Whiteflash Meets James Allen (Leverback Dangle Earrings)

[Andelain]

Now that is an interesting thought - another layer of complexity! at what degree of 'pinned-backed-ness' does the advantage shift to stones that collect more indirect light, which for these people's studs is actually light from directly in front of their bodies..?
Looking forward to that review

Something else I was thinking about along these lines is that depending on where we are a lot of light comes from an overhead source. Now in the case of our rings, our hands spend a fair amound of time close to horizontal, which puts the diamond facing back up toward the light source. Earrings on the other hand are almost always vertical, which means that overhead light is entering the stone from an angle too. This makes me think a slightly higher crown might perform better. In fact I'm rethinking a lot about what would make a perfect earring diamond. I've decided to go with the GOG AV rounds I have on hold if I can find a setting I like for them.

Another factor I was thinking about is whether of not the wearer has long enough hair to block a lot of light from getting to the earrings. I've noticed when I wear my ACA's and BGD earrings together I can really tell a difference when my hair is down. One pair noticeably outshines the other and I don't think it's just the one color grade difference causing it. In this pic you can see the difference just a little if you look closely. Plus of course you get another ear shot of the danglies.

 

[yssie]

re. above - I would think this is less of an issue since the tops of most people's ears stick out, most women have hair that puffs out over the ears if pushed back behind them, and most earlobes are tucked in under that ridge - so unless the stone is in a v high basket setting I think A) light into pavilion & B) light through the crown from *above* is not a concern - but, again depending on setting and ear structure, light entering from the front will be incident on a different set of facets.. I don't see the diff in the pic but that's not surprising. What have you noticed specifically?

 

[Andelain]

re. above - I would think this is less of an issue since the tops of most people's ears stick out, most women have hair that puffs out over the ears if pushed back behind them, and most earlobes are tucked in under that ridge - so unless the stone is in a v high basket setting I think A) light into pavilion & B) light through the crown from *above* is not a concern - but, again depending on setting and ear structure, light entering from the front will be incident on a different set of facets.. I don't see the diff in the pic but that's not surprising. What have you noticed specifically?

Yes, but do they stick out enough to block the overhead light, especially since it may be coming from angles and different sources? I paid attantion to a couple of women at the DFAC today that had earrings on and in both cases I could see the overhead light reaching the earrings. Now hairstyle can make a big difference. Of course over here we have to keep it tied up, except the civilians who can wear it down if they want. But a woman with short, thin, or tied-up hair isn't going to have that light blockage. Of course now we'll have everyone that wants earrrings getting their ears analyzed before they choose the stones.

As for the difference in the 2 cuts, it's subtle in that pic, and in this one too. But in a nutshell, the WF's are better at white light return and scintillation. When I have the 2 pairs together I sometimes get the impression they're several color grades apart instead of just one. I know I'm color sensitive as hell, but not THAT bad.

 

[yssie]

oh but see the BGDs are right under that big ridge over your earlobe.. now if you just shaved that down a bit..

well, you just can't out-logic what your eyes tell you in any situation. If you put the WFs in the top hole and the bgds in the bottom do you see the same? I will be interested to see your review of the AVRs. With the size difference I'm imagining that avg virtual facet size may be similar to your 0.4 modern RBs, but obviously the shape and distribution is different..

 

[Andelain]

oh but see the BGDs are right under that big ridge over your earlobe.. now if you just shaved that down a bit..

well, you just can't out-logic what your eyes tell you in any situation. If you put the WFs in the top hole and the bgds in the bottom do you see the same? I will be interested to see your review of the AVRs. With the size difference I'm imagining that avg virtual facet size may be similar to your 0.4 modern RBs, but obviously the shape and distribution is different..

Shaved it down a bit... You're a scream.

I've tried even comparing the side-by-side in my hand and the difference is obvious to me. And it's consistant between the stones in each pair. I'm inclined to say it's the cut because both pairs are perfectly matched both on paper and to my eyes. On the same note, there's a real difference on the cut of the 2 earrings that makes the dangling pair. One of the stones is a WF ACA and the other is a HA TH. When I hold them together I can tell them apart readily. I haven't yet seen the inscriptions to verify which is the WF, but would be suprised if I'm wrong about which I think it is.

I'm thinking you'll be right about the size of the virtual facets, and I think that'll make the 2 different cuts actually work well together. I sent Jon an email asking for a video of the AVR's and haven't heard back yet, hopefully tomorrow.

 

[Stephan]

What a gorgeous collection!

 

[Andelain]

What a gorgeous collection!

Thanks QueenMum.

I was trying today to get some pics of just them in my ear, but went through all of them and not one was worth a darn. Sure makes me glad I don't use film anymore!

 

[Amanda738]

They look great but they'd look even better if you had the dangles in the first holes and studs in the seconds

 

[Andelain]

They look great but they'd look even better if you had the dangles in the first holes and studs in the seconds

I wear then in different ways, as my mood dictates.

 

[pregcurious]

I love the dangles!

 

[marcy]

They are gorgeous.