Your thoughts: is my pear too big to be a side stone?

[Niel]

daintyG
Im glad you understand what i am talking about, the shape just makes me melt, which is why i chose it, but it just isnt living up to what i expect from a diamond, i guess

I'm trying to understand why Phoenix's pear in particular. Size? Sparkle? Light performance?

I don't understand why you don't think ASET translates into sparkle IRL. Isn't this precisely why ASET is highly touted? Because it tells us how well it sparkles? If not, why would anyone bother with it in the first place?

The size and shape mostly is what i love about phoenix's. I have not seen it in person so i couldnt comment about the performance. What I mean about the ASETs is that I just dont know if for those shapes (pear marquise radiant) they translate because ive seen far more informed experts than me say that ASETs of those shapes just dont tell the whole story. I dont know why. I would love to know why. All I know is that when you see radiant or pear ASETs they have a LOT of like leakage. So i dont know if people have just given up on those shapes and conceded the idea that they are lesser cuts, or that there sparkle somehow persists even when an ASET image is lackluster compared to the images you look for in RB, or step cuts or princesses.

Your comments are contradictory....I understand what you mean about light return, but it wasn't till recently that you made this clear. Everyone was lead to believe you wanted "sparkle" and were saying that you weren't getting enough "sparkle" from your pear which clearly has more facets than an EC or asscher. If you want an emerald, then go with that and get a 5 stone. Emeralds tend to be a cheaper cut, but you would have to get something with better clarity as Chrono suggested. I still don't think you should get a sapphire if you just intend on getting a 5 stone diamond ring just because I think it'd be a waste of money...Unless of course you have the budget for it

I dont think sparkle is a textbook term for diamonds, my definition is a lot of light return, which my pear does not have. Facets dont tell the whole story, or an AVC wouldnt be near as sparkly as they are. And i dont understand why i shouldnt get a sapphire if i want a 5 stone step cut. I would LOVE to have a 5 stone step cut with the colored stone as the center! I think that would be fabulous. Whether that be a sapphire or a spinel, either way I think that would be great! Not at all a waist of money. Because i said i want 5 stone step cut ring, i didnt say only diamond step cut

and rosebloom you are right, as well as dreamer! If i am going to have to keep my pear intact for the time being, at least Ill end up with a fantastic pendant at the end

 

[04diamond<3]

Your comments are contradictory....I understand what you mean about light return, but it wasn't till recently that you made this clear. Everyone was lead to believe you wanted "sparkle" and were saying that you weren't getting enough "sparkle" from your pear which clearly has more facets than an EC or asscher. If you want an emerald, then go with that and get a 5 stone. Emeralds tend to be a cheaper cut, but you would have to get something with better clarity as Chrono suggested. I still don't think you should get a sapphire if you just intend on getting a 5 stone diamond ring just because I think it'd be a waste of money...Unless of course you have the budget for it

I dont think sparkle is a textbook term for diamonds, my definition is a lot of light return, which my pear does not have. Facets dont tell the whole story, or an AVC wouldnt be near as sparkly as they are. And i dont understand why i shouldnt get a sapphire if i want a 5 stone step cut. I would LOVE to have a 5 stone step cut with the colored stone as the center! I think that would be fabulous. Whether that be a sapphire or a spinel, either way I think that would be great! Not at all a waist of money. Because i said i want 5 stone step cut ring, i didnt say only diamond step cut

and rosebloom you are right, as well as dreamer! If i am going to have to keep my pear intact for the time being, at least Ill end up with a fantastic pendant at the end

Ah, ok. I thought there was a dilemma with doing one or the other. As I said earlier, if you can definitely go for it! I love sapphires and if you are able to do it, then by all means! A sapphire cushion with half moons would be absolutely stunning!!! Then when you get your dream ring you can wear the sapphire ring as a RHR and you'll have your gorgeous halo pear pendant! All sounds great to me!

 

[stepcutnut]

I wanted to say that I think with the stones set with the right height and angles that your pear could work nicely as a side stone.

These pears are 6.5mm in length with the center being 8mm wide on a size 7 finger.

Good Luck

 

[Niel]

I wanted to say that I think with the stones set with the right height and angles that your pear could work nicely as a side stone.

These pears are 6.5mm in length with the center being 8mm wide on a size 7 finger.

Good Luck

Ah thabk you that was exactly the visual i was looking for !

 

[Niel]

So length is all I need? beause a 1.5 ct marque seems like the most economical way to make fit the criteria for my pear to be a side stone.

