When you have no junk in the trunk

[caolsen]

We all know that carat is an expression of weight but I thought I would share this as a point of reference for those first time shoppers in the forum.

The two diamonds this picture are both from Alex Parks. The OMC is 1.96 carats the double rose cut is 1.06 carats.

Since the rose cut doesn’t have a pavilion nearly all of its weight is viewable and creates huge amounts of finger coverage.

The OMC has that classic tall, puffy-top look that so many of us adore but that does mean that a good deal of the weight isn’t visible as spread.

For those buyers who are looking for maximum finger coverage, the power of the fancy cut can’t be denied.

 

[bright&shiny]

Love the title! - and a great point!

 

[nala]

Omg!!! Yes!! I love the elongated look of a fancy!! Ever so flattering! Love your ring!

 

[yssie]

One might have no junk in the trunk, but with the right pushup and support up top - oh, yeah, heads will turn

 

[dk168]

I love them both!

Not sure if I would buy a Rose Cut diamond though, however, an OEC is on my wish list.

DK

 

[Rockdiamond]

I've always been a fan of "spready" stones.
Sometimes there's no deficiency in light performance in shallow fancy shapes.
But even if there is a slight lessening of brilliance, it always seemed to me that a trade-off of smaller size, less leakage versus a larger surface area, with a slightly greater amount of leakage is a valid discussion.
That sentiment wasn't received too well at times

 

[caolsen]

I've always been a fan of "spready" stones.
Sometimes there's no deficiency in light performance in shallow fancy shapes.
But even if there is a slight lessening of brilliance, it always seemed to me that a trade-off of smaller size, less leakage versus a larger surface area, with a slightly greater amount of leakage is a valid discussion.
That sentiment wasn't received too well at times

#embracethespread

 

[Rockdiamond]

That sentiment wasn't received too well at times

To expand upon this- to those that didn't witness the many discussions about this over the years...
The entire terminology of "leakage" and "light performance" is prejudicial towards one type of cut.
Part of the issue that that neither term takes onto account surface area- and how much that affects how a diamond looks.
Of course, on the other side, that sounds like heresy!!
Leakage isn't bad????

 

[canuk-gal]

HI:

LOL. Junk in any kind of trunk is "no good".

cheers--Sharon

 

[caolsen]

To expand upon this- to those that didn't witness the many discussions about this over the years...
The entire terminology of "leakage" and "light performance" is prejudicial towards one type of cut.
Part of the issue that that neither term takes onto account surface area- and how much that affects how a diamond looks.
Of course, on the other side, that sounds like heresy!!
Leakage isn't bad????

I’m not an expert, but sometimes I feel a s if we get into an analysis paralysis situation with all the tools we have nowadays. To me, light leaking is often one of those cases. People bought diamonds for many years and made excellent selections based on significantly less sophistication and data than we have today.

 

[missy]

I'm an equal opportunity junk in trunk lover.

 

[Mreader]

I recognize that rose cut ring. Did it belong to member?? I swear I’ve seen it on another forum. It’s a lovely ring.

 

[caolsen]

I recognize that rose cut ring. Did it belong to member?? I swear I’ve seen it on another forum. It’s a lovely ring.

Yes, I bought it from another PricesScoper recently.