Real world difference 3EX vs Super Ideal Cut

[jknechtl]

Hi all,

I am from Czech Republic where engagement and diamond rings are not “big business” and 2000$ for a complete ring is more than too much..

Anyhow, I have just bought a ring with .74ct H VVS1 GIA3EX with following proportions (gia report 5403929855):
Table 57%
Depth 62,2%
Crown 35°
Pavillon 41°
$3000 (converted from CZK, so it could be less)
HCA 2.3 (if I remember correctly)
No ASET / Idealscope image

I tried to find as big and eye clean with Beyond4cs cut angles in my budget. It is not perfect and I did not have all the knowledge I have now. It is not stated as Astor / True Hearts / ACA cut - just ordinary diamond - I could not justify the price increase of those at the moment, so found one as close as possible to the “ideal” one - based only on pictures, videos, GIA report and basic D knowledge.

It is pretty, shiny and sparkly with some fire too, mainly under the correct light source (but even under sunlight / ordinary bulb light). But I can’t stop thinking “what if ACA from Whiteflash would be that much more bright and sparkly even taking smaller stone?”

Would you go into process of returning the current one (overseas) and ordering new one (from overseas) not seeing it in flesh again (and deal with post, taxes, import fees again)? (Found .65 E VS1 ACA at whiteflash but probably $500 - 700 more with all taxes)

Is the difference in real world (not having them side by side) that much visible - like will it bling in every possible moment / angle?

I tried to find anything on the internet, but most videos / articles compare only reports or stones under best possible light source from 10cm (4in) from camera - and even then I can not imagine, what the difference would be.. Because I think the cut of my stone is not that bad to expect that much difference..

Does anyone here switched from ideal / excellent cut to super ideal cut and found it night and day difference?

Thank you for opinions! (Or pictures )

 

[Rockdiamond]

It’s really an impossible question to answer in a relevant way. Kinda like asking if the pizza from Joes is too spicy.
Each of us perceives things in our own way.
I can see small differences between “Super Ideal” and regular old well cut round brilliants.
Taken in a wholistic manner- it’s really not black and white. Too many factors are at play.
Dollar for dollar, many people will choose a more aggressively priced, yet still well cut stone.
Based on many years spent here……my feeling is that many of the active participants here would choose the super ideal.
Neither is wrong.
There’s definitely a whole lotta gorgeous non super ideal RBC’s out there.
I love 60/60’s

 

[Txborn79]

I’ve personally compared a GIA XXX to a “super idea” and could tell the difference. If someone were to walk up to me with a well cut GIA, not sure if I’d be able to tell without having a super idea next to it.

If you’re questioning it, will you always question it and wonder “what if”? If there’s ever any chance of an upgrade I’d go with WF.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Firstly most GIA XXX are much deeper than your stone. Simply because deeper gets more weight for the cutter and more $$$'s.
You are outside my HCA zone by a tad but not a disaster. Shallower is better when dirty. In fact shallower than super ideal looks better 95% of the time unless you clean the supa dupa every day.
David RockDiamond speaks some wisdom.
I consider super Ideal to be more a mind thing than a visual if the non super round passes Ideal-scope and HCA. But since they are my products I might be biased.

 

[sledge]

First thing we have to recognize is that GIA 3X is pretty worthless in defining true cut quality. Not because they are bad diamonds but because GIA made the criteria so broad that you have really great stones and some bad stones all with the moniker of “3X”.



In comparison, most GIA 3X stones fall into (the more strict) cut grades of AGS 2-4. In comparison super ideals are AGS 0, which is ideal or their highest grade mark.



Hopefully you can see how you could get various answers by simply asking if a 3X is vastly different than a super ideal. Because super ideals are so tightly cut it’s more a question of which exact 3X stone you are comparing them against. Some are close. Others not so much.

However, what you really care about is how your 3X stone looks in comparison. We are at a disadvantage because we can’t see pictures or videos of your stone. But going on data alone we know this:






Hands down the HCA is a great selection tool as it really helps narrow the field of diamonds to respectable options when you are searching. But it also has some downfalls. It only analyzes 40 of the 57 facets (58 if a culet exists). Also its analysis is based entirely on the data on the lab report. The bigger issue being all lab reports condense a larger set of actual data into the formats we see. Also some labs like GIA not only average but round the data as well. The HCA doesn’t know all the actuals so it’s basing its prediction on the lab data being perfect and constant even though it’s averaged and rounded.







So why go through the hassle to present all this and make you aware? Because the proportions and even HCA don’t tell the whole story. We simply don’t know the actual values of all 57/58 facets.

