Thoughts On "Ideal" Cut

[sturgeon123456]

Hi guys I am just wondering your thoughts on the following.....

Lots of online vendors have their own "signature ideal" lines....or rather diamonds that they title as such. I have noticed that on many of the fancy cuts the depths are often 75% or greather.

My thoughts are as follows....

If the diamond doesn't face up as it should, this greatly impacts the appearance of the diamond which should be taken into account when giving a cut grade. I know there isn't a standard for fancies like there is for round but since most shapes that are cut deep like cushions, radiants and princesses were basically invented to maximize yield from rough isn't it obvious whats going on?

Heres my final thought

If i could buy a .75 carat emerald cut that faces up larger than a 1 ct and they are both "excellent cuts", why not go with the act? It seems like a carat just isn't a carat anymore as vendors are maximizing yields and providing stones that are just too deep.

 

[Karl_K]

In fancy cuts depth does not always equal spread.
Look at the mm dimensions not the depth when looking at well cut fancies.
A 65% depth emerald cut can have less spread than one 75% depth, same with asscher/se, pears, cushions and princess cuts
For example Octavia has a depth over 75% and the spread is as good or better than the majority of asschers on the market no matter what depth and will blow them away in light return.

The key is look at mm measurements and verify claimed performance.

 

[sturgeon123456]

In fancy cuts depth does not always equal spread.
Look at the mm dimensions not the depth when looking at well cut fancies.
A 65% depth emerald cut can have less spread than one 75% depth, same with asscher/se, pears, cushions and princess cuts
For example Octavia has a depth over 75% and the spread is as good or better than the majority of asschers on the market no matter what depth and will blow them away in light return.

The key is look at mm measurements and verify claimed performance.

Thanks for the response, greatly appreciated!

Is it the higher crown angles that Increase the depth percentage? Can you please explain how this works?

 

[sturgeon123456]

In fancy cuts depth does not always equal spread.
Look at the mm dimensions not the depth when looking at well cut fancies.
A 65% depth emerald cut can have less spread than one 75% depth, same with asscher/se, pears, cushions and princess cuts
For example Octavia has a depth over 75% and the spread is as good or better than the majority of asschers on the market no matter what depth and will blow them away in light return.

The key is look at mm measurements and verify claimed performance.

Or in the case of an Octavia I suppose its obvious that the spread is sort of innacurate in a sense as there are huge areas where there is a void (the really broad cut corners) that isn't taken into account in the measurement so a standard asscher may have a smaller overall mm x mm it would have less of the void in the corners. This furthers my point.....

If all things were equal and you had an octavia that was 60 percent vs 75% and they were the exact same carat weight would the spread not be larger on the one with the smaller depth?

Basically why are so many fancies being cut so deep. Is it nor merely to maximize the yield from the rough because there is no set standard that consumers demand. Why not start cutting rounds to 75%? The market would not allow it. I wish that we were further along in the way of standardized cutting parameters for fancies. It is so hard to find decent fancies...

By the way I absolutely love the Octavia cut...one of my personal favourites and I would be honored to own one of those beauties! This is in no way meant to be offensive towards any vendor at all (especially not against the folks at GOG as they are extremely prudent in educating the consumer and disclosing all details of the stones they sell), I am just wondering if consumers are getting their moneys worth when it comes to fancies due to lack of acceptable standards? Maybe one day things will turn.

 

[Karl_K]

Or in the case of an Octavia I suppose its obvious that the spread is sort of innacurate in a sense as there are huge areas where there is a void (the really broad cut corners) that isn't taken into account in the measurement so a standard asscher may have a smaller overall mm x mm it would have less of the void in the corners. This furthers my point.....
While I am not going to blow smoke and say the cut corners don't matter to spread because they do a small amount, it is actually the small table that allows the crown height and depth with reasonable spread.


If all things were equal and you had an octavia that was 60 percent vs 75% and they were the exact same carat weight would the spread not be larger on the one with the smaller depth?

The reason they are as deep as they are is that what was needed to get the light performance with the crown they have. They were designed around the crown. You can not have that crown and 60% depth and high light performance.

It is what it is and everything about it was done for a reason, beyond that its up to the customer to decide to accept it or not. I try and keep it real and the smoke to a min. :} that way I can sleep at night.

