Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Why can’t pear diamonds be optimized for light return too?

Karl_K said:
I have played around with pears and in my opinion someone someday is going to ASETfy a pear cut.
It is going to suck under anything but an ASET scope but hey marketing.
Click to expand...

Can you elaborate a bit by “asetfy”? Like it will look good under ASET, but bad in real life?
 
Cerulean said:
Can you elaborate a bit by “asetfy”? Like it will look good under ASET, but bad in real life?
Click to expand...

Tune the design based on aset theory at the expense of to many tradeoffs in other areas.
aset lighting vs the real world lighting.
Badly broken obstruction model in aset.
there is more......
 
Karl_K said:
Tune the design based on aset theory at the expense of to many tradeoffs in other areas.
aset lighting vs the real world lighting.
Badly broken obstruction model in aset.
there is more......
Click to expand...

So is there any hope for an attractive pear cut? I don’t care about optical perfection - I can’t imagine anyone who loves pear shapes does!

But I’m curious!
 
"Tune the design based on aset theory at the expense of to many tradeoffs in other areas.
aset lighting vs the real world lighting.
Badly broken obstruction model in aset."
This sounds really interesting. A whole new can of worms.
We need a "yabbut" tool.
 
I had a feeling no one was listening.
My explanation as to why those lstones work is the culet is near the center.
If pears were designed to have a culet closer to the center it would be easy to make better performing diampnds (ASET would be easy and they would look good).
The culet in this top diamond is 47.5% of the distance from the bottom to the tip.
1638755881183.png
On this stone it is 46% of the distance

On this typic 1.6 longer than wide modern pear the culet is 30% from the bottom.

1638756183710.png
 
That’s helps a whole
Garry H (Cut Nut) said:
I had a feeling no one was listening.
My explanation as to why those lstones work is the culet is near the center.
If pears were designed to have a culet closer to the center it would be easy to make better performing diampnds (ASET would be easy and they would look good).
The culet in this top diamond is 47.5% of the distance from the bottom to the tip.
1638755881183.png
On this stone it is 46% of the distance

On this typic 1.6 longer than wide modern pear the culet is 30% from the bottom.
Click to expand...
That makes a good deal of sense now, the photos are very helpful.
 

Why can’t pear diamonds be optimized for light return too?​


Because pear shape is not round, or anywhere close to round.
Pear is the diamond shape that's furthest from round, except perhaps for the horse shape I once saw.

The shape called round is perfectly symmetrical.
This lends itself to optimum light return IF all the proportions/facets are optimized for light return as opposed to weight retention - as is the priority of the vast majority of diamonds.

The more a shape departs from round-ness the more hopeless optimum light return becomes regardless of the other proportions.

I think the non-round shape that comes closest to round is the asscher with very wide windmills, like the Octavia.
 
kenny said:

Why can’t pear diamonds be optimized for light return too?​


Because pear shape is not round, or anywhere close to round.
Pear is the diamond shape that's furthest from round, except perhaps for the horse shape I once saw.

The shape called round is perfectly symmetrical.
This lends itself to optimum light return IF all the proportions/facets are optimized for light return as opposed to weight retention - as is the priority of the vast majority of diamonds.

The more a shape departs from round-ness the more hopeless optimum light return becomes regardless of the other proportions.

I think the non-round shape that comes closest to round is the asscher with very wide windmills, like the Octavia.
Click to expand...

Hi Kenny,
Marquise are way way beter than pears and they have a central culet.
They have even longer LxW so shocking terrible symmetry if considered as a round out of round.
I would love to see the culet move closer to the center on pears and my bet is it would improve them out of sight!
1638770831876.png
 
Also something to consider is with the old pears very few of them went into rings, they were far more common in necklaces, bracelets, tiaras and crowns.
At the greater viewing distances shallow was good and bow tie not a factor.
 
Garry H (Cut Nut) said:
Hi Kenny,
Marquise are way way beter than pears and they have a central culet.
They have even longer LxW so shocking terrible symmetry if considered as a round out of round.
I would love to see the culet move closer to the center on pears and my bet is it would improve them out of sight!
1638770831876.png
Click to expand...

