AGS Ideal Cut & Light Perf. RB vs Hearts & Arrows RB

[Texas Leaguer]

Remember the last time you were sitting in a barber's or hairdresser's chair and saw yourself reflecting in two mirrors getting smaller and smaller into infinity.

Those were not real yous, they were virtual yous being reflected in virtual mirrors, each one smaller than the one before it.

Virtual facets are the same in a diamond. The 57 facets in a round brilliant cut diamond set up virtual mirrors within the diamond and you are seeing the results of those virtual mirrors when your diamond moves and some of the virtual facets turn on and others turn off, resulting in the scintillation that you love to see from your diamonds.

According to research done by the American Gem Society Laboratory, a one carat diamond will produce about 200,000 scintillation events as it is rotated over a 40 degree arc. The better cut the diamond, and the larger the initial virtual facets, the more of those scintillation events will actually be visible to the human eye. A top cut diamond might have between 12,000 and 14,000 eye visible scintillation events in a one carat diamond. A more poorly cut diamond will have thousands less as the smaller beginning virtual facets will much more quickly become too small for the human eye to visualize. (Larger diamonds can have larger starting virtual facets if they are cut well and thus will have even more eye visible scintillation events, with more flashes of both white and colored light, which is one of the reasons we like larger diamonds.)
I remember taking my grand children to the Learning Center here in Boise when they had an exhibit with many mirrors and all sorts of angles. It was amazing to stand between them and see yourself from so many different angles, getting smaller and smaller. I tired to imagine what it would be like to be inside a diamond, but it made my head hurt...

Wink

Ok, so a 2 ct would have larger starting virtual facets than a 1 ct, and a 3 ct would have even larger. How many eye visible scintillation events does each have? Is it proportional? Logarithmic?

That information is above my pay grade. Maybe Pete Yantzer would know, he was deeply involved in the research at the AGSL. I lose track of them after about 100 and have to start over every time I try to count them...

Wink

Nice one Wink. I hate it when the diamond moves and then you have to start all over

Seriously though, it's a good question. I don't think there is a definite number as it also depends upon the particular eye viewing the events and distance. And I think it effects the perception of fire more that white light sparkles. There probably is a calculable relationship between size and viewable events but I am not a mathematician. However, there was an MIT mathmeticians and a space scientist who designs mirrors for deep space observation involved in the AGS study. For those interested in the hard core science you can see it here.
http://www.agslab.com/spie/spie_lo_res.pdf

 

[Karl_K]

Here is a diagram showing the virtual facets for a tolk RB of perfect make.
At the simplest Virtual facets are interactions of the real facets that form the patterns in a diamond.
Real facets in blue virtual facets in purple.
(technically these are the double reflection virtual facets there are 3,4,5 reflection virtual facets but they are less important and 2nd order can generally define the diamond in diffused lighting. In strong spotlighting the others can come into play a bit more)

 

[Karl_K]

Oh and one more question.

Fancies and RBs have the same number of facets, but do RBs have more virtual facets due to their symmetry?

But on the other hand, princess cuts are symmetrical and don't perform like RBs? Their ASETs don't have as much red as RBs do.

Am I confused or what?

Princess cuts have more virtual facets. In general the more chevron the pavilion has the more virtual facets a princess shows.
Cushions can have more or less.
Crushed ice radients have the most of the common fancies.
Emerald cuts in general have fewer.
Asschers in general have fewer, Octavia has more.
In general the larger the virtual facets the fewer of them there are for a given surface area.
An OEC has fewer than an MRB.

 

[Karl_K]

2 chevron princess cut virtual facets

 

[cflutist]

Thanks Storm.

I'm sorry I asked, I have vertigo now.

 

[WinkHPD]

And with a three or four chevron pavilion you are going to see a gazzilion more virtual facets, but they will start out very small and get WAY smaller in a HUGE hurry.

Wink

 

[Texas Leaguer]

And with a three or four chevron pavilion you are going to see a gazzilion more virtual facets, but they will start out very small and get WAY smaller in a HUGE hurry.

Wink

Good point. And that is why the particular facet configuration can really impact the appearance and "flavor" of a princess cut. Bigger stones can support more chevrons without the virtual facets getting too small.

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

Please allow me to correct.
The smallest virtual facets are not necessarily observed by humans. You could argue that technically, they produce sparkles, but in essence, not for human eyes.

I have equated potential sparkles with virtual facets, I find it a useful description to help consumers.

While the point that increasing the average virtual facet(VF) size will decrease the number of VFs that are too small to be observed by the human eye is valid, it has not been stated by AGSL or anyone that I know that this effect more than counterbalances the reduction in number of VFs due to the better optical symmetry.