 

[Rosebloom]

Well this LM has long been one of my favorite rings:


Question: would you consider having your pear recut? I know you love the shape but not the performance. I've noticed that you often recommend pears to people in RT, so I was wondering if you think the problem is with the quality of your specific stone? If so this might both improve its optics and reduce the size a bit making it work even better as a side stone.

 

[Niel]

Well this LM has long been one of my favorite rings:


Question: would you consider having your pear recut? I know you love the shape but not the performance. I've noticed that you often recommend pears to people in RT, so I was wondering if you think the problem is with the quality of your specific stone? If so this might both improve its optics and reduce the size a bit making it work even better as a side stone.

Right! this LM has been in my top three sense Ive seen it
Yes i had considered it, and i continue to recommend them because I think they are a beautiful option, the shape and coverage in my mind cant be beat. I do think mine might be a tad too shallow. Unfortunately I bought it from WF and they told me it was nice but i didnt think to ask about the fire . People have told me that should be my last option because its very dangerous and could likely damage the stone in the process. So I have not put that into my "options" category.

 

[chrono]

To love the stone 100%, it must be more than just the shape, spread and size otherwise one might as well wear CZ or flat cut diamonds. I'm concerned that having it as a side stone to something else will not solve anything and we'll be down this road again shortly after. You must love the sparkle too or you'll never be completely happy with it. I love the feminine shape of pears too but am not enarmoured by the sparkle.

You should seriously consider a recut. You'll never know if it is a good candidate or not until you ask the lapidary (and he or she has examined the pear).

 

[Niel]

To love the stone 100%, it must be more than just the shape, spread and size otherwise one might as well wear CZ or flat cut diamonds. I'm concerned that having it as a side stone to something else will not solve anything and we'll be down this road again shortly after. You must love the sparkle too or you'll never be completely happy with it. I love the feminine shape of pears too but am not enarmoured by the sparkle.

You should seriously consider a recut. You'll never know if it is a good candidate or not until you ask the lapidary (and he or she has examined the pear).

There must be concessions with every type of stone i would think. If i got a round i would love the sparkle and not the shape, if i got an asscher i would be disappointed in the finger coverage. I dont think any cut has it all. I think any of these things are at least a year away if not 3-5 if i went for that 3 stone with a marquise. I guess i can consider a recut then. I just wanted to have a goal in mind, and my thread was to see if any goals i set are plausible, or if i should get the idea out of my head now, before i get too attached.

 

[chrono]

I don't believe concessions are always necessary. I own an EC and kept looking until I found one that not only had excellent light performance but stayed under 62% depth to maximize spread.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I want to define some terms so that we readers can understand where you are coming from, because you are using some terms interchangably that are not interchangable and that is makin it hard for us to offer suggestions because we are confused.

"Fire" referes to colored light return, like rainbow flashes, and it is only evident in bright sunblight or in high potlights. You can also see dispersion of colores within the stone (well off the facets) in filteres sunlight, like under a tree.

That is totally distinct from "white light return", which is the overall output of white light the stone returns to the eye. This is most easily seen outside on a cloudy day, or in other indirect lighting situations.

"Scintillation" is the patterning of light and dark accross the face of the stone, and the particular pattern you see depends on the facet structure of the stone. Some stone have faster twinkly scintillation, like a pear or a princess or radiant, and some have slower flashier scintillation, like OECs, Step cuts, Chunky cushions. In general, faster scintillation is associated with smaller facets with less obvious contrast (bright white and dark facets in a pattern) to the eye between facets because the facets are smaller. Slower scintillation is associated with larger facets and more obvious contrast.

Now, you have said you want sparkle, which most people mean to refer to scintillation -- but which do you want, faster and smaller or slower and bolder? Some people might crave "sparkle" when what they want is more contrast in their diamond.

But you also said you consider sparkle to be overall light return, which tends to refer to white light return, independent of movement and life in the patterning.

And you also said you were sad you did not ask WF about fire, which is colored light return, and not at all related to sparkle scintillation or white light return.

And all of these things are utterly distinct from leakage, hypothetically. Though leakage results from poorly aligned facets or uncomplimentary angles, which can adversely affect all of the above. Still, it is a distinct issue from scintillation, contrast, white and colored light return, which very greatly between cut types, but can also vary with cut quality. Type and quality are distinct issues when it comes to optics.

I think the use of these terms interchangably, when they are not, is why people are commenting that you are being contradictory when you talk about your stone.

So when I and others have adviced that you decide what you really want before doing anything, part of that, in my opinion, is to be very precise about the optical characteristics you want before doing anything.