FALL 1998 VOLUME 34 NO. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS EDITORIAL 157 Demystifying Diamond Cut William E. Boyajian FEATURE ARTICLES 158 Modeling the Appearance of the Round Brilliant Cut Diamond: An Analysis of Brilliance pg. 159 T. Scott Hemphill, Ilene M. Reinitz, Mary L. Johnson, and James E. Shigley 184 Cultured Abalone Blister Pearls from New Zealand Cheryl Y. Wentzell NOTES AND NEW TECHNIQUES 202 Estimating Weights of Mounted Colored Gemstones Charles I. Carmona REGULAR FEATURES 212 Gem Trade Lab Notes 218 Gem News pg. 198 231 1998 Challenge Winners 232 Book Reviews 234 Gemological Abstracts ABOUT THE COVER: Because abalone pearls are admired for their rarity, attractive col- ors, and striking iridescence, efforts have been made to culture them for more than a cen- pg.210 tury. Only recently has commercial production of cultured abalone blister pearls been achieved. A feature article in this issue examines the history, production, marketing, and pg. 217 identifying characteristics of assembled cultured blister pearls from one major producer, Empress Abalone Ltd., using New Zealand’s Haliotis iris. These abalone “mabés” are being incorporated into distinctive jewelry designs, together with colored stones and dia- monds. The gold pendants and rings shown here contain abalone “mabés” ranging from 12.5 to 17.3 mm in diameter. Jewelry courtesy of designer Ian Henderson, Dunedin, New Zealand. Photo © Harold & Erica Van Pelt––Photographers, Los Angeles, California. Color separations for Gems & Gemology are by Pacific Color, Carlsbad, California. Printing is by Fry Communications, Inc., Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. © 1998 Gemological Institute of America All rights reserved. ISSN 0016-626X Demystifying diamond cut he proper assessment of cut in dia- important appearance concept, bril- We also know that there are many monds has long been an elusive, but liance, based on what the authors call combinations of proportions that yield T intriguing, goal. As the authors point “weighted light return.” As the authors equally attractive round-brilliant-cut dia- out in the lead article, most diamond state, a brilliance measurement is one of monds. In fact, we know that dia- grading systems in use today establish several important pieces of the “cut” monds can be cut in a fairly wide range parameters for cut grades in round bril- puzzle; dispersion, scintillation, and of proportions to yield the same high liants based on a variation of propor- perhaps symmetry and color, are oth- light return, which can lead to better tions devised by Marcel Tolkowsky in ers. Since a polished diamond should utilization of the rough and a better fit 1919. For nearly 80 years now, there display a pleasing combination of bril- with the myriad tastes that exist in the have been few, if any, rigorous attempts liance, fire, and scintillation, the elusive global marketplace. to shed more light on the subject. “best” overall appearance might not be found among just the brightest round Finally, we know from our extensive Recognizing this fact, several years ago brilliant cuts. Thus, we caution you to historical research on cut that there the Gemological Institute of America read this article fully and carefully, and have been numerous claims to a sin- made a long-term commitment to to refrain from drawing unequivocal gle set of “Ideal” proportions in establish a comprehensive understand- conclusions from this initial work. round-brilliant-cut diamonds. These ing of the effects of cut and proportions have ranged from Wade’s American on diamond appearance. Our goal was, So what do we know at this point? Ideal in 1916 (with a 45.3% table, a and is, to develop modern criteria for Certainly, we know that cut is the most 35° crown angle, and a 41° pavilion cut assessment using today’s sophisti- complex of the 4 C’s, even when isolat- angle) to Watermeyer’s Modern Ideal cated technology, and to integrate this ed to one cutting style: the round bril- in 1991 (with a 61% table, a 34° knowledge into our diamond educa- liant. We know that the success of cut- crown, and a 41° pavilion). The tion and training courses. When the ting for weighted light return has more derivation and use of the term “Ideal” study has been successfully completed, to do with the interrelationship between is thus confusing at best, somewhat this knowledge may even be applied to three critical proportions—table size, like “blue-white” and “perfect” our laboratory reporting and instru- crown angle, and pavilion angle—than decades ago. Although it is not GIA’s ment development. on a selection of isolated proportion role to discredit the concept of an measurements. We know that one can- “Ideal” cut, on the basis of our This much-anticipated first article on not, and must not, assess the cut of a research to date we cannot recom- GIA’s three-dimensional, ray-tracing diamond by examining any one of these mend its use in modern times. computer model addresses the most proportion parameters alone. William E. Boyajian, President Gemological Institute of America Editorial GEMS & GEMOLOGY Fall 1998 157 MODELING