What is "windowing" on the ends of an elongated stone?

[Dee*Jay]

As many of you know I''ve been out looking for a new setting for my recently upgraded oval. Ever since I got the stone I''ve noticed an odd "flatness" on the ends, which I''ve observed in some other ovals too. It is more apparent in some light than in others. Today I was out looking for setting ideas and ended up talking to a jeweler about it. He called it "windowing" but I didn''t get a good understanding of what it really is or what causes it (but he didn''t make it sound like a *good* thing--LOL!).

Does "windowing" make for a BAD oval? Does that that mean it was poorly cut? How could I have not noticed this BEFORE I plunked down all that $$$ when I got it in the first place? (Yes, that last one was a retorical question...)

Any info here will be much appreciated.

 

[Dee*Jay]

Here is a photo to show what I mean (because I''m sure that description didn''t help very much!).

Look at the bottom of the ring where the weird flat "triangle" is.

 

[valeria101]

Well... the pavilion gets 'thinner' towards the tips (on the long axis) as long as the stone has a pointy culet instead of a small keel that would help keep pavilion facets fairly 'constant' in angle and size. Obviously, without this strategy, the pavilion angles on the long axis get shallower. And at a bit of tilt, the tips let the light thought (=window). Hopefully not face down (=too shallow cut). If you were looking at a marquise instead of oval, or the tip of a pear, this would be quite a bit more obviously.

There are exceptions... ovals with radiant style pavilions (e.g. the 'Starburst' branded cut). Some very deep ones (get rid of any loss of tilt brilliance on the long diameter, the other gets a cute bow tie and the whole stone may look a tad darker .. and small

). Basically... that is the nature of the beast, as far as I know. The shallow cut ovals may not show that much - but then... the whole stone is not all that bright.

As much as I can tell. Mostly guessing tough. There aren't many lessons of what makes a very nice oval cut diamonds, and I can't say I have found more than a couple with amazingly consistent brilliance edge to edge (either Starburst, or 70-ish deep) those

Edited to add: Goodness! That is the oval under scrutiny!

Wow! Wish someone did draw a definition of ideal fancies. 'Bet this one would make it.

 

[Dee*Jay]

So, Ana, you don't think this is *bad*? Maybe I should just think of it as a "feature" of this shape of stone.

(The problem, of course, is that I've seen ovals now without this... )

ETA - I forgot to say thanks for the explanation!

 

[valeria101]

I am not sure about this reasoning... but with a photo only to go on... ''thought some might care to comment.

(hope you don''t mind my trying out analytical skills on your question! Don''t take it too seriously).


#1... the bow-tie region shows some arrows... like we know what (on a round, those are eight bow ties, if you wish).

#2... taking the reasoning behind the H&A thing for granted, the respective reflections indicate a narrow band of optimal crown and pavilion combinations (some not quite so optimum, but no train crash)

#3... that''s the short diameter of than oval, the angles on the long are shallower... so they fall below the preferred range, so there might be a bit of leakage here and there give or take. If not too much, that''s just enough to improve contrast, and make the stone a charmer.

From where I stand, this looks like a perfectly happy scenario to be expected from fine oval cut diamonds. But... this is not mine

 

[SuzyQZ]

Dee*Jay:

I was wondering if the type of setting could make windowing more or less noticable? The reason I ask is that I when my radiants were set in a basket type setting, I noticed windowing at the corners. When they were reset into a custom setting, the windowing completely disappeared. I wonder if that was due to the type of setting or to the skill of the jeweler/benchman knowing how to set the stones properly so they show at their best? The diamonds remained the same, but the appearance between the two rings was significantly different. Makes one think that the skill of the jeweler and/or the setting could affect the appearance of your diamond.

