the bottom 2 were a different stone (shame on me for skimming). For a minute there I thought you''d cornered the market on nice work with flats.

Cool stone - do you have more examples?

Umm..., thats an idea...

I have a few more...

 

[Stone Hunter]

I too looked at a very flat cushion and decided against it. It''s inclusions looked scary under a loop and the jeweler didn''t understand my question asking whethor there were inclusions that broke the surface.

But for nicely cut shallow stones I bet there''d be a market

 

[Pandora II]

I have seen some very nice, very old flat stones in exhibitions (talking 1500s here.)

Obviously they are nothing like a modern cut but they are rather beautiful in their own way.

My feeling is that they look better as pendants or centre piece of a major necklace or perhaps a brooch rather than a ring stone where people will expect fire and sparkle above other qualities.