Superideal cut MRB -- Qs for diamond enthusiasts/educators

[pfunk]

Re: Superideal cut MRB -- Qs for diamond enthusiasts/educato

It's interesting, I've seen the difference between a super ideal and a barely ideal. I haven't had two different super ideals side by side ever- so I can't comment as to that. Unfortunately, science teaches you that without a well controlled double blind test one's own opinion and eye witness accounts don't hold up very well..which is why I wouldn't use someone else's experience comparing super ideals as evidence either for or against. If it was unanimous that a difference can be seen (greater probable difference increases power), as it essentially is with good ASET versus bad ASET, then things would be a little easier. Not to say any person is lying- which is why I used myself as an example, but just that perceived effect can be very real to a person while actual, measured effect can be much smaller. There is always, always this to worry about:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/01/28/an-expensive-placebo-is-more-effective-than-a-cheap-one-study-shows/

The same thing goes for food, clothes, and even diamonds. Lacking the funds and drive to do a double blind test, I would do the comparison yourself if you can and see what kind of perceived effect you get- the effect seen by the wearer is all that really matters.

To the OP, my favorites are also C and D- but I'm sure all will be beautiful. You certainly can't lose in a lineup like that.

Medical,
Interesting link you posted. I actually think there is something important in this that is relevant to the regular discussions we have in trying to make sense of small differences among the top cuts with respect to beauty and value.

Pfunk makes a case for the practical quality/price assessment that is hard to argue with. Others attest to the real differences they perceive between ideal and super ideal cuts.

The parallel that you suggest (via reference to this study) as it relates to diamond cut quality is not directly analogous to a placebo effect in that the differences are real and can be seen in various specifications, static light performance images and other diagnostics. That is, they are not sugar pills or saline solution. However, the visual differences can be very small and may indeed require a refined visual palate and multiple observations in a variety of lighting conditions over time to appreciate. But the aspect of premium craftsmanship, extreme precision, and owning a diamond that is demonstrably cut to an excruciating level of technical perfection is a real value for a great many people. Even for those who may not have started out seeking the “best of the best” in terms of cut quality, but who end up purchasing one, the added benefit and value of owning such a diamond can be very significant. And I think this added value is magnified in diamonds in that they tend to be very symbolic, personal, and emotionally important long-lived purchases.

What I think is particularly interesting about this study is the implication that the necessary price premium for state-of-the art craftsmanship can actually ADD to the enjoyment of owning. Ironically, this creates grounds for the argument that consumers should not opt for diamonds that are visually similar to the best cuts, partly BECAUSE they are less expensive!

I think what medical is getting at with the placebo thing is that consumers may perceive a larger difference than is actually able to be measured based upon what information they have been provided on that diamond. If they are told it is the best cut diamond in the world that maximizes beauty as they compare it to what is described as an "inferior/lesser" diamond, the differences they perceive may be much larger than what is actually able to be measured. Perhaps if you showed the person the same two diamonds but informed them that the "inferior" diamond was actually the best cut diamond (and more expensive one), they would choose it over the one that is actually cut "better".

You touched on how the differences between diamonds are actually real and able to be measured, but I imagine there is no metric that would differentiate the superideal stones listed in this thread? Or are there programs that could scan these 4 diamonds and show measurable differences in fire, brilliance, scintillation, etc? If there are, would the differences be considered significant or insignificant?

I think it would certainly be interesting to do a comparison with 3 diamonds of equal color, clarity, and carat: superideal h&a, ideal with good optical symmetry, and ideal with not so high precision.

Scenario 1: Tell them nothing about the diamonds and have them rank them 1-3.
Scenario 2: Provide the consumers with only the price of each stone and have them rank them 1-3.
Scenario 3: Provide info on the cut of each stone (best money can buy vs. above average ideal vs. average ideal) and have them ranked 1-3.

This would allow you to get a baseline idea of what percentage of consumers see the difference and rank the "better" cut stones higher as a result of the visual differences. It would also allow you to see what percentage of consumers are willing to pay more solely for the visual difference that they see and whether being told that one is "better" results in consumers ranking it higher.

The one thing that is certain is that differences do exist as each stone is certainly unique. The question is how perceivable are those differences to the average consumer and how do those perceptions change and to what degree do they change as marketing and sales techniques are factored in.

 

[John P]

Re: Superideal cut MRB -- Qs for diamond enthusiasts/educato

Quite a bit of prior discussion on this topic here.
https://www.pricescope.com/forum/ro...es-beyond-aset-h-a-photos-etc-t212008-60.html

I think it would certainly be interesting to do a comparison with 3 diamonds of equal color, clarity, and carat: superideal h&a, ideal with good optical symmetry, and ideal with not so high precision.

Scenario 1: Tell them nothing about the diamonds and have them rank them 1-3.
Scenario 2: Provide the consumers with only the price of each stone and have them rank them 1-3.
Scenario 3: Provide info on the cut of each stone (best money can buy vs. above average ideal vs. average ideal) and have them ranked 1-3.

Scenario 1 is my preference. Did this just last week in Florida, in fact, and it was most enjoyable to see how "wow'd" the viewers were about factors they had not expected. I'm talking about color and clarity preconceptions, specifically, so not necessarily relevant to the cut discussion, except that cutting absolutely had an impact on the size-perception...as well as more colorless appearance.

The two obstacles which remain in place, whether in the many showroom viewings occurring daily, or in trying to organize a comparison, are differences in palate - and length of exposure.

#1. Humans see, taste, hear and smell at different levels. Someone with little exposure to wine usually doesn't perceive nuances as well as someone who has had long experience. And while some newbies develop a palate quickly, other folks never do. It's the same with other senses. I won't dare to tell someone else what he or she can see, hear or taste. It might be at a different level than me. This is definitely demonstrated in live showroom comparisons of the kind being discussed.

#2. Exposure to a diamond over time and through infinite panoramas of illumination brings discovery. Unlike color or clarity, cut is not a judgment of a single moment...it's a long journey which brings new education to the wearer. It's one reason many enthusiasts are zealots for keeping their rings and gemstones clean - you never know when it will surprise you next. Karl_K cites a "two-week rule," to appreciate nuance, which I largely agree with. What's certain is that one moment, or even one hour, in a handful of environments won't be enough to fully appreciate the range of the kind of nuance being discussed to those for whom it matters. And now, pair that with #1, above.

The one thing that is certain is that differences do exist as each stone is certainly unique. The question is how perceivable are those differences to the average consumer and how do those perceptions change and to what degree do they change as marketing and sales techniques are factored in.

It's true, and this is a good question. As mentioned, I prefer scenario 1 - even in limited time and lighting setups. But it's not always possible. In those cases I agree there's a definite "oh" moment attached to the reveal of a special pedigree, history, story. I think this is true for many products - and possibly even more significant with a diamond, which will often have symbolic value as well as the aesthetic.