 

[sturgeon123456]

Or in the case of an Octavia I suppose its obvious that the spread is sort of innacurate in a sense as there are huge areas where there is a void (the really broad cut corners) that isn't taken into account in the measurement so a standard asscher may have a smaller overall mm x mm it would have less of the void in the corners. This furthers my point.....
While I am not going to blow smoke and say the cut corners don't matter to spread because they do a small amount, it is actually the small table that allows the crown height and depth with reasonable spread.


If all things were equal and you had an octavia that was 60 percent vs 75% and they were the exact same carat weight would the spread not be larger on the one with the smaller depth?

The reason they are as deep as they are is that what was needed to get the light performance with the crown they have. They were designed around the crown. You can not have that crown and 60% depth and high light performance.

It is what it is and everything about it was done for a reason, beyond that its up to the customer to decide to accept it or not. I try and keep it real and the smoke to a min. :} that way I can sleep at night.

Totally understand and thanks again for the response....I am merely trying to get a grasp on the huge variations in the fancy cuts...it makes it so hard to purchase sight unseen. The vendors that disclose the ASET and other info really helps a great great deal in selecting stones. But it comes at a great expense to them for the equipment and time put into it. On top of this the variation in cuts and what some vendors call ideal when they don't even have pictures or the stones in stock and the depths are approaching 80% etc etc it kind of makes me wonder how they come up with this ideal rating

 

[Karl_K]

Totally understand and thanks again for the response....I am merely trying to get a grasp on the huge variations in the fancy cuts...it makes it so hard to purchase sight unseen. The vendors that disclose the ASET and other info really helps a great great deal in selecting stones. But it comes at a great expense to them for the equipment and time put into it. On top of this the variation in cuts and what some vendors call ideal when they don't even have pictures or the stones in stock and the depths are approaching 80% etc etc it kind of makes me wonder how they come up with this ideal rating

That is a good question.
Where do they get them? The best thing to do is ask them.
Then post the answer for others to see and comment.
Prepare to be shocked at some of the answers.
Anyone can claim anything being able to back it up is another story......

Also I get where your coming from but there are no easy answers that apply to all situations, designs or diamonds.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I personally try to only buy fancy cuts from GOG because they are one of the only ones who do thorough light return testing, video comparisons, etc. and they specialize in well cut stones. But that said, there are "best" proportion sets for every shape of diamond. If you choose a diamond that is too shallow, you may see a lot of dark obstruction. Some diamonds may have leakage which hurts light return. You just can't choose a diamond by diameter only. When two equally excellent cut stones are being compared, then yes, absolutely I'd choose the one with the larger diameter. But the stones first have to be narrowed down with ASET (plus preferred specs for color, clarity, size, and budget).

 

[sturgeon123456]

Totally understand and thanks again for the response....I am merely trying to get a grasp on the huge variations in the fancy cuts...it makes it so hard to purchase sight unseen. The vendors that disclose the ASET and other info really helps a great great deal in selecting stones. But it comes at a great expense to them for the equipment and time put into it. On top of this the variation in cuts and what some vendors call ideal when they don't even have pictures or the stones in stock and the depths are approaching 80% etc etc it kind of makes me wonder how they come up with this ideal rating

That is a good question.
Where do they get them? The best thing to do is ask them.
Then post the answer for others to see and comment.
Prepare to be shocked at some of the answers.
Anyone can claim anything being able to back it up is another story......

Also I get where your coming from but there are no easy answers that apply to all situations, designs or diamonds.

There were a few diamonds that I was interested in a few weeks ago from an online vendor that does not post pictures (I do not want to disparage any vendors so I won't name them). I emailed them and requested photos which they did provide and their customer service was helpful and responsive. All were listed as Ideal but the variation in what I perceived to be cut quality between them was huge, although they did not provide ASETS merely photos of the stones. Further to this when I went to reserve a stone it said that it was no longer available, this happened on three different occasions over the course of a week. But they made other suggestions, but of course they were all roughly 25% more and in some cases lower quality.

I have given up on this sight entirely, what they term to be ideal and how they operate. In turn I have asked a very experienced diamond dealer to look for me or have one cut for me. Not everyone has the knowledge and experience that many of the users on pricescope do, which I thank so much for being able to lurk and learn a wee bit! and it just seems like it can be a frightening place out there for someone trying to buy an "Ideal" fancy with such a wide range of specs and vendors selling with no pictures.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Interesting discussion Sturgeon. I think your comments about the long tradition of cutting for weight are core to the issue. In the absence of a standard for overall cut quality, maximizing carat weight will continue to be a primary strategy for most manufacturers.