Based on the data, you have a steep crown paired with a deep pavilion, aka a “steep-deep”. But honestly many here would recommend that stone at 35/40.8. So it’s outside the box but not by massive amounts. What would make the difference is knowing the actuals. In lieu of a detailed Sarine report to provide all the actuals you could buy an idealscope or ASET scope and see how the stone is actually performing. If you have actual values that don’t work they will show up as leakage or weaker light return in the scope views.

Typically, we would expect a steep-deep to leak some light. How badly? Again, depends on the cut accuracy and actuals.

If I were in your shoes, I would buy the scope and analyze at your home so you can get a better idea what you actually have. You can take and compare to other stones in stores but if they all face similar issues then I’m not sure how that provides the comfort you need. This is my biggest rub with using our eyes alone. Most people have so few experiences and most are under jewelers lighting which can make a very poor stone look good.

In a perfect world you would have a local WF to walk in and compare your stone against theirs to determine if it’s worth it or not.

 

[Karl_K]

35/41 is not very steep/deep depending on the lower halves % it could get AGS0 with the GIA gross rounding there is a lot of possible ags0 combos and some ags1 combos in that range.
If the lowers are 77% actual that opens even more possible combos potentially getting ags0.
Can't tell you where yours falls.

 

[sledge]

By chance do you have any photos or videos of the diamond in question?

 

[elizat]

If diamonds are really not a thing where you live and you would have to return an overseas purchase and do it again, I'd just leave well enough alone unless the recipient is unhappy. The whole comparison is the thief of joy bit. Plus, the return and repurchase on an international transaction times two would not be worth it to me unless the recipient is unhappy.

 

[sledge]

If you want to get further into the weeds this is an article that @Karl_K wrote and his MRB example is very similar, proportionally, to the stone you are asking about.

Here you can see crossing 41.2 on the pavilion actuals is where problems begin. Also, he shows an example of lengthening the LGF’s as a potential solution to reduce problems, hence his comment earlier about 77 LGF’s (although reported as 75 on the GIA report, actuals vary between 73-77).

Lastly he shows some real world diamond photos in comparison with similar issues noted in his study. The example photos are from a stone that is more steep-deep than yours @ 56 table, 35.3 crown and 41.6 pavilion so it likely paints a worst picture than you may see with your stone BUT it may provide some reference for what you should be looking for to determine what is going on with your stone.

Again, so much hinges on the cut nuances of the specific stone in question.

Do the pavilion mains drive light return in the modern round brilliant?

Article by Karl K. On many websites you will see it said that the pavilion main facets drive light return. Top labs and many grading systems use the pavilion angle […]

www.pricescope.com

Close ups of the GIA deep “Excellent Cut” (stone C from Table 1): 1.- on a white tray; 2.- on GIA’s gray tray. 3.- on black background. 4. & 5.- Ideal-Scope and AGS ASET photos. 6.- on fingers

 

[AllAboardTheBlingTrain]

My suggestion is to look at your stone with your own eyes, and if you love it, just relax and love it. At the end of the day, you’re not going to be walking around with your stone attached to a super ideal all the time, right?

But I’m an outlier in these parts. I have watched so many of those comparison videos and have walked away appreciating the 3Ex just fine. It’s not like I can’t see a difference - sometimes, in direct comparison, I can. But it’s never been such a huge difference that I would’ve been willing to pay the additional premium. I have a friend who does have a super ideal diamond (she’s the only one I know with one) and while her stone is GORGEOUS I feel like I’d rather put the extra money into another piece of jewelry, a bigger stone or in my bank account than go for the super ideal. And I know she - as someone who doesn’t really understand diamonds - was also of the opinion that she would’ve rather her fiancé get her the bigger non-super ideal stone. Now in your case the difference between 0.74 and 0.65 is likely not that visible but the additional 500-700 dollars may be more worth it to you / the recipient as money than as the cut upgrade. But no one can really answer that question for you except you. That’s why it matters what you (or the recipient, if that’s not you) thinks of the stone in and of itself.

 

[Diamond Girl 21]

You have gotten great information, and only you can decide what is best for you.

I think the best question to ask yourself is how happy you are with your current diamond. Do you, or the recipient, love the way it performs, or are you a bit disappointed? Will you always question if a WF diamond or another super ideal would have been a better choice? Can you order a super ideal to compare it side by side with your other diamond, and then make the decision?

IMHO, seeing what you like best, with your own eyes is the most important thing.

Keep in mind that even the experts on here sometimes disagree with each other about "what is best".