Must admit..., is this a sample of what Karl means by ASETfied ? :boohoo:
 
Garry H (Cut Nut) said:
I had a feeling no one was listening.
My explanation as to why those lstones work is the culet is near the center.
If pears were designed to have a culet closer to the center it would be easy to make better performing diampnds (ASET would be easy and they would look good).
The culet in this top diamond is 47.5% of the distance from the bottom to the tip.
1638755881183.png
On this stone it is 46% of the distance

On this typic 1.6 longer than wide modern pear the culet is 30% from the bottom.

1638756183710.png
Click to expand...

Maybe I’m buying into Big Pear^TM but I personally prefer modern pears to antique ones. The visible culet makes me uncomfortable for some reason :eek-2: I can only handle the visible culets in OECs or OMBs.
 
Garry H (Cut Nut) said:
I had a feeling no one was listening.
My explanation as to why those lstones work is the culet is near the center.
If pears were designed to have a culet closer to the center it would be easy to make better performing diampnds (ASET would be easy and they would look good).
The culet in this top diamond is 47.5% of the distance from the bottom to the tip.
1638755881183.png
On this stone it is 46% of the distance

On this typic 1.6 longer than wide modern pear the culet is 30% from the bottom.

1638756183710.png
Click to expand...

This is very helpful. I much prefer the centralized culet - benefit to light return aside, it also makes them look more balanced

I personally do not care about optical perfection - just marginal improvement. If I wanted perfection, I probably would be after a round super ideal! The shape ultimately is what draws me to pears.

That is what I was trying to get at and this explanation is exactly the kind of thing I was failing to grasp but was hoping existed
 
Garry H (Cut Nut) said:
Hi Kenny,
Marquise are way way beter than pears and they have a central culet.
They have even longer LxW so shocking terrible symmetry if considered as a round out of round.
I would love to see the culet move closer to the center on pears and my bet is it would improve them out of sight!
1638770831876.png
Click to expand...

Interesting- I assumed marquise and pears would have many of the same challenges due to do the pointed ends but I see what you mean
 
Garry here is your video.
Its a huge tabled flat top boat.
 
Cerulean said:
Interesting- I assumed marquise and pears would have many of the same challenges due to do the pointed ends but I see what you mean
Click to expand...
marquise is narrow for a given length compared to a pear which changes the whole dynamic.
 
Ok, so if moving the culet more central to the length of the pear would improve light return, then why don't they cut them that way? There must be a detriment, yes?
 
Optimized......that word just doesn't seem to fit...kind of like "How do we "optimize" an elephant, so it looks like a little kitten?"

If you want perfectly symmetrical, get a round!!
There's ZERO "wrong" with asymmetrical.
The facets on the pavilion of a Pear Brilliant are vastly different sizes... creating larger flashes in the middle- and smaller ones at the ends......and that's part of the beauty of a pear.

Or go with a Pear Modified Brilliant, and get "crushed ice"...which can look amazing, espectially in Fancy Colors....but it would never fit with the current description of "optimized" as it's used here.....
 
Rockdiamond said:
Optimized......that word just doesn't seem to fit...kind of like "How do we "optimize" an elephant, so it looks like a little kitten?"

If you want perfectly symmetrical, get a round!!
There's ZERO "wrong" with asymmetrical.
The facets on the pavilion of a Pear Brilliant are vastly different sizes... creating larger flashes in the middle- and smaller ones at the ends......and that's part of the beauty of a pear.

Or go with a Pear Modified Brilliant, and get "crushed ice"...which can look amazing, espectially in Fancy Colors....but it would never fit with the current description of "optimized" as it's used here.....
Click to expand...

By optimized, the intention wasn’t to imply that it’s going to be “perfect” in the way that a round is

No, not at all

I agree that the lack of symmetry and the shape of a pear is what makes them so lovely.