Reflector technology was the first way we could start to demonstrate important aspects of diamond performance, then came ray tracing to understand scientifically how light is being handled. But with fancy cuts there is less agreement as to what combinations of light performance characteristics result in the most beautiful diamonds. Still, as you say, the vendors who are providing the latest light performance diagnostics on the diamonds they offer are providing consumers with a basis for comparison.

As Karl stated, the depth percentage metric on fancies can be misleading. A very bulgy pavilion for instance can retain alot of extra weight even if the depth percentage is not excessive.

It seems to me one thing that could help, and maybe Karl has an opinion on this, is for reports on fancies to calculate "spread" more directly. I know that spread is taken into account in the AGSL light performance grading system. It calculates the area of the outside dimensions (face up) of the diamond in square millimeters. It will register a deduction if the footprint of the stone is too small or too large.

The spread info alone would not be helpful, because a larger spread can often be achieved by sacrificing performance. But looking at spread in conjuction with ASET and other diagnostics would be very useful.

Until there is wider agreement on standards for fancies you will continue to see sellers taking big liberties in their marketing claims, even with their "signature ideals".

 

[kenny]

Don't forget that face up size or spread only considers the on-axis, top-down view.
That ignores an important diamond quality ... off-axis performance.
To an amazing degree the fireworks of the Octavia continue as you tilt the diamond quite a bit off-axis.

IMO anyone who thinks Octavia's 75%+ depth is a liability is making a big mistake overlooking the unique off-axis performance of that high crown.
The vast majority of the time I look down and see my Octavia I am seeing it off-axis since I didn't flip my wrist up for a perfect on-axis view.

I also own two ideal cut rounds, an ACA and a Solasfera.
The light performance is optimized for the on-axis, flip your wrist up, view.
Off axis the light show of an ideal-cut round pales in comparison to the Octavia's.

It kind of reminds me of how you have to stand right in front of some speakers to get the best sound, whereas a better speaker still sounds great if you stand off to the side.

Getting off-axis light performance that rivals the on-axis light performance is kinda like getting 8 ideal-cut diamonds, each pointing in a different direction, for the price of one.

No, I am not a shill for GOG or Karl.
I've just lived with two Octavias for years now, one on my finger and one on my SO's which I see from across the table or across the room.
That makes me the most highly-qualified person on the planet to comment on this cut.

 

[isaku5]

Don't forget that face up size or spread only considers the on-axis, top-down view.
That ignores an important diamond quality ... off-axis performance.
To an amazing degree the fireworks of the Octavia continue as you tilt the diamond quite a bit off-axis.

IMO anyone who thinks Octavia's 75%+ depth is a liability is making a big mistake overlooking the unique off-axis performance of that high crown.
The vast majority of the time I look down and see my Octavia I am seeing it off-axis since I didn't flip my wrist up for a perfect on-axis view.

I also own two ideal cut rounds, an ACA and a Solasfera.
The light performance is optimized for the on-axis, flip your wrist up, view.
Off axis the light show of an ideal-cut round pales in comparison to the Octavia's.

It kind of reminds me of how you have to stand right in front of some speakers to get the best sound, whereas a better speaker still sounds great if you stand off to the side.

Getting off-axis light performance that rivals the on-axis light performance is kinda like getting 8 ideal-cut diamonds, each pointing in a different direction, for the price of one.

No, I am not a shill for GOG or Karl.
I've just lived with two Octavias for years now, one on my finger and one on my SO's which I see from across the table or across the room.
That makes me the most highly-qualified person on the planet to comment on this cut.

Just a darned minute, Kenny. When did that second Octavia become a member of your household?? I remember your SO's Ocvtavia, but which additional one did you get????

 

[drk14]

Not everyone has the knowledge and experience that many of the users on pricescope do, which I thank so much for being able to lurk and learn a wee bit! and it just seems like it can be a frightening place out there for someone trying to buy an "Ideal" fancy with such a wide range of specs and vendors selling with no pictures.

I agree that buying fancy cuts is challenging, and that you really must see the diamond in person (under a variety of lighting conditions) before committing to it. That is why good online vendors have a generous return period, during which you can examine the diamond and return it risk-free if not happy. The best internet vendors for fancy cuts (IMO) also provide videos and ASETs to help you narrow the field and make a selection.

