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

[caolsen]

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.....

This. All day long. Is a Monet a perfect representation of human form? Nope. Did Van Gogh paint his Sunflowers with photo realism? Double nope. Are they beautiful peace’s of art that make one’s heart sing. Yes. Hence why I don’t care a fig for ASETs.

 

[caolsen]

It may be flat, but it has an appeal. I’d much prefer a nicer profile, however

My pear is flat. I love that about pears. A shallow cut can still look great and create great wearability even in larger carats.

 

[Cerulean]

My pear is flat. I love that about pears. A shallow cut can still look great and create great wearability even in larger carats.

Oh I can see that! I am also so used to my OEC - but that doesn’t mean a larger flat table doesn’t work with other cuts

 

[clcat120]

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?

Consumers just have to look harder. Everyone should see in person the fancy shape stones live…
I always thought I have a very high standard in the cut and light performance of the diamond… and I fell in love with a shallow Asscher and oval… The Asscher would have looked so undifferentiated from another Asscher in the generic spinning video. The oval would have been axed due to its odd bow tie, but I somehow love when I see it in person.
If anyone wants guaranteed ideal light performer, get the round brilliant by stick to the most strict measurements… but then life will be just soooo boring!

 

[AllAboardTheBlingTrain]

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.....

This is SUCH a great point and really articulates what I think to myself about diamonds as well. I personally love pears, and I love them because of the mix of different types of light return. I personally also prefer (good) crushed ice cushions to the H&A variety (though I’m not a big cushion fan to begin with) and I don’t like chubby pears or ovals, even though objectively I know they probably return the most amount of light.

Reminds me of a friend who was looking for a (very large) stone for a ring. She showed me this (IIRC 6.something carat) princess cut that was not cut “well”, as in, not cut to ideal proportions, had a huge table > depth. But it was a thing of beauty. I don’t know how and why and I’m not an expert, but it faced up huge and WHITE and sparkly in all kinds of light. It looked even bigger than it’s already massive size. The proportions etc on the cert were a hot mess, but somehow it worked.

I feel like “optimised” ought to mean “beautiful to the eye”, numbers and ASETs be damned, but anything subjective like beauty can’t really be optimised objectively, so I don’t know how things could change.

 

[Cerulean]

This is SUCH a great point and really articulates what I think to myself about diamonds as well. I personally love pears, and I love them because of the mix of different types of light return. I personally also prefer (good) crushed ice cushions to the H&A variety (though I’m not a big cushion fan to begin with) and I don’t like chubby pears or ovals, even though objectively I know they probably return the most amount of light.

Reminds me of a friend who was looking for a (very large) stone for a ring. She showed me this (IIRC 6.something carat) princess cut that was not cut “well”, as in, not cut to ideal proportions, had a huge table > depth. But it was a thing of beauty. I don’t know how and why and I’m not an expert, but it faced up huge and WHITE and sparkly in all kinds of light. It looked even bigger than it’s already massive size. The proportions etc on the cert were a hot mess, but somehow it worked.

I feel like “optimised” ought to mean “beautiful to the eye”, numbers and ASETs be damned, but anything subjective like beauty can’t really be optimised objectively, so I don’t know how things could change.

I totally understand what you mean.

But I think the problem with sooo many pears is that I do NOT think they are beautiful to the eye, despite being a huge fan of pears!

So I was trying to dig into - are there things that can be done to improve their overall appearance, performance and beauty? I.e. Gary’s example of the centrally located culet is exactly what I mean - or Karl mentioning that pears with small tables and high tops…maybe even poking around with it being a problem of light return alone was not really in the right line of questioning.

I think the word optimize in my original post is being misconstrued, and perhaps that’s my fault for choosing the wrong term. The point here is not PEARfection.

 

[AllAboardTheBlingTrain]

I totally understand what you mean.

But I think the problem with sooo many pears is that I do NOT think they are beautiful to the eye, despite being a huge fan of pears!

So I was trying to dig into - are there things that can be done to improve their overall appearance, performance and beauty? I.e. Gary’s example of the centrally located culet is exactly what I mean - or Karl mentioning that pears with small tables and high tops…maybe even poking around with it being a problem of light return alone was not really in the right line of questioning.

