I looked at the Quadrillion. I like it, like it, like it. It has
everything I like in the Princess cut but shares the brilliance of
the round brilliant. See following website:
http://ambardiamonds.stores.yahoo.net/quad.html
in my attempt to understand attraction of the Princess cut I have
followed the link you provided. I am including 3 sentences from their
the description of the Princess cut on their website:
The black areas are parts of the diamond that do not refract
light.
Those people do not know the difference between reflection and
refraction. Not a good sign for someone who sells diamonds.
In this picture, the diamond has been placed on a black
background to allow you to easily identify these areas. When
the diamond is set in a piece of jewelry, these black areas
will show the color of the metal it is set in.
If what they are saying is true, this is not a diamond they are
selling. A diamond does not have see-though areas. Refractive index
is to high for that. Dark areas on a diamond are areas of extinction
and that is quite different from see-through. If their stone, while
set, shows metal of the ring they are set in, it is not a diamond.
Yes you’re right Leonid, not a very good advert for someone selling
diamonds! I didn’t include the link to make any point of my own, or
to say that they knew what they were talking about - they clearly
don’t, as you point out. I included it so anyone else who hadn’t
seen the Quadrillion could see what one looks like.
Okay, so you don’t like the Princess cut because it doesn’t have the
brilliance of the round brilliant, but what about the similar
Quadrillion (as long as it doesn’t have super sharp pointy corners
of course)? Do you like those? If not why? What of trillion, navette,
pear? Are they also obscenities to the industry?
but what about the similar Quadrillion (as long as it doesn't have
super sharp pointy corners of course)? Do you like those? If not
why? What of trillion, navette, pear? Are they also obscenities to
the industry?
The issue is not the sharp corners and personal likes and dislikes.
The issue for me is the design. One of the meaning of the obscene is
the degenerate and princess cut is the design which degenerated to
the point of existence for its own sake. The good design must be
functional. This is the infrangible rule of any design. Cutting
diamond as a princess, does not make diamond look better, does not
make diamond stronger and more durable, does not make it easier to
set, does not emphasize any properties which makes diamond the most
widely used stone in jewellery, except one. It fattens the profits
of the De Beers. That is a classical case of obscene ( degenerative )
design.
I will gladly accept any square stone if there is reason to use it
and it is cut accordingly to its design specification, but I reject
things which are done for their own sake.
When I was studying design in school, we were given an example of
degenerative design. My apologies for scatological reference.
If we were to design a vessel for use of hospital patients to
relieve themselves while in bed, and we were to position the handle
of
such a vessel inside. If would not matter in the least if it would be
the most beautiful design in the world and made from the most
precious and rare materials, nobody would use it. And the reason
would be that the main component of the design which we call
functionality was violated.
I will gladly accept any square stone if there is reason to use it
and it is cut accordingly to its design specification, but I
reject things which are done for their own sake.
Yep I’m following you so far. Can you give me an example of a square
cut which is not an obscenity and which fulfills your criteria for
being a valid design and worthy of use? And also what makes it
acceptable and why? I’d like to understand where you’re coming from
as I’m interested in the design process.
Okay, so you don't like the Princess cut because it doesn't have
the brilliance of the round brilliant
What has been lost in this discussion is the importance of square
stones. Used to be if one wanted a square diamond, they got a square
cut diamond, which is a pretty ugly step cut, and there was basically
no real option for a nice, square diamond. Enter the princess cut,
and others like the quadrillion, and square cut diamonds took off.
Very, very often the shortcomings of the princess cut - any cut
that’s not round, for that matter - are outweighed by the shape
overall. There are times when that linear geometric shape is wanted
and needed, and a good example is an eternity ring. Round stones look
good in that, but I describe a princess eternity ring as
“wall-to-wall diamonds” - a great look that’s only possible with
princess cuts or similar. Yesterday I was shown a beautiful pear
shape of around 5 carats, very elegantly cut, that had a wonderful
orangey tint to it, but not fancy. It had varying light all over the
place, bore no resemblance to a round stone, but was stunningly
beautiful. Again, I personally don’t tell people what to like, I just
sell them diamonds…
There are times when that linear geometric shape is wanted and
needed, and a good example is an eternity ring. Round stones look
good in that, but I describe a princess eternity ring as
"wall-to-wall diamonds" - a great look that's only possible with
princess cuts or similar.
