- Joined
- Nov 16, 2003
- Messages
- 645
All,
I stumbled on a discussion of Phil Youngman''s Passion Flower and Excalibur patented diamond cuts by accident this morning. Not sure why the discussion was closed but I would like to reopen it. Stormdre made the point that both were old colored gem cuts that should not be used for diamond. Found that comment interesting because I profoundly disagree.
Here is the review I posted in September 2007 on my blog: GemWise:
Fast forward to Tucson 04, Phil had several of his new cuts, he also has developed a round he calls Passion Flower, the interesting thing about these stones is that they seemed to follow me, they didn''t wink out as soon as I passed the perpendicular view. Unlike most well cut diamonds that look great when viewed perpendicular to the table, these stones still looked good 5-10 degrees off axis. And the dispersion! Most of you know that both The Gemological Institute of America GIA) and The American Gem Society Lab (AGS) spent much of the past decade researching the so-called ideal cut round. In the process GIA created a computer program that traced light return in 10,000 sets of theoretical proportions. The result; what I dubbed in 1991 the "super ideal cut."
Is it truly super?, you bet its the world''s champion of total light return, that means it returns around 95% of the light that enters the crown of the stone back to the eye in the form of brilliance. Unfortunately in the process of maximizing brilliance, the super ideal has lost its soul. That last point may require a bit of explanation.
Brilliance in a diamond is one of the two major characteristics that makes a diamond beautiful. The other dispersion, the break up of light into its constituent rainbow parts. Most of the new ideals seem to have sacrificed dispersion for light delivery and sacrificed a great deal in the process. The Excalibur has not!
As part of the twenty year process that produced his two patented cuts, Youngman has developed a diamond that seems to maximize both brilliance and dispersion without sacrificing either. How?, by paying attention to how the diamond looks as it moves! The programs used to develop the super ideal was basically static. Youngman''s objective was, by contrast, dynamic. Hey the finger moves! Eighty-five percent of the diamonds sold today end up on the finger and it is on the finger, in motion that Youngman''s cuts shine. Both have the high crown and small table that many connoisseurs appreciate in the Old European and Old Mine Cuts.
Excalibur and Passion Flower have both been tested by GemEx, a company that grades diamonds by using a machine called a brilliancescope to measure brilliance, dispersion and scintillation. Excalibur achieves the highest grades, Very High, in all three categories; Passion Flower grades on the line between high/very high in brilliance (white light return) and scintillation and very high in dispersion (colored light return).
Love to hear your comments.
I stumbled on a discussion of Phil Youngman''s Passion Flower and Excalibur patented diamond cuts by accident this morning. Not sure why the discussion was closed but I would like to reopen it. Stormdre made the point that both were old colored gem cuts that should not be used for diamond. Found that comment interesting because I profoundly disagree.
Here is the review I posted in September 2007 on my blog: GemWise:
Fast forward to Tucson 04, Phil had several of his new cuts, he also has developed a round he calls Passion Flower, the interesting thing about these stones is that they seemed to follow me, they didn''t wink out as soon as I passed the perpendicular view. Unlike most well cut diamonds that look great when viewed perpendicular to the table, these stones still looked good 5-10 degrees off axis. And the dispersion! Most of you know that both The Gemological Institute of America GIA) and The American Gem Society Lab (AGS) spent much of the past decade researching the so-called ideal cut round. In the process GIA created a computer program that traced light return in 10,000 sets of theoretical proportions. The result; what I dubbed in 1991 the "super ideal cut."
Is it truly super?, you bet its the world''s champion of total light return, that means it returns around 95% of the light that enters the crown of the stone back to the eye in the form of brilliance. Unfortunately in the process of maximizing brilliance, the super ideal has lost its soul. That last point may require a bit of explanation.
Brilliance in a diamond is one of the two major characteristics that makes a diamond beautiful. The other dispersion, the break up of light into its constituent rainbow parts. Most of the new ideals seem to have sacrificed dispersion for light delivery and sacrificed a great deal in the process. The Excalibur has not!
As part of the twenty year process that produced his two patented cuts, Youngman has developed a diamond that seems to maximize both brilliance and dispersion without sacrificing either. How?, by paying attention to how the diamond looks as it moves! The programs used to develop the super ideal was basically static. Youngman''s objective was, by contrast, dynamic. Hey the finger moves! Eighty-five percent of the diamonds sold today end up on the finger and it is on the finger, in motion that Youngman''s cuts shine. Both have the high crown and small table that many connoisseurs appreciate in the Old European and Old Mine Cuts.
Excalibur and Passion Flower have both been tested by GemEx, a company that grades diamonds by using a machine called a brilliancescope to measure brilliance, dispersion and scintillation. Excalibur achieves the highest grades, Very High, in all three categories; Passion Flower grades on the line between high/very high in brilliance (white light return) and scintillation and very high in dispersion (colored light return).
Love to hear your comments.
300x240.png)