I started out like you, maybe 2-3 months ago. I was a complete beginner, and clueless compared to the PS regulars. But I successfully purchased a beautiful marquise diamond from an online vendor, with the help of expert PS members (especially Niel and Gypsy). Along the way, I have seen many other "newbies" successfully select a fancy cut diamond with the help of experienced PSers. I would feel confident doing it again if I had to.

So, my suggestion to you, Sturgeon123456, is to go beyond lurking, and to actually solicit help for your fancy diamond search from our resident experts. You may be surprised at how easy it is with all the help available here.

Good luck!

P.S. If you're looking for an "ideal cut" turtle, though, that may be tough even on PS!

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Don't forget that face up size or spread only considers the on-axis, top-down view.
That ignores an important diamond quality ... off-axis performance.
To an amazing degree the fireworks of the Octavia continue as you tilt the diamond quite a bit off-axis.

IMO anyone who thinks Octavia's 75%+ depth is a liability is making a big mistake overlooking the unique off-axis performance of that high crown.
The vast majority of the time I look down and see my Octavia I am seeing it off-axis since I didn't flip my wrist up for a perfect on-axis view.

I also own two ideal cut rounds, an ACA and a Solasfera.
The light performance is optimized for the on-axis, flip your wrist up, view.
Off axis the light show of an ideal-cut round pales in comparison to the Octavia's.

It kind of reminds me of how you have to stand right in front of some speakers to get the best sound, whereas a better speaker still sounds great if you stand off to the side.

Getting off-axis light performance that rivals the on-axis light performance is kinda like getting 8 ideal-cut diamonds, each pointing in a different direction, for the price of one.

No, I am not a shill for GOG or Karl.
I've just lived with two Octavias for years now, one on my finger and one on my SO's which I see from across the table or across the room.
That makes me the most highly-qualified person on the planet to comment on this cut.

Good point Kenny. How a diamond performs from a wide range of viewing angles is critical to it's overall beauty. If it draws light from a wide portion of the angular spectrum over a wide range of viewing angles, it will deliver performance in a multitude of lighting environments. And that maximizes return on investment!

 

[Serg]

You would receive much less % for Fancy cut depth just if you use maximum diameter as reference ( 100%) instead minimum diameter . there is not a difference for round cut but huge difference for fancy cuts just due definition rule.

if you want correct comparison between depths for round cut and fancy cuts you would use average diameter for fancy cuts.

in any case there is not direct correlation between depth, spread and beauty .

 

[kenny]

Just a darned minute, Kenny. When did that second Octavia become a member of your household?? I remember your SO's Ocvtavia, but which additional one did you get????

A year ago I bought a 1.51 G VS2 Octavia.
December 2009 my SO got the first Octavia sold, a 1.34 H VS2.
He said he should get the larger one since his hands are bigger.
I responded by slicing off a large portion of his hand.
We must be the only two-Octavia household in the universe.

We all judge the cut of our diamonds based on what they look like on our hands.
That only tells you how a cut behaves within two feet.
Viewing the same cut from across the room daily for four years develops a more complete understanding and appreciation of what the cut can do.

Ladies, to really get this make your husband wear your diamond for a few months.
A diamond's appearance from a distance reveals a very different aspect of its character than up close.
Octavia's off-axis advantage was especially noticeable from across the room.

My SO knew his Octavia was more of a fireball than my asscher, and the brat would flaunt it to torture me.
Whenever we entered a place with good light for fire he'd hold his ring-hand up to his forehead and say, "OH, I HAVE A HEADACHE!" so I'd look at him.
Now, payback's a bitch!



My Octavia thread: [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/im-holding-two-octavias-that-im-deciding-between.192202/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/im-holding-two-octavias-that-im-deciding-between.192202/[/URL]

My ring thread: [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/tomorrow-i-get-my-new-octavia-ring.195681/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/tomorrow-i-get-my-new-octavia-ring.195681/[/URL]

Sturgeon123456, sorry for the threadjack; I do get carried away.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

You would receive much less % for Fancy cut depth just if you use maximum diameter as reference ( 100%) instead minimum diameter . there is not a difference for round cut but huge difference for fancy cuts just due definition rule.

if you want correct comparison between depths for round cut and fancy cuts you would use average diameter for fancy cuts.

in any case there is not direct correlation between depth, spread and beauty .