THE APPEARANCE OF THE ROUND BRILLIANT CUT DIAMOND: AN ANALYSIS OF BRILLIANCE By T. Scott Hemphill, Ilene M. Reinitz, Mary L. Johnson, and James E. Shigley Of the “four C’s,”cut has historically been the he quality and value of faceted gem diamonds are most complex to understand and assess. This often described in terms of the “four C’s”: carat article presents a three-dimensional mathemat- weight, color, clarity, and cut. Weight is the most ical model to study the interaction of light with Tobjective, because it is measured directly on a balance. a fully faceted, colorless, symmetrical round- Color and clarity are factors for which grading standards brilliant-cut diamond. With this model, one have been established by GIA, among others. Cut, however, can analyze how various appearance factors (brilliance, fire, and scintillation) depend on is much less tractable. Clamor for the standardization of proportions. The model generates images and a cut, and calls for a simple cut grading system, have been numerical measurement of the optical efficien- heard sporadically over the last 25 years, gaining strength cy of the round brilliant—called weighted light recently (Shor, 1993, 1997; Nestlebaum, 1996, 1997). Unlike return (WLR)—which approximates overall color and clarity, for which diamond trading, consistent brilliance. This article examines how WLR val- teaching, and laboratory practice have created a general con- ues change with variations in cut proportions, sensus, there are a number of different systems for grading in particular crown angle, pavilion angle, and cut in round brilliants. As discussed in greater detail later in table size. The results of this study suggest that this article, these systems are based on relatively simple there are many combinations of proportions assumptions about the relationship between the proportions with equal or higher WLR than “Ideal” cuts. In and appearance of the round brilliant diamond. Inherent in addition, they do not support analyzing cut by one examining each proportion parameter indepen- these systems is the premise that there is set (or a nar- dently. However, because brilliance is just one row range) of preferred proportions for round brilliants, and aspect of the appearance of a faceted diamond, that any deviation from this set of proportions diminishes ongoing research will investigate the added the attractiveness of a diamond. In this article, we present effects of fire and scintillation. and discuss our findings with regard to the rather complex relationship between cut proportions and brilliance. Diamond manufacturing has undergone considerable ABOUT THE AUTHORS change during this century. For the most part, diamonds are cut within very close proportion tolerances, both to save Mr. Hemphill is research associate, and Dr. Shigley is director, of GIA Research, Carlsbad, California. weight while maximizing appearance and to account for Dr. Reinitz is manager of Research and Develop- local market preferences (Caspi, 1997). As shown in figure 1 ment at the GIA Gem Trade Laboratory (GIA GTL), and table 1, however, differences in proportions can produce New York. Dr. Johnson is manager of Research and Development at GIA GTL, Carlsbad. noticeable differences in appearance in round-brilliant-cut Please see acknowledgments at the end of the diamonds. Within this single cutting style, there is substan- article. tial debate—and some strongly held views—about which Gems & Gemology, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 158 –183 proportions yield the best face-up appearance (Federman, © 1998 Gemological Institute of America 1997). Yet face-up appearance depends as well on many intrinsic physical and optical properties of diamond as a 158 Modeling Brilliance GEMS & GEMOLOGY Fall 1998 Figure 1. These round-bril- liant-cut diamonds illus- trate how cut affects face- up appearance. Of the three larger stones (1.07–1.50 ct), the one on the lower right (F color) is obviously less bright than the other two (above, H color, and lower left, E color). All three 0.35–0.38 ct diamonds in the inset are brighter, on average; but the F-color diamond on the lower right, which could be marketed as an “Ideal” cut, is less bright than the F- and G-color stones with larger tables and small crown angles. See table 1 for the propor- tions and other data on these diamonds. Photo © GIA and Tino Hammid. material, and on the way these properties govern used to solve sets of relatively simple equations that the paths of light through the faceted gemstone. described what was considered to be the brilliance (Also important are properties particular to each of a polished round brilliant diamond. (Tolkowsky stone, such as polish quality, symmetry, and the did include a simple analysis of fire, but it was not presence of inclusions.) central to his model and it will not be discussed at Diamond appearance is described chiefly in any length in this article.) For the most part, the terms of brilliance (white light returned through the existing cut grading systems are based on crown), fire (the visible extent of light dispersion Tolkowsky’s research.