I agree John, particularly in channel set diamond eternity rings. I
love round brilliant and they look nice in eternity rings if prong
set, but imho they don’t look nice in channel set eternity rings
because they leave ugly gaps, but the princess cut works very well.
I like the channel set look and think (personally) that it’s a good
contemporary look for all types of jewellery: rings, earrings,
pendants and bracelets and for me the princess and the baguette both
look particularly stunning in such a situation.
Talking of engagement rings though, surely the only way a princess
cut diamond would make a finger look fatter than it is, would be if
the princess cut stone was so big that it took up the entire width of
the finger? Otherwise, in “normal” sizes of between 0.5ct to 1.5ct,
they have an elegant look.
But hey we’re all different and our opinions are just that.
…If their stone, while set, shows metal of the ring they are set
in, it is not a diamond…
i believe your statement is incorrect.
With all due respect diamonds do not have see-through areas. If you
draw a pencil line on the paper, orient a diamond with its culet
pointing at the line and look through the table, you would not see
the line if it is a diamond.
Can you give me an example of a square cut which is not an
obscenity and which fulfills your criteria for being a valid design
and worthy of use? And also what makes it acceptable and why?
I will try to illustrate my way of approaching a design problem.
Square shape is an interaction of 2 elements: length and width. Since
they are equal there is no interplay like in a rectangle. In design
we are looking for a relationship which is interesting. Square does
not give us that. There are no square shapes in nature. We are a
product of nature as well and intuitively we do not relate to square.
Did you ever saw a painting in square frame, or any natural object
where length were exactly as it’s width? I never did. These are
limitation of square.
However, sometime we want to dull things on purpose or we cannot
insure that design element would maintain it’s orientation, than
square may be appropriate. One application that come to mind is
cufflinks. It would be a waste of time to design cufflinks with
rectangular stones, because cufflinks kind of orient themselves while
been worn. Rectangular stone would make these irregularities more
obvious than they should be. Square shape would be appropriate here.
When we made that decision, than I ask what is needed of the stones
in cufflinks. I would not want a lot of light return in such stones,
besides cufflinks do not get much light to begin with, so to cut
stone
with intention to maximize light return would not reflect the
functionality of design. I would use a cut when pavilion cut to
reflect the light, but the crown would be cut without a table,
similar to antique dutch rose with one exception that vertex in the
center would be replaced by a small facet equal in size to the rest
of the facets. This is required to prevent damage to the stone, since
cufflinks subjected to a lot of wear. Such a cut would have
scintillation but no brilliancy, and that should give the design a
sense of nobility, restrain, and elegance.
Square stone can be used as a means to break the design surface into
4 interesting rectangles like in a design of a compact or a cigaret
lighter. Each vertex of the square could become a vertex of a
rectangle.
Men’s ring in some situations. If a man has thin fingers ( like a
musician ) a square stone can give him more masculine look. Stone
would need to be cut with faceted pavilion and cabochon top
(bufftop).
There are women who do not like large earrings, but their earlobes
require it, a square stone would work as well. To conclude: any
design where disadvantages of square cut can be used to advance the
design idea is where I would use square stone. The type of the cut
would be selected simply to reinforce the desired property.
With all due respect diamonds do not have see-through areas.
If you can see through the stone, it is “windowed”. It also indicates
that the stone was not properly cut. In most cases the pavillion
angles were not correct.
I find it fascinating how we all approach design from different
angles. You are clearly a gemologist and design from that
perspective, and I would imagine that the metallurgists of the group
may approach design from a different angle.
One application that come to mind is cufflinks. It would be a waste
of time to design cufflinks with rectangular stones, because
cufflinks kind of orient themselves while been worn. Rectangular
stone would make these irregularities more obvious than they should
be. Square shape would be appropriate here.
Doh, I just made my dad some rectangular cufflinks!
With all due respect diamonds do not have see-through areas
I wonder if we’re on different pages here. True, typically a diamond
does not have see thru as described (except god awful makes!).
However on any profile that has a point, be it princess or pear or
marquis, its not uncommon for the adjacent prong to reflect/refract
(I
guess its actually both) into the stone, depending on the aspect
you’re viewing it from.