 

[Rockdiamond]

The information that @sledge posted is quite thorough- although in some areas it's not specific- and could be misleading.
"Light return issues" is a phrase that can really scare someone.
The title of the thread includes the words "real world".
How many people would see these issues? Do all non "Super Ideal" stones have issues?? If I can't see these issues, do I still have a bad diamond?
My point is that in the real world, it's not so black and white. Human perceptions vary.
For example, the difference between a VG and EX symmetry/polish isn't possible to see to the vast majority of humans- even under a microscope.
And in the real world, many other issues come into play.
If someone is faced with a choice between a 1.20ct non super ideal, versus a 1.00 Super Ideal, they may very well go for the larger stone. Many of the comparisons ( which are aimed at promoting "Super Ideal" stones) neglect the monetary and size issues.
How many innocent readers get spooked due to "light return issues" that they can't even see??

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

The information that @sledge posted is quite thorough- although in some areas it's not specific- and could be misleading.
"Light return issues" is a phrase that can really scare someone.
The title of the thread includes the words "real world".
How many people would see these issues? Do all non "Super Ideal" stones have issues?? If I can't see these issues, do I still have a bad diamond?
My point is that in the real world, it's not so black and white. Human perceptions vary.
For example, the difference between a VG and EX symmetry/polish isn't possible to see to the vast majority of humans- even under a microscope.
And in the real world, many other issues come into play.
If someone is faced with a choice between a 1.20ct non super ideal, versus a 1.00 Super Ideal, they may very well go for the larger stone. Many of the comparisons ( which are aimed at promoting "Super Ideal" stones) neglect the monetary and size issues.
How many innocent readers get spooked due to "light return issues" that they can't even see??

Adding a twist.
Fancy shape diamonds have more leakage and less light return.
BUT
They cost less. So you can have a bigger stone.
AND
Some have bigger spread for weight than rounds.
So there are many facets to diamond buying and choosing.

 

[Kaycee2018]

Lots of good advise above. IMO (and it’s not a common one here, so take it for what it’s worth), there is a big difference between a “run of the mill” poorly cut GIA ExExEx vs. one completely in line or closely in line with Super Ideal proportions. Meaning that the visible difference between a poorly cut GIA ExExEx way outside Super Ideal standards when compared to a Super Ideal is going to be more obvious. However, the visible difference for the average person is less obvious when comparing a well cut GIA ExExEx in completely in line or closely with a Super Ideal proportions. Unfortunately, most of the comparison videos and info out there compare poorly cut GIA ExExEx (steep deeps, etc.) vs. Super Ideal. There aren’t many examples of well cut GIA ExExEx diamonds with proportions in line or closely in line with Super Ideal proportions vs. Super Ideal diamonds. That said, Super Ideals come with the peace of mind that you seem to be lacking with your diamond. So the question is if that peace of mind is worth the return process, going down in size, the cost difference, etc. Can you order the WF diamond to compare with your current diamond while you are within your current return period? If that’s not an option and you return your current stone for the WF one and don’t perceive a difference, regret the smaller size, etc., will your current diamond still be available to re-purchase? Where did you get your current diamond? It’s possible the folks here can find you a better option so you can do a simple exchang with your current retailer. GL!

 

[Rockdiamond]

That said, Super Ideals come with the peace of mind that you seem to be lacking with your diamond

This is making my point: how many people have needlessly lost "peace of mind" about a diamond based on discussions like this one?

There aren’t many examples of well cut GIA ExExEx diamonds with proportions in line or closely in line with Super Ideal proportions vs. Super Ideal diamonds.

That's not my experience. Sure there are some stones GIA grades EX cut grade that aren't that great....but the majority of GIA EX cut grade stones have a nice appearance.
As Garry pointed out, pretty much any fancy shape could be said to have "light return issues" when using the sort of logic we're getting into here ( leakage, etc).

ETA- buying and returing diamonds isn't all that easy- nearly impossible for overseas buyers. But even for domestic buyers- you have to lay out the money, pay shipping costs ( which are getting crazy) etc....it's not such a viable option for many people

 

[Rons Wolfe]

I saw on that chart that some diamonds can be AGS0, but not make GIA's Excellent grade. I wonder why GIA is more stringent than AGS on those.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I saw on that chart that some diamonds can be AGS0, but not make GIA's Excellent grade. I wonder why GIA is more stringent than AGS on those.

Wrong wrong wrong!
GIA favours diamonds that are cut deeper that add a lot of leakage of light.
Those steeper crown deeper pavilion diamonds also show dirt 2 or 3 times more than shallower diamonds.
Personally AGS and GIA do not go shallow enough for diamonds in the real world of being worn and enjoyed.

 

[Rons Wolfe]

Wrong wrong wrong!
GIA favours diamonds that are cut deeper that add a lot of leakage of light.
Those steeper crown deeper pavilion diamonds also show dirt 2 or 3 times more than shallower diamonds.
Personally AGS and GIA do not go shallow enough for diamonds in the real world of being worn and enjoyed.

