Pear proportions

[FB.]

Would someone be prepared to stick their neck out to comment on the likelihood of success with an unusual set of pear proportions?

Weight: 1.07ct
Length: 9.48mm
Width: 5.75mm
L:W 1.65
Total depth: 3.32mm - 57.7%
Table 3.17mm - 55.1%
Crown angle: 32.9''
Pavilion angle: 39.1''
Crown height: 14.8%
Pavilion depth: 40.7%
Girdle: 2.3% (2.1 - 2.6)

My slight concern is the total depth - is it a bit shallow? I would normally lean towards low 60''s total depth for a pear.

I appreciate that fancy shapes are tricky by numbers alone, but that''s the best that I can get without a visual inspection (which makes for a lot more time and hassle to arrange and I''d rather avoid taking the time out to view a low-probability stone).

Thanks,

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 10/28/2009 4:46:48 AM
Author:FB.
Would someone be prepared to stick their neck out to comment on the likelihood of success with an unusual set of pear proportions?

Weight: 1.07ct
Length: 9.48mm
Width: 5.75mm
L:W 1.65
Total depth: 3.32mm - 57.7%
Table 3.17mm - 55.1%
Crown angle: 32.9'
Pavilion angle: 39.1'
Crown height: 14.8%
Pavilion depth: 40.7%
Girdle: 2.3% (2.1 - 2.6)

My slight concern is the total depth - is it a bit shallow? I would normally lean towards low 60's total depth for a pear.

I appreciate that fancy shapes are tricky by numbers alone, but that's the best that I can get without a visual inspection (which makes for a lot more time and hassle to arrange and I'd rather avoid taking the time out to view a low-probability stone).

Thanks,

I would get some pics FB, these numbers could work IMO although it is a bit shallow in the depth as you say, proportionally it isn't bad at all. Put it this way, I wouldn't be disinterested in this diamond but I would DEFINITELY want pictures before serious consideration for purchase. Do you know to what extent a bow tie shows on this pear and does the seller have it in house?

 

[FB.]

I asked about bowtie and was told that it is minimal.

What makes you say;
"...I wouldn't be disinterested in this diamond..." ?

Doesn't the shallow depth concern you?
Isn't the shallow crown and pavilion going to cause moderate leakage - especially since the stone gets even shallower towards the ends?

The stone is certainly richly priced comapred to others available, so I would expect that it's either excellent, or a rip-off.
The stone is about five years old, which also concerns me. Why hasn't someone else bought it already?

 

[ct-appr]

I appreciate that fancy shapes are tricky by numbers alone, but that''s the best that I can get without a visual inspection (which makes for a lot more time and hassle to arrange and I''d rather avoid taking the time out to view a low-probability stone)./

Is the seller a dealer or a private? In either case, ask them to get an ASET image of the stone. This will show how it is performing.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 10/28/2009 6:52:30 AM
Author: FB.
I asked about bowtie and was told that it is minimal.

What makes you say;
''...I wouldn''t be disinterested in this diamond...'' ?

Doesn''t the shallow depth concern you?
Isn''t the shallow crown and pavilion going to cause moderate leakage - especially since the stone gets even shallower towards the ends?

The stone is certainly richly priced comapred to others available, so I would expect that it''s either excellent, or a rip-off.
The stone is about five years old, which also concerns me. Why hasn''t someone else bought it already?

Maybe I used the wrong term....Put it this way, I would rather see a stone with a little more depth but the rest of the proportions and the crown height are good, so it is worth further investigation on the basis of that. Its very difficult to say with the crown and pavilion measurements in a pear without images as to what effect they are going to have, again it comes down to images being needed.

Who is selling the diamond, is it with one of the vendors?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 10/28/2009 6:57:50 AM
Author: ct-appr

I appreciate that fancy shapes are tricky by numbers alone, but that''s the best that I can get without a visual inspection (which makes for a lot more time and hassle to arrange and I''d rather avoid taking the time out to view a low-probability stone)./

Is the seller a dealer or a private? In either case, ask them to get an ASET image of the stone. This will show how it is performing.