 

[Dee*Jay]

SuzyQ - I wondered that too, especially when I was at Dimend Scaasi yesterday looking at a particular setting that was not quite bezel set, but prong set VERY low against a halo. Isaac (at DS) did say yesterday that it''s a very nice oval (and I thought the ends looked just terrible in the lighting in the showroom at that time) so maybe I''m freaked out over nothing.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 4/25/2006 2:38:37 PM
Author: Dee*Jay
So, Ana, you don''t think this is *bad*? Maybe I should just think of it as a ''feature'' of this shape of stone.

(The problem, of course, is that I''ve seen ovals now without this... )

ETA - I forgot to say thanks for the explanation!

You are welcome... but I am no expert cuting ovals... Just my hunch.

I would bet that the ovals w/o that might have been deeper. Or have larger bow ties...

There is some sort of trade off, it seems. Judging from the equally meager amount I caught here and there about how ovals are cut in fancy color stones 9lower RI = even more problems!)... a modified brilliant cut may not be the best of all worlds for an oval. But for diamonds, that almost the only option.

....

PS. edite to add. There is an article in the PS Journal about ovals LINK. with some useful clues.

 

[Dee*Jay]

Ana, thank you for the link. I''m sure much of that info went way over my head, but I think I understand the gist of it.

It''s interesting you mention that the ovals w/o the windowing might be deeper; I actually saw one today without the windowing (which was also the stone that I say yesterday that made me start thinking) that was WAY TOO shallow. The jeweler didn''t bring the cert out with the stone so I don''t know what the depth % was, but I could tell just by looking at it that it was WAY shallower than my stone (and it had a much larger spread than my stone even though they were within .02 ct of each other, which makes sense if it was shallower). What an amazingly ugly bow tie it had too. (Just for reference, my depth is 63.4%, which is a tad on the deep side I think. The table is 53%.)

I think you''re right about the factors all being a trade off to some degree.

 

[SuzyQZ]

Date: 4/25/2006 2:48:55 PM
Author: Dee*Jay
SuzyQ - I wondered that too, especially when I was at Dimend Scaasi yesterday looking at a particular setting that was not quite bezel set, but prong set VERY low against a halo. Isaac (at DS) did say yesterday that it''s a very nice oval (and I thought the ends looked just terrible in the lighting in the showroom at that time) so maybe I''m freaked out over nothing.

Well maybe someone more knowledgeable will chime in.

Can the ring setting style and/or the way the diamond is actually set in the ring hide or eliminate windowing?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 4/25/2006 3:00:16 PM
Author: SuzyQZ


Can the ring setting style and/or the way the diamond is actually set in the ring hide or eliminate windowing?

I think that open prong settings are supposed to be the best for that... but for me, it would be a diamond frame (the sort of halo setting with the center stone set in prongs without ''airline'').

Hope Paul Sledgers sees this thread, too. It would make a nice application to the article

 

[Dee*Jay]

I think that I misspoke when I used the term "windowing." Now that I've had time to look up a few things, windowing implies that you can see through the stone to what's underneath. That's not what's going on here. I think I should more appropriately refer to my "problem areas" as looking like there are flat wide facets. Sorry for using the wrong terminology before!

 

[SuzyQZ]

Date: 4/25/2006 7:08:26 PM
Author: Dee*Jay
I think that I misspoke when I used the term ''windowing.'' Now that I''ve had time to look up a few things, windowing implies that you can see through the stone to what''s underneath. That''s not what''s going on here. I think I should more appropriately refer to my ''problem areas'' as looking like there are flat wide facets. Sorry for using the wrong terminology before!

Don''t feel bad, I don''t know what it''s called either. I would describe it was a "dead" area where the sparkle kind of died out and looked sorta glassy when viewed at an angle. But like I said. I only noticed that effect when it was in a setting that I think was porly made and poorly set. I never noticed anything when the stone was loose, and at first I thought it was just part of the nature of the cut, until I had the stones reset. In the new setting I don''t see any bad areas at all. There are no dead spots, or glassy area anywhere on the diamonds only even sparkles from corner to corner at every angle. The only difference "before" and "after" was the ring setting and the experience of the stone setter. So I attribute the exceptional appearance I see now to the quality of the workmanship and experience of the craftsman in his trade.