But many of other fancy shaped diamonds have received “makeovers” by talented cutters to improve the qualities that made us love them in the first place.

I love pears, but should not have to settle for a poor cut (which as a consumer seems to proliferate)
 
Karl_K said:
the old small table high top pears are the ultimate pears in my opinion, not the brightest stones but absolute flashballs and fireballs.
Click to expand...

Could we see an example please?
 
There are some very nice pears out there, they are hard to separate from the not so nice ones online however.
The trick would be to make nice ones that retains what makes a pear a pear cut and not a Frankenstein mixed up mess.
But how do you market that?
 
Cerulean said:
By optimized, the intention wasn’t to imply that it’s going to be “perfect” in the way that a round is
Click to expand...

My apologies to you OP!!!
It's perfectly "acceptable" in this forum to use this terminology.
I feel strongly that the verbiage is incorrect...but it is what it is:)

I love great cuts as much as anyone! The "optimized" versions? Not so much always.

Cerulean said:
I love pears, but should not have to settle for a poor cut (which as a consumer seems to proliferate)
Click to expand...

I agree that there's a proliferation of badly cut Fancy Shapes on the market....but part of the issue is that there's no easy way to agree upon what's "best".
A stone that I might consider super well cut....might look horrible on ASET.
Might have leakage.
Might have a dozen other things that can cause consternation in PS think.
What's the most important C????
We all know the stock answer on PS for that question. It's Cut of course.....but who determines which cut is the best in fancy shapes?

SO..... yet again, the words used to discuss fancy shape cuts are prejudicial.....
 
Rockdiamond said:
My apologies to you OP!!!
It's perfectly "acceptable" in this forum to use this terminology.
I feel strongly that the verbiage is incorrect...but it is what it is:)

I love great cuts as much as anyone! The "optimized" versions? Not so much always.



I agree that there's a proliferation of badly cut Fancy Shapes on the market....but part of the issue is that there's no easy way to agree upon what's "best".
A stone that I might consider super well cut....might look horrible on ASET.
Might have leakage.
Might have a dozen other things that can cause consternation in PS think.
What's the most important C????
We all know the stock answer on PS for that question. It's Cut of course.....but who determines which cut is the best in fancy shapes?

SO..... yet again, the words used to discuss fancy shape cuts are prejudicial.....
Click to expand...

No harm no foul!

I’m a bit of a plebeian walking amongst actual experts hah - I may not know how to describe it, but I know what I like and don’t like

My rambling can be reduced to a simple frustration with finding pears that just look…pretty.

I shop with my eyes. I get overwhelmed by numbers and ASETs and am not the target market for super ideals (although I truly understand their appeal and find them lovely).

So I understand the complexity around defining ideal here. With numbers, you can assess beauty more objectively. But I’m sure beauty for fancy cuts it is more subjective…

With pears, it couldn’t possibly be a numbers game - which reminds me of shopping for antique cuts. There are general parameters for narrowing out duds (objectively), but the rest…you just have to see with your eyes and I’d honestly never look at an ASET except as a curiosity if shopping for an antique diamond. Others may feel differently

So how can that “meeting in the middle” happen for fancy cuts like pears? Maybe it’s a pipe dream.
 
Apologies - I forgot that tradepeople wouldn't be able to comment on anything I said since I directly referenced images from various vendors. Instead I'll just say that "middlement" of culet is something I'd never considered!
Garry H (Cut Nut) said:
My explanation as to why those lstones work is the culet is near the center.
Click to expand...
 
Cerulean said:
It may be flat, but it has an appeal. I’d much prefer a nicer profile, however
Click to expand...

It would work well from the point of view that it spreads +2.5ct round equivalent and comes at fancy shape discount.
And unlike most fancy shapes - it has light return at the edges so it actually LOOKS its size.
 
Karl_K said:
Also something to consider is with the old pears very few of them went into rings, they were far more common in necklaces, bracelets, tiaras and crowns.
At the greater viewing distances shallow was good and bow tie not a factor.
Click to expand...

Such a good point! Pear lovers need tiaras!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top