Old cuts, new cut: eye candy & a question

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/2/2008 6:09:40 PM
Author: glitterata
Hand shot:

They all 3 are yummy but my favorite from the pics is the OEC.

 

[glitterata]

This shows the looking-through-a-glass-of-water look of the TC. Any idea what causes this? Is it related to a fisheye?

 

[diagem]

Date: 9/2/2008 6:06:09 PM
Author: glitterata

**The OEC doesn''t have that watery, see-through quality.

**I find myself wearing the OEC much more.

**I prefer the larger flashes of the OEC.

** But the OEC sometimes has some darkness in the center

I agree....

What you are describing is you like more contrast in your Diamond appearance...

 

[diagem]

Date: 9/2/2008 6:11:09 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 9/2/2008 6:09:40 PM
Author: glitterata
Hand shot:

They all 3 are yummy but my favorite from the pics is the OEC.

Two in a row....

 

[diagem]

Date: 9/2/2008 6:18:27 PM
Author: glitterata
This shows the looking-through-a-glass-of-water look of the TC. Any idea what causes this? Is it related to a fisheye?

No..., not fish-eye..., the specific crown and pavilion angle combination minimize the contrast...

 

[John P]

Beautiful photography Giltterata. You've done a nice job of catching the character of the different cuts: The large 'windows' of color in the older cuts and the smaller 'sizzle' of the modern round brilliant.

Strm, her Crafted By Infinity is 56, 40.7, 34.5 with 74% lower halves (they can range between that and 80%, most are 77-7.

The OEC and transitional are naturally going to have larger colored flashes but a bit more darkness about them. It would be nice to see a comparable sized Infinity amidst your older "monsters." Something nearer their 1.65 and 1.4ish. I'm sure the size difference exaggerates the differences in character of the stones.

Glitterata, as long as you're posting... What lighting condition(s) do you like to look at them under the most?

 

[LGK]

It sure looks like a transitional cut. Flatter crown, larger table, small culet, and the time period is right. It has nice chunky facets still though. I wonder what the depth is? If it is shallow, that & the shallower crown would explain why the OEC is fierier. I''ve seen shallow OECs that have higher crowns/small tables and the center of the stone is pretty quiet, most of the fire is on the outer edges.

That is so cool that you have two diamonds from your grandmothers. They''re beautiful and the settings are amazing.

I think it is interesting that the OEC is your fave, even over the ideal round brilliant. I would lean that way too

it looks amazing! Thanks for the gorgeous pics.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/2/2008 6:18:27 PM
Author: glitterata
This shows the looking-through-a-glass-of-water look of the TC. Any idea what causes this? Is it related to a fisheye?

I cant tell if it is girdle reflection or leakage that is causing it.
c/p angle combo is the primary cause, the lgf% can make it better or worse.

 

[glitterata]

Date: 9/2/2008 6:10:02 PM
Author: strmrdr
You still have the link to the infinity page for the diamond?

No, alas. It''s diamond number 4930, but I can''t figure out how to get to that page on the Infinity website.

I looked at the AGS report again. It definitely says 74% on what I take to be the lower half facet. Maybe I''m not misreading?

I obviously like larger lower halfs!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/2/2008 6:24:33 PM
Author: John Pollard
Strm, her Crafted By Infinity is 56, 40.7, 34.5 with 74% lower halves (they can range between that and 80%, most are 77-7.

Thanks Sir John for the info :}
I think that every one I have checked the data on has been 77 or 78.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/2/2008 6:31:49 PM
Author: glitterata

Date: 9/2/2008 6:10:02 PM

Author: strmrdr

You still have the link to the infinity page for the diamond?

No, alas. It''s diamond number 4930, but I can''t figure out how to get to that page on the Infinity website.


I looked at the AGS report again. It definitely says 74% on what I take to be the lower half facet. Maybe I''m not misreading?


I obviously like larger lower halfs!

Sir John verified that your right.

 

[glitterata]

Oh, I see John was posting while I was looking things up. Thanks, John!