I wonder if anyone has taken the same diamond and set it in various different settings to see if the stone is sparklier or more lively depending on how it''s set? i.e., channel, vs. prong vs halo vs bezel etc. I''m sure some shapes would be more affected than others. I would think that a round diamond would vary the least, whereas fancy shapes could benefit from more "flattering" ring settings. Also, I remember reading somewhere that "how" the diamond is set is very important. That there is a technique that needs to be used to make sure the diamond is properly seated in the ring otherwise it will look bad.

 

[lionluv]

Hi. I l have been following your thread as well, and I have a question for SuzyQZ. I have been viewing some "Original Radiant Cut" diamonds locally. Is this what brand of radiants you have, or are yours un-branded? You have responded to a question I posted the other day about these radiants. I was just wondering what kind you have, because like many people who are frequenting this forum, I am freaking out about making the "right'' decision. So - - I should watch out for these dead or glassy areas on the edges of a radiant?

 

[SuzyQZ]

Date: 4/26/2006 8:20:20 PM
Author: lionluv
Hi. I l have been following your thread as well, and I have a question for SuzyQZ. I have been viewing some ''Original Radiant Cut'' diamonds locally. Is this what brand of radiants you have, or are yours un-branded? You have responded to a question I posted the other day about these radiants. I was just wondering what kind you have, because like many people who are frequenting this forum, I am freaking out about making the ''right'' decision. So - - I should watch out for these dead or glassy areas on the edges of a radiant?

Lionluv:
My radiants are NOT Original Radiant Cut diamonds, they are un-branded. My husband and I were on a budget and trying to get the most bang for our buck. We dropped a large chunk''o change for us, but probably not alot compared to other peoples diamond budgets (my ring is 3.53 tcw). We looked at lot and LOTS of radiants, originally we purchased three 1ct stones, but when we looked at them outside in certain lighting we noticed a slight difference in the color of one of the stones compared to the other two, so we took that one back and exchanged it for a another (larger) center stone because we just couldn''t match the "squareness" and the color and clarity. So we ended up with a 1.01 and 1.03 (J) sides and a 1.51 center (H) VS1 & VS2. The only time I had a problem with "windowing" or "glassy dead" areas was when my ring was in a bad setting (it was just a place-holder until we could make a custom ring). After the diamonds were reset, there was NO windowing or glassy/dead areas whatsoever. I attributed the new custom quality setting and expert craftsmans who set my diamonds to the excellent result. Sparkle from corner to corner, at any angle.

So I what I''m saying is this. Make sure you have a 100% return option so you can see your diamond in many different lighting environments so if you don''t like it, take it back and start again. If it looks good to YOUR EYE and you like it, buy it! Use the charts and grades as a guideline but not as the "end-all" rule. My husband has the patience of Job AND an excellent eye for cut and color. I could not have done it without him. It WAS hard matching 3 radiant diamonds. If you are looking for one, it should be easier. Just go out to lots of jewelry stores and look in magazines, go visit some diamond dealers (don''t let them pressure you into buying!) and get a feel for the type of radiant you like. I LOVE my ring and I''m glad my husband stuck it out and was willing to go back over and over again until we got it just right!

I am NOT and expert, just and average consumer, 40-something, working mother of two teenagers.

It IS stessful making such a big investment! And there is some buyers remorse (sometimes). A good return policy with adequate time to see and decide will give you peace of mind.

Good Luck in your search!

 

[diamondfan]

What is important, to me, is that you love it totally. I hate when someone (who is not paying for it or living with it!) tries to talk you into something or convince you of something you do not agree with. Do not let anyone "bully" you when taste is concerned...I had to tell someone once, okay, if you love it so much, YOU buy it and keep it!