Paul just in case this helps you from noticing the quote above, if you want to quote some text directly, just reply to the post containing the text you want to quote, once you have the reply box open hit the blue quote button at the top left hand side and voila! It will appear in the reply box.

 

[ct-appr]

Date: 10/28/2009 7:01:58 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 10/28/2009 6:57:50 AM

Author: ct-appr

Paul just in case this helps you from noticing the quote above, if you want to quote some text directly, just reply to the post containing the text you want to quote, once you have the reply box open hit the blue quote button at the top left hand side and voila! It will appear in the reply box.

Thanks Lorelei. I have been trying to figure this out.

 

[ct-appr]

Back to the issue. PS diamonds are slow movers, you should be able to get a good price especially in this economy.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 10/28/2009 7:09:13 AM
Author: ct-appr

Date: 10/28/2009 7:01:58 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 10/28/2009 6:57:50 AM

Author: ct-appr

Paul just in case this helps you from noticing the quote above, if you want to quote some text directly, just reply to the post containing the text you want to quote, once you have the reply box open hit the blue quote button at the top left hand side and voila! It will appear in the reply box.

Thanks Lorelei. I have been trying to figure this out.

YAY! Glad to help!

 

[oldminer]

The parameters provided show a shallow stone with a full crown height. This leaves the pavilion even more relatively shallow. I''d predict the ASET will give you the same message about less than best levels of light return. Many folks buy a pear shape for its lovely outliine in spite of less light return and that''s perfectly okay, so long as you are aware of what is going on. The parameters do tell a lot of the story about what one should expect about brilliancy, but they are not perfect as one''s own eyes in making a final choice.

 

[John P]

Date: 10/28/2009 6:52:30 AM
Author: FB.

The stone is certainly richly priced comapred to others available, so I would expect that it''s either excellent, or a rip-off.
The stone is about five years old, which also concerns me. Why hasn''t someone else bought it already?

Color, clarity & finish usually factor into this more than cut. You''ve likely considered that but I thought it worth a mention. A notable inclusion in SI (or VS) can lead to a price break. Pears are often cut from macles so I''d also check into any twinning wisps if present (admittedly a personal tic). Another thought, given the age, is to ask if this diamond was previously owned and then traded-up.

If all checks out and looks beautiful to you - enjoy the bargain.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 10/28/2009 6:52:30 AM
Author: FB.
I asked about bowtie and was told that it is minimal.

What makes you say;
''...I wouldn''t be disinterested in this diamond...'' ?

Doesn''t the shallow depth concern you?
Isn''t the shallow crown and pavilion going to cause moderate leakage - especially since the stone gets even shallower towards the ends?

The stone is certainly richly priced compared to others available, so I would expect that it''s either excellent, or a rip-off.
The stone is about five years old, which also concerns me. Why hasn''t someone else bought it already?

HI all!

FB- some of my favorite pear shapes have had depths in the ''50''s.
I''ve even seen gorgeous stones with depths in the high ''40''s.
A big plus is that they usually look very large for their weight.

IMO it makes no sense at all attempting to judge the cut of a pear shape diamond based on the numbers.
If you have observed "leakage" in other diamonds, and you find it a bother, you''re still going to have to look at this diamond to see if it leaks.


In terms of the age: John made a good point- maybe it was traded in- or maybe it''s a dog in person- or maybe it''s just a matter of coincidence.
You said the stone is "richly priced"- others have assumed you meant low priced- it sound to me as if it''s more costly than comparable diamonds based on your statement.

Does the stone have a GIA report?
If you''d ;like to post the color clarity and price maybe we can give you some better info on the price

 

[oldminer]

One may love a leaky diamond...........No question about it. They may never even consider that it is not highly brilliant and may only see the beauty in it. People are often blinded by love and diamonds are no exception.

However, for a person concerned about higher ranges of light return, a well cut diamond with a standard facet pattern of 57 to 58% % depth can''t return as much light as an equally well cut, standard facet pattern 61-63% depth stone. Karl and other stone engineer types can probably prove such a statement with great probability. These are inherent facts of light behavior in a substance with such consistent and specific optical properties that this general sort of prediction is relatively infallible.