I think the word optimize in my original post is being misconstrued, and perhaps that’s my fault for choosing the wrong term. The point here is not PEARfection.

Oh yeah I was agreeing with you, wasn’t really directed at you in any way!

I think I’m biased because most of the pears I’ve seen in person have been through my jeweler, so they’re “curated” and most of them look nice to gorgeous. I have seen some tragic examples online though.

it’s just funny because what Garry said about centrally located culet is something I don’t personally find appealing, even if I imagine the culet closed. It just seems like a round that’s developed a bit of a conehead. Though maybe it’s possible to do that but keep the different types of faceting like modern pears do.

The one thing I’d love to know is how to eliminate dull/dark/depressing bow-ties (the type that persist no matter how much you move the stone and lighting around, with the central big facets appearing grey and flat instead of bold and white and flashy). So still keeping the flashes in that bow tie shape where they are in a typical pear, but making it lively instead of dull.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

The one thing I’d love to know is how to eliminate dull/dark/depressing bow-ties (the type that persist no matter how much you move the stone and lighting around, with the central big facets appearing grey and flat instead of bold and white and flashy). So still keeping the flashes in that bow tie shape where they are in a typical pear, but making it lively instead of dull.

Bow ties are totally avoidable

 

[caolsen]

To the point

Garry here is your video.
Its a huge tabled flat top boat.

Thats a boat I could sail away on, happily.

 

[caolsen]

This. All day long. Is a Monet a perfect representation of human form? Nope. Did Van Gogh paint his Sunflowers with photo realism? Double nope. Are they beautiful peace’s of art that make one’s heart sing. Yes. Hence why I don’t care a fig for ASETs.

I’m mortified - peace’s of art! What the hell, autocorrect!?

PIECES!!!!!

 

[Cerulean]

Oh yeah I was agreeing with you, wasn’t really directed at you in any way!

I think I’m biased because most of the pears I’ve seen in person have been through my jeweler, so they’re “curated” and most of them look nice to gorgeous. I have seen some tragic examples online though.

it’s just funny because what Garry said about centrally located culet is something I don’t personally find appealing, even if I imagine the culet closed. It just seems like a round that’s developed a bit of a conehead. Though maybe it’s possible to do that but keep the different types of faceting like modern pears do.

The one thing I’d love to know is how to eliminate dull/dark/depressing bow-ties (the type that persist no matter how much you move the stone and lighting around, with the central big facets appearing grey and flat instead of bold and white and flashy). So still keeping the flashes in that bow tie shape where they are in a typical pear, but making it lively instead of dull.

Interesting- hey, different strokes for different folks! I think because I really like chubbier pears, the centralized culet is right up my alley. Agree wholeheartedly on the bow ties though…I only tolerate bow ties with tuxedos!

 

[musicloveranthony]

Alex Parks just posted a nice looking pear with a centrally placed culet. The culet matches the shape of the stone which I like.

Login • Instagram

Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.

www.instagram.com

 

[Rhino]

Hehe... been through all of this. @Garry H (Cut Nut) yes... a conicallly shaped pavilion is actually the answer but I think you knew this. I've experimented in moissanite with it and was pleasantly surprised.

 

[Cerulean]

Hehe... been through all of this. @Garry H (Cut Nut) yes... a conicallly shaped pavilion is actually the answer but I think you knew this. I've experimented in moissanite with it and was pleasantly surprised.

Ooooh! I like this! Do you plan on releasing this cut to the broader market?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Hehe... been through all of this. @Garry H (Cut Nut) yes... a conicallly shaped pavilion is actually the answer but I think you knew this. I've experimented in moissanite with it and was pleasantly surprised.

Nice Rhino
How does it perform through a range of rocking motions?

 

[AprilBaby]

Hehe... been through all of this. @Garry H (Cut Nut) yes... a conicallly shaped pavilion is actually the answer but I think you knew this. I've experimented in moissanite with it and was pleasantly surprised.

Now that is a beautiful pear!

 

[RunningwithScissors]

Hehe... been through all of this. @Garry H (Cut Nut) yes... a conicallly shaped pavilion is actually the answer but I think you knew this. I've experimented in moissanite with it and was pleasantly surprised.

Will you be having one of these cut in a diamond anytime soon?

