Why the long facets?

[glitterata]

Storm''s suggestion that Shady could have recut her steep-deep as a transition cut by recutting the pavilion with short lgfs, in this thread, made me wonder: Why doesn''t anyone cut short lgfs anymore? So many of us, at least around here, love the chunky look they give OECs and transition cuts. What made modern cutters decide to forego that look?

 

[strmrdr]

lighting, yield and cutting technology.
Basically they cut 2 stones one the weight of the oec or heavier and another smaller stone from the same rough as the earlier oec''s.

Today''s inside lighting is much brighter and until recently very much more direct with the new lighting technologies coming online the lighting is moving back towards being softer and less bright but not to the extent it was back then.
All that adds up to longer lgf% being better.
Modern direct lighting made the princess cut possible for example.

 

[John P]

Date: 1/18/2009 2:21:34 PM
Author: strmrdr
lighting, yield and cutting technology.
Basically they cut 2 stones one the weight of the oec or heavier and another smaller stone from the same rough as the earlier oec's.

Today's inside lighting is much brighter and until recently very much more direct with the new lighting technologies coming online the lighting is moving back towards being softer and less bright but not to the extent it was back then.
All that adds up to longer lgf% being better.
Modern direct lighting made the princess cut possible for example.

Bingo.

Hey Glitterata, if you're interested, there's a great book recapping the evolution of the round from 1850 (and before) to about 1960. Anyone who loves older cuts, transitionals and modern brilliants will enjoy the content. It's very thorough, with great graphics.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0873110595

 

[diamondseeker2006]

John or Storm,

My understanding is that incandescent lighting is being phased out. This sort of worries me because I know diamonds sparkle more in incandescent light than flourescent lighting. Do you think this would have any effect on diamond preference????

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/18/2009 2:31:14 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
John or Storm,


My understanding is that incandescent lighting is being phased out. This sort of worries me because I know diamonds sparkle more in incandescent light than flourescent lighting. Do you think this would have any effect on diamond preference????

yes there will be an effect, it will be interesting to see if it moves slowly or fast.

 

[John P]

Date: 1/18/2009 2:31:14 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
John or Storm,

My understanding is that incandescent lighting is being phased out. This sort of worries me because I know diamonds sparkle more in incandescent light than flourescent lighting. Do you think this would have any effect on diamond preference????

I do think it's going to bridge the gap between the places you buy diamonds (jewelry store lighting) and those where you live and work. This will be a good thing for 'realism' - as it stands we must encourage consumers to view potential buys in many different conditions because of the dichotomy.

In general terms I think the well-cut diamonds that survive through a broad range of lighting now will be just fine. Remember that we live much of our lives in natural and diffused conditions even now. I predict cut precision will have more influence due to the appealing patterns, and not just in rounds. Think about how a great step cut looks in diffused lighting. The chaotic, crushed-ice looks are going to have a hard time.

In conventional cuts (Strm may hate me for saying this) those cutting long lower halves may need to move back a bit. Actually I know he won't hate me for saying that antique cuts may gain some ground. I don't think anyone would complain about that.

 

[glitterata]

Thank you, Storm, for that explanation, and John, for that book link.

As for lighting, I don''t think we know yet what lighting is going to look like, even in the near future. True, they''re phasing out inefficient conventional incandescent bulbs. (Much to my irritation--I hate the look of compact fluorescent bulbs, and I''m otherwise quite energy efficient, thank you very much! I use public transportation or walk everywhere, don''t even own a car, live in a small apartment, use fans to keep cool in the summer, etc. etc. Why should I be forced to save relatively tiny amounts of energy by using hideous lightbulbs, when the rest of the country is allowed to drive SUVs and air condition their mcmansions? But I digress.)

Many people hate the look of compact fluorescents, so I think they will develop more efficient incandescent lighting or other methods of lighting that might react very differently with diamonds.

I believe halogen will still be permitted under the new laws, too.

 

[stone-cold11]

I believe they are going in the direction of LEDs and OLEDs which are much more efficient than CFL but still too expensive when compared to existing competitions.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 1/18/2009 2:27:53 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 1/18/2009 2:21:34 PM
Author: strmrdr
lighting, yield and cutting technology.
Basically they cut 2 stones one the weight of the oec or heavier and another smaller stone from the same rough as the earlier oec''s.

Today''s inside lighting is much brighter and until recently very much more direct with the new lighting technologies coming online the lighting is moving back towards being softer and less bright but not to the extent it was back then.
All that adds up to longer lgf% being better.
Modern direct lighting made the princess cut possible for example.

Bingo.

Hey Glitterata, if you''re interested, there''s a great book recapping the evolution of the round from 1850 (and before) to about 1960. Anyone who loves older cuts, transitionals and modern brilliants will enjoy the content. It''s very thorough, with great graphics.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0873110595

Thanks for the link Sir, I will look into getting that book!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/18/2009 2:44:36 PM
Author: John Pollard

In conventional cuts (Strm may hate me for saying this) those cutting long lower halves may need to move back a bit. Actually I know he won't hate me for saying that antique cuts may gain some ground. I don't think anyone would complain about that.

In smaller stones likely. 80% can hold its own in 1ct+, under that may need to back down in the 76-77 range.
The extra facet cuts under 2ct and princess cuts are the ones it is really going to hurt.

Some of the lighting ideas in the design labs are pretty wild.
What I see is the entire ceiling becoming the light source using plastic panels.
That is the tech that shows the most promise.
During the day they use light pipes and sunlight to excite the panels using no electricity.
At night use oled or leds to do it.

 

[glitterata]

I wonder what home lighting will look like? I hate the look of overhead lighting, myself. Table lamps and floor lamps that cast warm light and shadows look homey to me. I wonder whether we''ll all get used to that diffuse, cloudy-day-sky look at home, or whether they''ll invent more efficient table lamps for those who like them.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/18/2009 5:43:39 PM
Author: glitterata
I wonder what home lighting will look like? I hate the look of overhead lighting, myself. Table lamps and floor lamps that cast warm light and shadows look homey to me. I wonder whether we''ll all get used to that diffuse, cloudy-day-sky look at home, or whether they''ll invent more efficient table lamps for those who like them.

Low wattage HID maybe if they can work out all the bugs.