Again, someone may prefer the shallower stone and that is perfectly fine with all of us. Light return does not automatically equate with individual concepts of what is the most personally beautiful stone. Light return is a scientific measure that we still do not have a complete standardized system for, but we can make very finite measurements of it under various lighting models. Science and beauty just don''t go hand in hand in all cases.

There are many dealers who have constantly said they cannot judge a diamond by its parameters. Many of them could, but just have never spent the time to familiarize themselves with how well the numbers work. They look at actual diamonds and that works for them. By repeatedly saying this, they put a small seed of doubt in the minds of consumers who might want to trust some numerical screening tools in hopes of getting them to put their trust in the seller''s potentially biased opinion instead. Personally, I prefer unbiased numbers to seller''s opinions on many levels. Consumers are free to do both and see how it all comes out. Both ways can work, but they are not the same.

Those dealers who never use numbers rarely wish to screen unseen stones. However, other dealers can, and do, look at parameters for distant stones which are not sitting on their desks. They grow very accustomed to doing screening by the numbers. It works in spite of those who say they don''t do it that way.

Screening tools such as the HCA for rounds, the AGA Cut Class grades for rounds and fancies are low tech, free and reasonably reliable methods to use which create no problems for those who have employed them in their search for the perfect diamond. By using screening tools, you may miss a very fine looking diamond which has some screening issue that you might have been able to live very well with. Those diamonds which come close to the borderline deserve a look, too. What you will like the best may prove to be a bit of a compromise from the best in every category. No harm in selecting what you want so long as you understand the nature of the stone and the value of the deal.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 10/28/2009 2:11:05 PM
Author: oldminer
One may love a leaky diamond...........No question about it. They may never even consider that it is not highly brilliant and may only see the beauty in it. People are often blinded by love and diamonds are no exception.

However, for a person concerned about higher ranges of light return, a well cut diamond with a standard facet pattern of 57 to 58% % depth can't return as much light as an equally well cut, standard facet pattern 61-63% depth stone. Karl and other stone engineer types can probably prove such a statement with great probability. These are inherent facts of light behavior in a substance with such consistent and specific optical properties that this general sort of prediction is relatively infallible.

Again, someone may prefer the shallower stone and that is perfectly fine with all of us. Light return does not automatically equate with individual concepts of what is the most personally beautiful stone. Light return is a scientific measure that we still do not have a complete standardized system for, but we can make very finite measurements of it under various lighting models. Science and beauty just don't go hand in hand in all cases.

There are many dealers who have constantly said they cannot judge a diamond by its parameters. Many of them could, but just have never spent the time to familiarize themselves with how well the numbers work. They look at actual diamonds and that works for them. By repeatedly saying this, they put a small seed of doubt in the minds of consumers who might want to trust some numerical screening tools in hopes of getting them to put their trust in the seller's potentially biased opinion instead. Personally, I prefer unbiased numbers to seller's opinions on many levels. Consumers are free to do both and see how it all comes out. Both ways can work, but they are not the same.

Those dealers who never use numbers rarely wish to screen unseen stones. However, other dealers can, and do, look at parameters for distant stones which are not sitting on their desks. They grow very accustomed to doing screening by the numbers. It works in spite of those who say they don't do it that way.

Screening tools such as the HCA for rounds, the AGA Cut Class grades for rounds and fancies are low tech, free and reasonably reliable methods to use which create no problems for those who have employed them in their search for the perfect diamond. By using screening tools, you may miss a very fine looking diamond which has some screening issue that you might have been able to live very well with. Those diamonds which come close to the borderline deserve a look, too. What you will like the best may prove to be a bit of a compromise from the best in every category. No harm in selecting what you want so long as you understand the nature of the stone and the value of the deal.

Funny, from where I sit, it sounds like people who have no idea what a diamond looks like are trying to put doubt into people's minds based on "leakage" - which is by no means an agreed upon problem in the diamond industry.
The way people see brilliance in a diamond is subjective. Period.
If 20 people say one stone is better, and can "prove it", what about the 20 people preferring the other? We need to tell them they like something that is "lesser" right?
Isn't there something wrong with quantifying something that does not follow set patterns- that being, people's perceptions and how they like things.
How can anyone say that a 55% diamond is less brilliant than another without comparing the two?
The answer: By attempting to correlate numbers to a diamond's appearance. By using graphs that many in the industry feel are biased, and miss the point entirely.
The tools David referred to as never causing a problem for buyers have indeed caused confusion and problems for some buyers.