Well OK, sir, I'm not sure what warranted that outburst. I'll just leave with this here.

 

[lovedogs]

Generally speaking, AGS Is much stricter than GIA on cut. I'm sure there are exceptions, but rare ones.

 

[Karl_K]

I saw on that chart that some diamonds can be AGS0, but not make GIA's Excellent grade. I wonder why GIA is more stringent than AGS on those.

Who says that AGS is wrong on those combos?
There are ags0 combos I disagree with, but there are far more GIA EX combos I disagree with.
There are also ags1 and GIA vg combos that I think should score higher.

 

[Rons Wolfe]

Who says that AGS is wrong on those combos?
There are ags0 combos I disagree with, but there are far more GIA EX combos I disagree with.
There are also ags1 and GIA vg combos that I think should score higher.

I don't think anyone said AGS was wrong, certainly I didn't. I was just curious why GIA is more stringent than AGS on the ones in the range I highlighted.

 

[Diamond Girl 21]

I don't think anyone said AGS was wrong, certainly I didn't. I was just curious why GIA is more stringent than AGS on the ones in the range I highlighted.

I think GIA will downgrade cut grades on diamonds with certain levels of painting and digging that AGS finds acceptable. There maybe more reasons or further explanations. Maybe the experts will weigh in.

 

[Rons Wolfe]

I think GIA will downgrade cut grades on diamonds with certain levels of painting and digging that AGS finds acceptable. There maybe more reasons or further explanations. Maybe the experts will weigh in.

I'd heard that before, but would expect it to apply no matter where the diamond falls on the chart I posted.

A little trivia, the stone in my avatar pic is dual certed ASGS000 and GIAXXX. The GIA cert mentions the "painting at the girdle to enhance brilliance". It's an Eightstar brand.

 

[Mreader]

Here is a clip - I ordered an aca to compare when I was thinking of replacing my studs.

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

I didn’t end up doing it bc they were studs (in my ears so not as noticeable) and it would cost a lot to switch. But if I were starting from scratch I would have gone with ACA - I just didn’t know about them back then. Here’s my thread on the experience:

Worth it to downgrade size in order to get ACAs? Thoughts appreciated.

As some of you might know I put my existing studs on the market for sale, but I know how tough it can be to sell to an individual when the price tag is high. I have 3 ctw diamond studs that are GIA SI2 and I in color; one is triple x and one is xx VG. Anyway I have also asked a couple of local...

www.pricescope.com

 

[Diamond Girl 21]

I'd heard that before, but would expect it to apply no matter where the diamond falls on the chart I posted.

A little trivia, the stone in my avatar pic is dual certed ASGS000 and GIAXXX. The GIA cert mentions the "painting at the girdle to enhance brilliance". It's an Eightstar brand.

I think it depends on the level of painting/digging. Once that level us reached, the diamond can take a hit on the cut grade.

Gorgeous diamond btw.

 

[Rons Wolfe]

@Diamond Girl 21 I see where you quoted me, but no actual reply.

 

[rungirl]

@Mreader was the difference more noticeable in real life? I can't see any difference between the ACA and your GIA XXX in the video. But I don't seem to be able to discern some of the finer nuances.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Well OK, sir, I'm not sure what warranted that outburst. I'll just leave with this here.

Sorry if I offended you Rons.
AGS has simply allowed a longer range on what we call the sweet line into shallower and steeper crown angles (with appropriately inverse pavilion angles).
That said, I have seen evidence of GIA diamonds with shallower proportion combinations and very shallow depths in % terms (probably at risk of chipping girdles) than on any Facetware(tm) Charts.
Each of those extreme crown angle variations requires careful matching of upper and lower girdle combinations - one of Karls extreme expertises.

And on top of all that, because growers of CVD slabs have depth as a limitation, it makes sense that we consider real world viewing distances. Rarely do people examine diamonds from 8 inches as per AGS standards for rejection. I have always set my standard at 14 to 18 inches because thats what I see people looking from most of the time.
I

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

A little trivia, the stone in my avatar pic is dual certed ASGS000 and GIAXXX. The GIA cert mentions the "painting at the girdle to enhance brilliance". It's an Eightstar brand.

The retired director of AGS also wore an 8* and did not hold with GIA's dinging and downgrading most 8*'s to VG cut quality.
I agree somewhat, but sometimes it is arguable that Richard Von Sternberg (vale) pushed a bit hard on the lower girdle painting.

 

[sledge]

@Diamond Girl 21 I see where you quoted me, but no actual reply.

I think her response got caught up in your quote box somehow. It appears she was complimenting your stone.