I think you are both correct but you’re not talking about exactly
the same thing, which can happen on webboards since they rely
strictly on text.
Oh and I looked at the site for the quad. I think they overstate the
dark corner effect on the standard princess.
well, in fact, some diamonds do have see-through areas. i'm
wearing one.
I am assuming that the stone you refer to was properly identified
and really is a diamond. That leaves us with 2 choices. Either you
are
wearing some unusual cut (without a pavilion or pavilion so shallow
as to render it non-existent), or you are observing your diamond
inside the mirror vault and mirrors serving as optical links in the
light path allowing light ray a return path to your eyes.
Please understand that humans can only see reflected light. See-
through means that light ray originated within your visual angle,
followed the path through the stone, and was able to return back to
you eyes. Under normal conditions, and normal in this case has very
wide range, laws of optics make it impossible.
If you can see through the stone, it is "windowed". It also
indicates that the stone was not properly cut. In most cases the
pavillion angles were not correct.
In order to see through the stone, what needs to happen is that ray
of light must enter the diamond, hit pavilion inside the critical
angle, exit pavilion, hit a part of a setting, ( or any other part ),
reflect under such angle so it could enter pavilion again, reach
crown facet inside the critical angle, exit crown, and hit the retina
of the observer. Given diamond refractive index of 2.42 it is not
possible, unless cut is mangled in some horrendous way. I cannot even
imagine what needs to be done to a diamond to make such transmission
of light possible. Diamonds do have light extinction areas, but it is
different from see-through. Term “windowed” is not applicable to a
diamond.
It would take to long to give mathematical proof of that, so if
anybody has doubts on this subject, the book by Marcel Tolkowsky
“Diamond Design” should make the issue clear.
Are there any jewellers out there who do actually like the princess
cut and use it regularly in their jewellery? There must be some out
there. Or do people just put them in engagement rings because that’s
what a lot of customers like?
I don’t wish to labour the point or bore anyone to sleep with my
princess cut obsession but I am interested in other people’s
opinions, rather than them being difficult to set or an obscenity to
the industry. Does anyone like them and use them a lot?
One application that come to mind is cufflinks. It would be a waste
of time to design cufflinks with rectangular stones, because
cufflinks kind of orient themselves while been worn. Rectangular
stone would make these irregularities more obvious than they should
be. Square shape would be appropriate here.
I’ve made dozens of oval and rectangular cufflinks at the customer’s
request. It would be a waste of a good jewelry career to attempt to
force ones preconceived judgements as to what is or is not good
design upon a willing-to-pay customer. If my customer wants square,
round, oval, marquis, pear, rose, uncut, or industrial diamonds set
into any material including, but not limited to, Lucite she will get
her wish! I learned long ago that what I think is “correct”
design-wise takes a back seat to what the man (or woman) with the
dead presidents wants. I’d rather be paid than right.
Leonid is obvious a person of strong opinions, as am I; that doesn’t
mean either of us is right.
I use princess cut diamonds frequently. I like the look as do many
of my customers. See my web site under rings and see earrings also to
see how I use them.
rather than them being difficult to set or an obscenity to the
industry.
Well, it’s going to be hard to elaborate on Doc’s comment today - put
it pretty well. The job of a designer is to design. The notion that
there’s something wrong with a square shape is most curious - even
mystifying. A designer who can’t work with a square shape is no
designer at all, I’d say. I have done special order work for a great
many years now - almost every piece I make is different, and very
often I don’t get to choose. For myself, I’d say you could throw out
a concept (sticks, cheese, astronomy, mud) and I could make something
with it. Design is unlimited unless the designer is limited. Nuff
said. The princess cut is here to stay - deal with it. It’s not an
ideal cut round diamond, but so what? Neither is jade or ruby or
sapphire. Basic setting for them is easy, btw, as many setters here
will attest… Don’t confuse prejudice with policy.
I love princess cut diamonds, as do a great many people. Aren’t they
second in popularity behind rounds? It’s a matter of taste, that’s
all. I myself have a radiant cut as the center stone in my wedding
ring. I would never have a round as the center- they’re boring. I
also have channel set and gypsy set princess cuts in my ring. No,
they’re not obscene. That’s only one man’s opinion. Join me and
millions of people who proudly LOVE princess cuts!
