These are Michael's photos that he took for me. I really like what I see for the most part, so I think I will check it out in person. And if I don't love it I can send it back.
MTG this is why I asked what you wanted to achieve from a re-cut. It is incredibly difficult to find a roval (or an Oval for that matter) that has no bowtie whatsoever. In all of the above pictures, the bowtie is actually fairly minimal and in some pictures you don''t even notice it. Bearing that in mind, I''m not certain that a recut, where you''ll lose carat weight and stand to potentially lose colour also, would be sensible. If the colour of the sapphire knocks you out when you see it, the chances are you''ll focus on the that rather than the stone''s imperfections!
You've misread my post. I wasn't implying that at all. Any fancy cut gemstone may suffer from the curse of a bowtie. In my experience, the worse bowties I've seen have been in pears and ovals. Rovals can suffer from bowties but if you re-read my post you'll see I was saying that I didn't think that it was particularly bad in this roval.
Date: 4/28/2010 4:09:06 PM
Author: Michael_E
So do round diamonds...except they call them ''arrows'' and make them a marketing point.
A bow tie is nothing more than a reflection of the viewer. To get rid of it, just back up a ways. If you want to avoid it in a stone design, just avoid facets which are close to being directly opposing on the pavilion. The problem with long, thin stones,(or any stone design with flattish sides), is that the sides of both the girdle and the pavilion are flattish. A barion, being more strongly curved in the pavilion, can avoid having those angled opposing facets and so has a much smaller bow-tie. I would imagine that a long thin stone would respond pretty well to concave cutting to avoid this. At least it would thin out the ''bow-tie'' and turn it into a ''mustache''.
300x240.png)