I always look at the numbers of diamonds as we buy them. But I won't buy a diamond unseen.
The fact is that many times I'm surprised by how it looks, compared to the numbers- especially true in fancy shapes. Maybe there are dealers buying round diamonds based solely on numbers- although I highly doubt that one as well.
Many dealers sell them based on numbers, but as far as putting down their own hard earned money to actually buy it? No dealer I know would buy a diamond sight unseen.

 

[LD]

So long as the price was right, I would certainly get it for a look. This is mine and the stats are 9.20 x 5.65 x 3.25 - so very very similar to the one you're considering. The bowtie is minimal and it PERFORMS! BTW it's 1.01ct, SI2 and I in colour with strong blue fluor.

 

[oldminer]

"The tools David referred to as never causing a problem for buyers have indeed caused confusion and problems for some buyers."


Of all of this, the above is our only small point I''d bother to dispute. We may word our replies differently, but RD and I are similar in many respects. I think the confusion has been handed to sellers who were unprepared to handle discussions of HCA, AGA Cut Class, I-S, ASET, etc, etc. Surely, some consumers get swept up in the chase and do get confused, too. We see this on Pricescope where someone is begging for help and is badly confused about choosing a stone. However, from the trenches, dealers have been blindsided by technology, handy tools, parameters, etc, etc. Many just don''t have the educational background or time to learn about these things. It has been very tough and confusing for many of them. RD may be a controversial figure here, but to his vast credit he IS HERE and not avoiding the process of learning and sharing. There may be much he disagrees with, but at least his eyes and ears are open to the debate. This is a positive element in the overall sea of negativity that frequnetly and unfortunately often surrounds retailer / consumer relations.

All of the experts here want consumers to find the right diamond for them. We don''t want badly constructed tools to hamper their search, just as we don''t want misinformation to be passed through as if it were unquestioned truth. In the middle path of all of this, is great information which makes buying a diamond a better experience. This is what everyone must pursue.

 

[diagem]

Date: 10/28/2009 4:46:48 AM
Author:FB.
Would someone be prepared to stick their neck out to comment on the likelihood of success with an unusual set of pear proportions?

Weight: 1.07ct
Length: 9.48mm
Width: 5.75mm
L:W 1.65
Total depth: 3.32mm - 57.7%
Table 3.17mm - 55.1%
Crown angle: 32.9''
Pavilion angle: 39.1''
Crown height: 14.8%
Pavilion depth: 40.7%
Girdle: 2.3% (2.1 - 2.6)

My slight concern is the total depth - is it a bit shallow? I would normally lean towards low 60''s total depth for a pear.

I appreciate that fancy shapes are tricky by numbers alone, but that''s the best that I can get without a visual inspection (which makes for a lot more time and hassle to arrange and I''d rather avoid taking the time out to view a low-probability stone).

Thanks,

Before we start analyzing numbers..., shouldnt we find out first if its a 4 or 8 fold pavilion?

My guess its a 4 fold..., and if cut correctly they can definitely compliment a shallow Pear...

I also believe the crown & pavilion degree numbers you posted are average numbers..., so no chance to even guess...

It could be a killer Pear Shape

..., or....

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thank you very much for your post David.
It''s true- when we''ve spoken on the phone, I find that we do agree on so many aspects of diamonds that we''ve discussed.

I think an important point here is that no one system of selection is right for everyone.
Some buyers use the HCA with great results- others are confused as they''ve been impressed with stones that may have done poorly on HCA.
Some buyers are very concerned about aspects of the diamond that other buyers have no interest at all in.

I think the ability to discuss both without making either "wrong" benefits everyone. Your post framed it that way- and I appreciate it.