Serg,
Do you think it would be practical and beneficial for spread to be a seperate metric on a lab report, such that the calculation would measure the actual surface area above the girdle? That is, it would take into acount the contribution to surface area of the design of the crown as well.

It seems to me this would be helpful. Not so much to compare fancies against rounds, but to compare stones of the same or similar shapes. In looking at spread in combination with other analytics it would give you a little better picture of the tradeoffs of a particular stone. For instance, if two stones both weigh 1.00 ct and stone A has better spread, but stone B has more appealing light performance, you might opt for stone B. If both have appealing LP it would be logical to opt for stone A.

 

[sturgeon123456]

A great big thanks to everyone for engaging in this discussion:

Texas Leageur
Kenny
DRK14
Serg

Excellent comments and information....thank you so so much again. If I forgot any names I apologize.

I really want to point out I am in zero way making any comments directed towards Octavias......Asschers are my favourite cut and I drool over Octavias. However I don't think any stone needs to be cut to 75% depths to get a good cut. By the way I don't know why Octavias got brought into this....I have no idea what depth they are or any of the specs other than the fact they are extremely gorgeous stones.


To try to give some insight....Here are my personal struggles since I guess at this point it's obvious that I have some issues.

I purchased a princess cut 5 ct GIA F SI1 EX EX and my GF, through some sleuthing, told me she doesn't like princess cuts (she doesn't know I have this stone I just asked her her opinion based on photos)...upon further research finding out that GIA Excellent Excellent doesn't mean you are getting an Excellent cut for a fancy kind of bites. The princess I purchased I am keeping and will be setting into a ring for myself, but now I have to find another stone and finding nice stones that are 5ct plus is tough. And when you are spending well into the 100k range you want the darn thing to look its size and sparkle like its supposed to....can you blame me for steering away from a stone that

So now I am searching again, only to find that the more I learn the more grey areas surface.

Round and Princess are out, she likes cushion....chunky style....size is minimum 5 ct....Its hard to find such a stone with proper depths, spread, colour and clarity combination.

 

[drk14]

So now I am searching again, only to find that the more I learn the more grey areas surface.

Round and Princess are out, she likes cushion....chunky style....size is minimum 5 ct....Its hard to find such a stone with proper depths, spread, colour and clarity combination.

My suggestion would be to contact GOG to source an 'August Vintage Cushion' (AVC) that meets your specs, as well as Victor Canera to ask about having a 'Canera Antique Cushion' (CAC) cut for you.

GOG currently has this AVC in stock:
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/9600/

Canera's largest CAC in stock is "only" 3ct, but it would probably be worthwhile talking to him about having a larger one cut for you:
http://www.victorcanera.com/diamonds/xh8zq9

Both cost about $25k/carat. You can ask other more expert PSers for their opinion of the quality of the AVC and CAC cuts.

 

[sturgeon123456]

Just a darned minute, Kenny. When did that second Octavia become a member of your household?? I remember your SO's Ocvtavia, but which additional one did you get????

A year ago I bought a 1.51 G VS2 Octavia.
December 2009 my SO got the first Octavia sold, a 1.34 H VS2.
He said he should get the larger one since his hands are bigger.
I responded by slicing off a large portion of his hand.
We must be the only two-Octavia household in the universe.

We all judge the cut of our diamonds based on what they look like on our hands.
That only tells you how a cut behaves within two feet.
Viewing the same cut from across the room daily for four years develops a more complete understanding and appreciation of what the cut can do.

Ladies, to really get this make your husband wear your diamond for a few months.
A diamond's appearance from a distance reveals a very different aspect of its character than up close.
Octavia's off-axis advantage was especially noticeable from across the room.

My SO knew his Octavia was more of a fireball than my asscher, and the brat would flaunt it to torture me.
Whenever we entered a place with good light for fire he'd hold his ring-hand up to his forehead and say, "OH, I HAVE A HEADACHE!" so I'd look at him.
Now, payback's a bitch!



My Octavia thread: [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/im-holding-two-octavias-that-im-deciding-between.192202/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/im-holding-two-octavias-that-im-deciding-between.192202/[/URL]

My ring thread: [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/tomorrow-i-get-my-new-octavia-ring.195681/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/tomorrow-i-get-my-new-octavia-ring.195681/[/URL]

Sturgeon123456, sorry for the threadjack; I do get carried away.