 

[AllAboardTheBlingTrain]

Hehe... been through all of this. @Garry H (Cut Nut) yes... a conicallly shaped pavilion is actually the answer but I think you knew this. I've experimented in moissanite with it and was pleasantly surprised.

Oh that is PEAR-fection! Would love to see pears cut like this!!

 

[Cerulean]

Ditto @AllAboardTheBlingTrain @RunningwithScissors @AprilBaby !!!

 

[Rhino]

Nice Rhino
How does it perform through a range of rocking motions?

Thank you sir. Yes.

Of course the caveat when you take these shapes (pear, oval), to achieve that you've gotta compensate for the shallower angles heading towards the point/end thus increasing pavilion depth so the trade off is obviously spread but IMO worth it.

Will you be having one of these cut in a diamond anytime soon?

Yes.

All the best,
Rhino

 

[FL_runner]

Thank you sir. Yes.

Of course the caveat when you take these shapes (pear, oval), to achieve that you've gotta compensate for the shallower angles heading towards the point/end thus increasing pavilion depth so the trade off is obviously spread but IMO worth it.



Yes.

All the best,
Rhino

Very exciting, thank you!

 

[Rockdiamond]

Of course the caveat when you take these shapes (pear, oval), to achieve that you've gotta compensate for the shallower angles heading towards the point/end thus increasing pavilion depth so the trade off is obviously spread but IMO worth it.

Looks awesome Rhino!!!
To do a little translation here......in return for the light performance, we get a stone that may have a smaller face up size than another, more traditionally cut pear, yes?

And unlike most fancy shapes - it has light return at the edges so it actually LOOKS its size.

From my perspective, a massive component of "Light Performance" is surface area....I've seen and sold some amazing looking, yet overly shallow stones over the years- and they are not easy to find...and there's great demand...
ANd many of them did have light return at the edges.....

 

[Rhino]

Looks awesome Rhino!!!
To do a little translation here......in return for the light performance, we get a stone that may have a smaller face up size than another, more traditionally cut pear, yes?




From my perspective, a massive component of "Light Performance" is surface area....I've seen and sold some amazing looking, yet overly shallow stones over the years- and they are not easy to find...and there's great demand...
ANd many of them did have light return at the edges.....

Greetings compadre,

In answer to your questions ...

1. Yes correct. Physics of light demand it. Same with ovals. It's impossible to escape the science of it but as Garry pointed out can be achieved with marquise and also with moval.

2. Obviously our understanding of light performance is 180 degrees. Haha but I think you would also agree. The reason your analogy doesn't make sense from my perspective my friend is that a window can have greater "surface area" and yet that will be dead as a doornail because it does not refract light back to the viewer, only reflect surface glare and a flat object.

On the contrary facets in diamonds will function in one of two roles. Mirrors and/or windows. if the majority of those facets are functioning as windows, particularly on the pavilion, they will be as reflective as the window. Ie. Surface area has little to nothing to do with actual light performance unless you're strictly relying on external glare for your source of "performance". In fact a diamond with greater spread can actually appear smaller due to the loss of brilliance, thus resulting in a dull diamond and smaller looking if extraneous leakage is occurring around the upper halves.

I think of this the same I do with any other shape of diamond. The grand majority of shallow cut diamonds have poor optical properties including rounds. Ever wonder they most rounds are not fisheyes? Another one rarely mentioned is the color absorption that occurs in these which are fine for colored diamonds but stink for all others. The fix to make them as beautiful possible, which Tolkowsky discovered and before him Henry Morse was to add the proper depth and angles where needed resulting in today's Ideal. My vision was/is to make fancies have optics that are on par with the most beautiful rounds. <3

Peace,
Rhino

 

[Rockdiamond]

Amigo!!!
I'm curious....I made no analogy....which analogy are you speaking of?
I agree that facets are acting as either windows or mirrors...but this is not static...they change as you move the diamond. So what might have been a large window a nanosecond ago can now be a large mirror, flashing brightly.