I really like what you wrote about how ALL of the experts posting here do have a genuine desire to assist consumers in getting a good deal, on a diamond they love. In other words, helping to educate them.
That we see the education, and aspects of it differently can only enrich readers who get to decide for themselves- while hearing different viewpoints.

LD-Id say your pear shape was nice, but come on, how can a pear shape with 57.5% depth be pretty? It''s waaaaay too shallow

KIDDING!!!
the stone and ring look lovely!!

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 10/28/2009 5:54:39 PM
Author: DiaGem
Before we start analyzing numbers..., shouldnt we find out first if its a 4 or 8 fold pavilion?

My guess its a 4 fold..., and if cut correctly they can definitely compliment a shallow Pear...


I also believe the crown & pavilion degree numbers you posted are average numbers..., so no chance to even guess...


It could be a killer Pear Shape

..., or....

DiaGem is right that is going to make a huge difference.

Also there are some cutting tricks that can be applied, digging and painting arent just for rounds.
Particularly for the facets under the pointed end.
I have seen some where the numbers predicted bad things that were not bad because the cutter modified them.
The best option is to get an aset image.
Even better would be a strait up aset image and one at 15 degrees of tilt or a video.

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 10/28/2009 2:11:05 PM
Author: oldminer
However, for a person concerned about higher ranges of light return, a well cut diamond with a standard facet pattern of 57 to 58% % depth can''t return as much light as an equally well cut, standard facet pattern 61-63% depth stone. Karl and other stone engineer types can probably prove such a statement with great probability. These are inherent facts of light behavior in a substance with such consistent and specific optical properties that this general sort of prediction is relatively infallible.

Hi Dave,
In general the best all around performance will be often found in the mid-range and in some designs on the deep end(step cuts that is often the case, princess cuts and oec are some more).
The best raw light return is often in the shallow range in some designs.
But they often(not always) do not make for the most beautiful diamonds because they have no life.
There is always a trade off to be made.

The ones that are the real problem are when the pavilion does not compliment the crown. (which is what the hca is all about, removing the ones that don''t compliment from consideration)
These are often found in shallow or deep combinations for diamonds on the common market but can be found in the normal range also.

 

[FB.]

Thanks to all who replied - some very interesting answers and viewpoints.

The pear listed above has six pavilion (main) facets; three on each side.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 10/28/2009 7:48:49 PM
Author: Karl_K

Date: 10/28/2009 2:11:05 PM
Author: oldminer
However, for a person concerned about higher ranges of light return, a well cut diamond with a standard facet pattern of 57 to 58% % depth can''t return as much light as an equally well cut, standard facet pattern 61-63% depth stone. Karl and other stone engineer types can probably prove such a statement with great probability. These are inherent facts of light behavior in a substance with such consistent and specific optical properties that this general sort of prediction is relatively infallible.

Hi Dave,
In general the best all around performance will be often found in the mid-range and in some designs on the deep end(step cuts that is often the case, princess cuts and oec are some more).
The best raw light return is often in the shallow range in some designs.
But they often(not always) do not make for the most beautiful diamonds because they have no life.
There is always a trade off to be made.

The ones that are the real problem are when the pavilion does not compliment the crown. (which is what the hca is all about, removing the ones that don''t compliment from consideration)
These are often found in shallow or deep combinations for diamonds on the common market but can be found in the normal range also.

You''re welcome FB!

Considering what''s been discussed here on this thread,I''d like to suggest that Karl''s statement ( in bold) is part of the problem.
I may have been guilty of making such statements as well- I try to avoid them now.
Changing "not the most beautiful diamonds" to " diamonds that are not my preference" is really more accurate, and does not place Karl''s ( or any one''s ) taste above another person''s.

Isn''t it true that each of us decides what is beautiful?

 

[Mrs Mitchell]

Very true! Not even just what's beautiful, but what's appealing and I don't think they're always exactly the same thing.

I have a diamond that is objectively quite ugly. (Not bought from anyone here, I should add). Even for an OMC, it's squint, uneven, badly included and heavily tinted. I love it. My friends are polite about it, but clearly think it's fugly. It makes me smile every time I wear it though. There's just something about it.

FB, have you any photos of the pear?