To answer your question, I look at my diamonds the most sitting in my living room working at the computer, with the window behind me. The window faces north to a white-painted brick wall, so it gets tons of southern light bouncing back into my room, enough to make shadows and get orchids to bloom. And it makes my diamonds look very colorful!

I also like to look at them in the bathroom, where the lighting over the mirror makes them sparkle colorfully.

Restaurants and shops with downward-pointing halogen lights are nice too.

I''m sure you''re right about the size difference of the diamonds exaggerating the difference between the OEC/TCs and the Infinity. I do love the Infinity, and I adore its arrows; but the OEC is still my favorite.

 

[John P]

Date: 9/2/2008 6:18:27 PM
Author: glitterata
This shows the looking-through-a-glass-of-water look of the TC. Any idea what causes this? Is it related to a fisheye?

If you''re talking about the grey ring above the red ring I added it does look like girdle reflection (which is related to mister fisheye). Hard to know without the stats, or knowing what degree of tilt we''re seeing. If it appears suddenly after a certain degree of tilt it''s likely that''s what you''re seeing.

 

[glitterata]

More pictures; I hope I''m not boring anyone:

 

[diagem]

Date: 9/2/2008 6:24:33 PM
Author: John Pollard
Beautiful photography Giltterata. You''ve done a nice job of catching the character of the different cuts: The large ''windows'' of color in the older cuts and the smaller ''sizzle'' of the modern round brilliant.

Strm, her Crafted By Infinity is 56, 40.7, 34.5 with 74% lower halves (they can range between that and 80%, most are 77-7.

The OEC and transitional are naturally going to have larger colored flashes but a bit more darkness about them. It would be nice to see a comparable sized Infinity amidst your older ''monsters.'' Something nearer their 1.65 and 1.4ish. I''m sure the size difference exaggerates the differences in character of the stones.

Glitterata, as long as you''re posting... What lighting condition(s) do you like to look at them under the most?

Nice to hear Paul is cutting these with a possibility of 74% lgf''s....

What would the outcome be with a bit smaller table and 70% lgf''s?? Or thats where you get penalized?

 

[glitterata]

Date: 9/2/2008 6:40:08 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 9/2/2008 6:18:27 PM

Author: glitterata

This shows the looking-through-a-glass-of-water look of the TC. Any idea what causes this? Is it related to a fisheye?

If you''re talking about the grey ring above the red ring I added it does look like girdle reflection (which is related to mister fisheye). Hard to know without the stats, or knowing what degree of tilt we''re seeing. If it appears suddenly after a certain degree of tilt it''s likely that''s what you''re seeing.

YEs, that is what I''m talking about. It doesn''t look gray in person--it looks transparent, as though--I don''t really know how to describe it--as though I''m looking through a swimming pool that has a sparkly bottom. Like the sparkliness is at the bottom of the diamond, and there''s clear water above it, filling it up. The gray ring doesn''t appear suddenly.

 

[diagem]

Date: 9/2/2008 6:40:08 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 9/2/2008 6:18:27 PM
Author: glitterata
This shows the looking-through-a-glass-of-water look of the TC. Any idea what causes this? Is it related to a fisheye?

If you''re talking about the grey ring above the red ring I added it does look like girdle reflection (which is related to mister fisheye). Hard to know without the stats, or knowing what degree of tilt we''re seeing. If it appears suddenly after a certain degree of tilt it''s likely that''s what you''re seeing.

I dont seem to notice it in a (pretty much) balanced face-up look...
Only in the tilt position...

Nothing to worry about...

 

[glitterata]

Transition cut showing fire!

 

[John P]

Date: 9/2/2008 6:31:49 PM
Author: glitterata

Date: 9/2/2008 6:10:02 PM
Author: strmrdr

You still have the link to the infinity page for the diamond?

No, alas. It''s diamond number 4930, but I can''t figure out how to get to that page on the Infinity website.

When a diamond is sold we make its web page unavailable to the public, since it is now yours, but the original link should still get you to the page we created for it on the Crafted By Infinity site.

