5 replies to this topic

[dannyhsu915]

Hi all,

I'm new here! =P I was wondering if anyone has had the opportunity to look at many different diamond cutters signature cut. I just saw Ben Bridge's signature cut that was 66 facets and it was amazing and I am really tempted to buy the stone...

however, now doing more research, realize that there are so many other diamond cutters that has 66 n even 100 facets from roberto coin... and movado's 114 facet diamond.... would someone shed some light as to what they have seen in person and experiences.

Thanks!

[LaurieH]

For curiosity, why are you so set on having a signature cut diamond? You pay an enormous premium for a name, and honestly, I don't see how they're all that much better. They might have more facets, which simply make them more reflective on their surface, which is nice for a bit of flash and sparkle, but they're not necessarily going to get the best light performance, and that's also very important for a diamond. It also makes them very difficult to shop for because it's hard to price compare one to another because they're all so different in order to BE signature cuts. Also, they'd be a lot more difficult to resell if you ever decide to change diamonds for any reason or if you were to ever lose it and have to replace it, to be able to find something comparable again b/c they're such a small part of the market.

I'm not AGAINST signature cuts, so don't get me wrong, but I call it how I see it. I'm personally a big proponent of a well-cut, GIA graded diamond, esp if you're buying sight-unseen. Excellent Cut Grade, Polish, and Symmetry, face-up white (so you could go with Colorless (D-F) or Near-Colorless (G-J), and eye clean, so anything VS2 or higher, for sure, and sometimes you can find eye-clean SI1.

I hope someone can shed a little more light on the signature cut thing if you're set on that. More general kind of questions, I'll be more than happy to chime in

Good luck!

[davidelevi]

I think Laurie has said it all - I'll try to summarise. More facets is not the same as more beauty or even more sparkle. Before you decide, see a well cut traditional diamond at Tiffany or a.n.other high-end store.

[denverappraiser]

I'm not nearly as down on the specialty cuts as Laurie and I'm a strong supporter of buying what you like but I basically agree that the marketing BS in this area is deep and heavy. 'Beauty' is a notoriously difficulty thing to pin down and not everyone will agree in the end but it's the angles of the facets and the relationships between those angles that makes stones brighter, not the number of facets. Unfortunately, much of the point (for dealers) of selling unusual facet designs is to make it difficult for you to shop between vendors with similar goods and they deliberately obscure this information. Even if you decide you want their superduper cut, it's remarkably difficult to choose the 'best' one unless you just want to take the sales clerk's word for it. As far as they're concerned, they're all the same.

[dannyhsu915]

hi Laurie, David, & Neil,

Thanks for the reply. One of you mentioned the light performance about the diamond... Is this what you are referring to? link below...
[url="http://www.benbridge.com/education/diamonds/our-signature-diamonds"][url]http://www.benbridge.com/education/diamonds/our-signature-diamonds[/url][/url]

This is their ikuma ideal AGS 0 light performance...
[url="http://www.benbridge.com/education/diamonds/ikuma-diamonds"][url]http://www.benbridge.com/education/diamonds/ikuma-diamonds[/url][/url]

They say that their signature cut is 66 facet and generate much more "red" on the light performance, even more than the AGS Ideal Cut of 0 by ikuma... and therefore more sparkle...

I am not expert in reading the light performance thing... is is really one of the best? Can someone show me what a VERY VERY Well light performing diamond would look like under that scope?

Thanks

[davidelevi]

There's three problems here.

First of all, while an ASET image is useful to understand certain things, it's not the be-all and end-all for judging light performance. And again, light performance (itself a vague concept) does not necessarily equal beauty in your eyes.

Secondly, the fact that a particular stone with such-and-such cut has a good (?) ASET does not lead to the conclusion that each and every one does.

Thirdly - and here we get into slightly controversial territory - I don't find those ASET images particularly exciting or "better" than what's available from a traditional well cut diamond. And that's equating "better" as they do very simplistically with amount of red. You want to see a lot of red in an ASET? Put a mirror plate angled at 20 ° underneath it. It's ALL red. It's also very uninteresting.

Here is a very well cut traditional diamond's ASET image.

It has as much red where it matters, and it exhibits greater contrast, which in my personal view means more interest - not least because the areas that are blue (dark) under certain angles will turn red at others, and viceversa. If it's all red at one angle and it turns all considerably darker from another, it's not a very attractive stone.

ETA - one more thing which is hugely irritating in the blurb is "cut to exacting proportions based on the mathematical calculations of Marcel Tolkowsky in 1919." This GIA article may prove interesting to read... http://www.gia.edu/r...l-tolkowsky.pdf

Edited by davidelevi, 25 February 2011 - 10:01 AM.