LOL no sorry needed...love those beauties and the story behind them

Unfortunately I do not own an octavia but I do have a 4 step asscher, 1.25ct H VS2

 

[sturgeon123456]

So now I am searching again, only to find that the more I learn the more grey areas surface.

Round and Princess are out, she likes cushion....chunky style....size is minimum 5 ct....Its hard to find such a stone with proper depths, spread, colour and clarity combination.

My suggestion would be to contact GOG to source an 'August Vintage Cushion' (AVC) that meets your specs, as well as Victor Canera to ask about having a 'Canera Antique Cushion' (CAC) cut for you.

GOG currently has this AVC in stock:
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/9600/

Canera's largest CAC in stock is "only" 3ct, but it would probably be worthwhile talking to him about having a larger one cut for you:
http://www.victorcanera.com/diamonds/xh8zq9

Both cost about $25k/carat. You can ask other more expert PSers for their opinion of the quality of the AVC and CAC cuts.

Thanks for the info....

Depth and spread great on the AVC but J is out of the question

The VC stone is very nice but the 3 ct Is a prohibiting factor, also to my eyes I prefer the AVC....absolutely zero offence to anyone this is merely my preference, I have not seen either in person and am judging based on pictures, I prefer the facet arrangement on the AVC and am not wild about the fact that the open girdle is reflected multiple times in the VC stone. Although once again they are both amazingly beautiful and the VC really captures that vintage look and the AVC seems to be an in-between vintage and modern style.

 

[sturgeon123456]

Don't forget that face up size or spread only considers the on-axis, top-down view.
That ignores an important diamond quality ... off-axis performance.
To an amazing degree the fireworks of the Octavia continue as you tilt the diamond quite a bit off-axis.

IMO anyone who thinks Octavia's 75%+ depth is a liability is making a big mistake overlooking the unique off-axis performance of that high crown.
The vast majority of the time I look down and see my Octavia I am seeing it off-axis since I didn't flip my wrist up for a perfect on-axis view.

I also own two ideal cut rounds, an ACA and a Solasfera.
The light performance is optimized for the on-axis, flip your wrist up, view.
Off axis the light show of an ideal-cut round pales in comparison to the Octavia's.

It kind of reminds me of how you have to stand right in front of some speakers to get the best sound, whereas a better speaker still sounds great if you stand off to the side.

Getting off-axis light performance that rivals the on-axis light performance is kinda like getting 8 ideal-cut diamonds, each pointing in a different direction, for the price of one.

No, I am not a shill for GOG or Karl.
I've just lived with two Octavias for years now, one on my finger and one on my SO's which I see from across the table or across the room.
That makes me the most highly-qualified person on the planet to comment on this cut.

Good point Kenny. How a diamond performs from a wide range of viewing angles is critical to it's overall beauty. If it draws light from a wide portion of the angular spectrum over a wide range of viewing angles, it will deliver performance in a multitude of lighting environments. And that maximizes return on investment!

Further to this my asscher that I posted in a picture above is rather muted at various viewing angles....not sure if its the setting or the stone but when it was loose at the Jewelers and I viewed it at various angles in the tweezers it seemed to be quite a bit more lively at various angles. But I have seen threads on here that settings should not impact a really well cut stones light performance which I personally strongly disagree with...If you have a full bezel and a closed back ring would that not prohibit a diamonds performance versus basket and prongs?

My ring is a three sided bezel and it seems to sparkle most in the open region, the bezelled areas seem muted.

 

[drk14]

Thanks for the info....

Depth and spread great on the AVC but J is out of the question

The VC stone is very nice but the 3 ct Is a prohibiting factor, also to my eyes I prefer the AVC....absolutely zero offence to anyone this is merely my preference, I have not seen either in person and am judging based on pictures, I prefer the facet arrangement on the AVC and am not wild about the fact that the open girdle is reflected multiple times in the VC stone. Although once again they are both amazingly beautiful and the VC really captures that vintage look and the AVC seems to be an in-between vintage and modern style.

No need to apologize, I think everybody here understands that with fancy cuts, personal preference has to be a major factor in the selection process.

In any case, even if you don't like the two specific diamonds that I had linked, my point was that both GOG and VC have relationships with cutters who cut these diamonds to exacting specifications, so it would be worth your while to have a conversation with both of them about the possibility of getting a diamond cut for you, to meet your expectations for color, clarity, and spread.