If we have your email on file I''ll re-forward it to you. If I don''t have it I''ll ask Wink to do this when he gets a minute.

I obviously like larger lower halfs!

And there is nothing wrong with that...it''s why you''re an OEC fiend.

 

[glitterata]

Diagem, John, Storm, Kitten--thank you for your thoughtful & informative comments. I really appreciate your perspecitve.

 

[glitterata]

Here are my three diamond rings with my black opal and my tsavorite. (I can''t get the camera to show the tsavorite''s bright, sparkly, grassy green.)

 

[glitterata]

Another perspective. I like the way the OEC and the TC look as though they're whispering secrets:

 

[glitterata]

And one more arrows shot of the Crafted by Infinity. Another difference I notice between the Infinity and my older cuts is that the dark camera reflection only shows up on the Infinity (making the arrows black); my older cuts don''t show that dark reflection. It''s not anything I see in person, just in photos.

 

[icekid]

Date: 9/2/2008 6:41:15 PM
Author: glitterata
More pictures; I hope I''m not boring anyone:

absolutely not... fabulous photos, and what a collection! Most of all I love the heirloom aspect of those beautiful old stones

thank you for sharing!

 

[John P]

Date: 9/2/2008 6:41:36 PM
Author: DiaGem

Nice to hear Paul is cutting these with a possibility of 74% lgf's....

What would the outcome be with a bit smaller table and 70% lgf's?? Or thats where you get penalized?

I would not go down to 70% in a modern rb. To me, if you desire that kind of character, it's better to plan a cushion or an example like you've shown us here.

A smaller table paired with the same CA gives more crown height. If you've been into Tiffany & Co you've likely seen such stones; they typically go for CH near the 16% range, often they achieve this with steeper CA but sometimes smaller table size. As Garry would say, there's somewhat of a brightness vs fire trade-off as you do this but it's subtle, not a bad thing, and depends a lot on lighting really - which is one reason I asked about yours.

Great description by the way. I envy your computer area - I'm surrounded by diffused lighting at mine but we have a breathtaking master bathroom at home with lights/mirrors like yours. I catch the wife in the act of diamond-gazing in there quite often, actually.

 

[John P]

Date: 9/2/2008 6:33:31 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 9/2/2008 6:24:33 PM
Author: John Pollard
Strm, her Crafted By Infinity is 56, 40.7, 34.5 with 74% lower halves (they can range between that and 80%, most are 77-7.

Thanks Sir John for the info :}
I think that every one I have checked the data on has been 77 or 78.

That's definitely the common range. However, while this one was being polished it kept saying "Hey, I'm for Glitterata!...Come on...I'm for Glitterata!" until Paul just rolled his eyes and allowed it to be 74% like it wanted to be.

 

[glitterata]

Is it possible to judge the crown angle from a photo like this, or does the setting get in the way too much? How about the depth?

 

[glitterata]

Here''s a less tilted version, though it''s a little confusingly dazzling because I took it in direct sunlight (I wanted to capture the rainbows).

 

[glitterata]

Date: 9/2/2008 7:17:08 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 9/2/2008 6:33:31 PM

Author: strmrdr

Date: 9/2/2008 6:24:33 PM

Author: John Pollard

Strm, her Crafted By Infinity is 56, 40.7, 34.5 with 74% lower halves (they can range between that and 80%, most are 77-7.

Thanks Sir John for the info :}

I think that every one I have checked the data on has been 77 or 78.

That''s definitely the common range. However, while this one was being polished it kept saying ''Hey, I''m for Glitterata!...Come on...I''m for Glitterata!'' until Paul just rolled his eyes and allowed it to be 74% like it wanted to be.

Awww, the sweet thing!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/2/2008 9:18:58 PM
Author: glitterata
Is it possible to judge the crown angle from a photo like this, or does the setting get in the way too much? How about the depth?

I tried it 3 times and got 3 widely different results for the angle.
Cant do depth because I cant see the bottom part of the stone.