Why do you suppose the vast majority of 1.00ct round diamonds spread about 10% smaller than they did 30 years ago?
You might answer they are more brilliant today- or have better "light performance"...but a lot of consumers want 6.5mm 1.00ct stones.....even if there's a slight diminution on how you might judge light performance.
My answer as to why they are smaller....greed of the cutters, and sellers ability to make people believe they are better.
While it's surely true that there's a percentage of folks who want perfect symmetry, max light performance as indicated by ASET, etc.....my experience tells me there's also a lot of folks are not interested in other people's opinions about "light performance".
To many people diamonds are an extension of art. When I look at a diamond, I'm not thinking about how much light it returns...I'm thinking of beauty.

I think of this the same I do with any other shape of diamond. The grand majority of shallow cut diamonds have poor optical properties including rounds

And I'm sure we will agree that beauty is in the eye of the beholder....it's possible...even probable that a majority of any sort of diamond ( shallow, deep, etc) are ugly...yet there are some amazingly shallow, yet gorgeous diamonds out there in fancy shapes....they are very hard to find, but they do exist.

Maybe try to design a spready stone that pleases your eye?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Shallow rounds do not have windows. And they do not leak light when dirty.
Fish eyes hardly ever existed. They are a fearmongers invention.

 

[Rhino]

Good morning Dave,

I appreciate the dialogue.

Amigo!!!
I'm curious....I made no analogy....which analogy are you speaking of?
I agree that facets are acting as either windows or mirrors...but this is not static...they change as you move the diamond. So what might have been a large window a nanosecond ago can now be a large mirror, flashing brightly.

Oh... the analogy I'm referring to was the comment you made regarding surface area. Ie. just because there's larger than normal spread is no guarantee of anything with regards to light performance is my perspective.

Why do you suppose the vast majority of 1.00ct round diamonds spread about 10% smaller than they did 30 years ago?

I believe it's because demand for finer cutting entered the marketplace as consumers were becoming more educated on the subject. I also believe the g-men on PS here are in part responsible for this too.

You might answer they are more brilliant today- or have better "light performance"...but a lot of consumers want 6.5mm 1.00ct stones.....even if there's a slight diminution on how you might judge light performance.

Not my experience but it's most important to listen to our clients and deliver what it is they are asking for. If your clients want larger spread at the expense of optics, don't argue with them.

My answer as to why they are smaller....greed of the cutters, and sellers ability to make people believe they are better.

Not when science backs up the claims my friend. Otherwise yes it's pie in the sky but there is no deception going on these boards with regards to cut quality. There are many educated gemologists as well as consumers who participate here and if someone is blowing smoke up someone's rear end it'll get exposed rather quickly and we've seen that happen more than once.

While it's surely true that there's a percentage of folks who want perfect symmetry, max light performance as indicated by ASET, etc.....my experience tells me there's also a lot of folks are not interested in other people's opinions about "light performance".
To many people diamonds are an extension of art. When I look at a diamond, I'm not thinking about how much light it returns...I'm thinking of beauty.

Perhaps what you're not necessarily associating is that

diamonds with extraneous light leakage = butt ugly diamond
diamonds with superior light performance = beautiful

Haha... I anticipated your response below ....

And I'm sure we will agree that beauty is in the eye of the beholder....

Yes and all we can do is *show the diamond* and let the client choose what pleases their eyes most. It is my experience in 40 years of retail that the average person *can* see the differences in light performance and the grand majority of the time *do pick* the diamond that is scientifically more superior.

it's possible...even probable that a majority of any sort of diamond ( shallow, deep, etc) are ugly...yet there are some amazingly shallow, yet gorgeous diamonds out there in fancy shapes....they are very hard to find, but they do exist.

Agreed.

Maybe try to design a spready stone that pleases your eye?

Oh I have!!! I have a few now in fact. Thanks for the chat my ol friend.

Warm regards,
Jonathan

 

[Rhino]

Shallow rounds do not have windows. And they do not leak light when dirty.
Fish eyes hardly ever existed. They are a fearmongers invention.

*shallow rounds do not have windows?*

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

*shallow rounds do not have windows?*

Sorry. Shallow round brilliant cuts do not have windows.

 

[diagem]

*shallow rounds do not have windows?*

This Aset doesnt look itself, does it?

 

[caolsen]

Hehe... been through all of this. @Garry H (Cut Nut) yes... a conicallly shaped pavilion is actually the answer but I think you knew this. I've experimented in moissanite with it and was pleasantly surprised.

Stunning cut!