 

[drk14]

Further to this my asscher that I posted in a picture above is rather muted at various viewing angles....not sure if its the setting or the stone but when it was loose at the Jewelers and I viewed it at various angles in the tweezers it seemed to be quite a bit more lively at various angles. But I have seen threads on here that settings should not impact a really well cut stones light performance which I personally strongly disagree with...If you have a full bezel and a closed back ring would that not prohibit a diamonds performance versus basket and prongs?

This is a topic that has been discussed a few times on PS. Here's a link to one of the more extended discussions:
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...g-change-and-or-decrease-light-return.146618/

In my opinion, the upshot is that for a well-cut MRB the bezel effect is negligible (at least in the face-up position), whereas for fancy cuts (even well-cut ones) there can be a perceptible effect of bezel-mounting the stone, and that the effect can get worse with tilt.



ETA: Also, in your picture, the partial bezel seems quite deep, so it is probably blocking a significant amount of light from reaching the crown on the three sides that are bezeled. Thus, a shallower bezel, which only covers the girdle and a small part of the crown and pavilion, should have a much less drastic effect.

 

[m-2-b]

I have a 5ct J colored AVC. I think you will have to go the custom route (where a vendor cuts from available rough) to find an ideal cushion in specific size range/specs that you are looking for. Good luck in your search!

 

[Dancing Fire]

I also own two ideal cut rounds, an ACA and a Solasfera.
The light performance is optimized for the on-axis, flip your wrist up, view.
Off axis the light show of an ideal-cut round pales in comparison to the Octavia's.

So the side view looks better than the top view?

 

[sturgeon123456]

I have a 5ct J colored AVC. I think you will have to go the custom route (where a vendor cuts from available rough) to find an ideal cushion in specific size range/specs that you are looking for. Good luck in your search!

Thanks for the response. I am very interested to now how the AVC faces up. Is there quite a bit of warmth or is it fairly calories?

Beautiful stone by the way, excellent choice in my opinion.

 

[m-2-b]

I have a 5ct J colored AVC. I think you will have to go the custom route (where a vendor cuts from available rough) to find an ideal cushion in specific size range/specs that you are looking for. Good luck in your search!

Thanks for the response. I am very interested to now how the AVC faces up. Is there quite a bit of warmth or is it fairly calories?

Beautiful stone by the way, excellent choice in my opinion.

Thanks! I find in most lighting conditions, it is hard to see any warmth face up b/c of the cut. From the side view is where you can see a slight tint, though. But it all depends upon your color tolerance.

Here's an outdoor shot for you just to give you an idea:

 

[Karl_K]

In my opinion, the upshot is that for a well-cut MRB the bezel effect is negligible (at least in the face-up position), whereas for fancy cuts (even well-cut ones) there can be a perceptible effect of bezel-mounting the stone, and that the effect can get worse with tilt.



ETA: Also, in your picture, the partial bezel seems quite deep, so it is probably blocking a significant amount of light from reaching the crown on the three sides that are bezeled. Thus, a shallower bezel, which only covers the girdle and a small part of the crown and pavilion, should have a much less drastic effect.

I agree mostly.
Fancies can be affected much more.
I also agree there comes a point when a bezel is deep enough it will effect the best cut stones.
Once you get above just enough metal to hold the diamond it can have a larger effect.

I also think even a low bezel can create a shadow line at the edge of the diamond that can change the perception of the diamond. I talked a little about it in the other thread re contrast.
As time goes on I wonder if the effect is greater than I used to think.
No proof either way, just my thoughts.

 

[sturgeon123456]

I have a 5ct J colored AVC. I think you will have to go the custom route (where a vendor cuts from available rough) to find an ideal cushion in specific size range/specs that you are looking for. Good luck in your search!

Thanks for the response. I am very interested to now how the AVC faces up. Is there quite a bit of warmth or is it fairly calories?

Beautiful stone by the way, excellent choice in my opinion.

Thanks! I find in most lighting conditions, it is hard to see any warmth face up b/c of the cut. From the side view is where you can see a slight tint, though. But it all depends upon your color tolerance.

Here's an outdoor shot for you just to give you an idea:

Thanks so much for the response.....to be honest in that photo the diamond looks extremely icy and white....I don't see any hint of colour (not that colour is a bad thing at all). I actually see more colour in my H asscher than what your j shows in the photo but asschers and emerald cuts are notorious for showing colour.

Maybe I can broaden my search parameters if I get a properly cut stone....I guess I will have to take a trip to New York sooner than later