To my knowledge it has not been proven that a ultra high level of optical symmetry in a round creates MORE observable sparkles.
Similarly your "crispness" theory https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/h-a-pattern-vs-crispness.146607/#post-2645832#p2645832 appears to be unproven as well.

I will refer you back to my original statement "Tight optical symmetry keeps the average virtual facet size larger so there are LESS of them but they are larger and more noticeable."

I do agree in theory that increasing the average size of the VF creates a greater potential for one or more of them to be seen as coloured by the viewer(fire). However the differentiation by the human eye of diamonds with only minor differences in optical symmetry(and not much else) is a topic I have not seen well covered here or elsewhere.

 

[Karl_K]

Please allow me to correct.
The smallest virtual facets are not necessarily observed by humans. You could argue that technically, they produce sparkles, but in essence, not for human eyes.

I have equated potential sparkles with virtual facets, I find it a useful description to help consumers.

While the point that increasing the average virtual facet(VF) size will decrease the number of VFs that are too small to be observed by the human eye is valid, it has not been stated by AGSL or anyone that I know that this effect more than counterbalances the reduction in number of VFs due to the better optical symmetry.

To my knowledge it has not been proven that a ultra high level of optical symmetry in a round creates MORE observable sparkles.
Similarly your "crispness" theory https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/h-a-pattern-vs-crispness.146607/#post-2645832#p2645832 appears to be unproven as well.

I will refer you back to my original statement "Tight optical symmetry keeps the average virtual facet size larger so there are LESS of them but they are larger and more noticeable."

I do agree in theory that increasing the average size of the VF creates a greater potential for one or more of them to be seen as coloured by the viewer(fire). However the differentiation by the human eye of diamonds with only minor differences in optical symmetry(and not much else) is a topic I have not seen well covered here or elsewhere.

I think it can be proven from a diamond stand point what is not proven is at what level it makes a difference in human viewing. The only way to do so is a double blind study with enough comparisons to be scientifically accurate. Big $$$$. I am a huge fan of optical and physical symmetry with tight angle ranges from a craftsmanship standpoint that I wish we could prove it.

 

[Serg]

Here is a diagram showing the virtual facets for a tolk RB of perfect make.
At the simplest Virtual facets are interactions of the real facets that form the patterns in a diamond.
Real facets in blue virtual facets in purple.
(technically these are the double reflection virtual facets there are 3,4,5 reflection virtual facets but they are less important and 2nd order can generally define the diamond in diffused lighting. In strong spotlighting the others can come into play a bit more)

VF's pattern and distribution by sizes are quite different for Cyclopes and Humans .
are any Cyclopes here?

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

I think it can be proven from a diamond stand point what is not proven is at what level it makes a difference in human viewing. The only way to do so is a double blind study with enough comparisons to be scientifically accurate. Big $$$$. I am a huge fan of optical and physical symmetry with tight angle ranges from a craftsmanship standpoint that I wish we could prove it.

What you think and what you can prove are two different things. There is an awful lot of of the former on this board and not much of the latter.

Anecdotally many prominent members of this community have admitted from their own experience that they have to "show" a consumer(it may not be initially visible to the consumers eyes) in order to justify the premium for purchasing the pinnacle of optical symmetry.

In round brilliants the comparison seems to be routinely something like an apple(CA34.5/PA40.8 ) with an orange (CA36/PA41.2), which it is easy to see why most consumers prefer the apple in a side by side test.

The real comparison should be an apple(CA34.5/PA40.8 ) with another apple(CA34.5/PA40.8 & near perfect optical symmetry) and I doubt that comparison is made often. The marketing value of such a comparison doesn't hold nearly as much appeal to the premium brands who have a financial incentive to highlight the differences.

 

[Serg]

I think it can be proven from a diamond stand point what is not proven is at what level it makes a difference in human viewing. The only way to do so is a double blind study with enough comparisons to be scientifically accurate. Big $$$$. I am a huge fan of optical and physical symmetry with tight angle ranges from a craftsmanship standpoint that I wish we could prove it.

What you think and what you can prove are two different things. There is an awful lot of of the former on this board and not much of the latter.

Anecdotally many prominent members of this community have admitted from their own experience that they have to "show" a consumer(it may not be initially visible to the consumers eyes) in order to justify the premium for purchasing the pinnacle of optical symmetry.

In round brilliants the comparison seems to be routinely something like an apple(CA34.5/PA40.8 ) with an orange (CA36/PA41.2), which it is easy to see why most consumers prefer the apple in a side by side test.

The real comparison should be an apple(CA34.5/PA40.8 ) with another apple(CA34.5/PA40.8 & near perfect optical symmetry) and I doubt that comparison is made often. The marketing value of such a comparison doesn't hold nearly as much appeal to the premium brands who have a financial incentive to highlight the differences.

For such survey is not enough just take diamonds with same average parameters . They have to have same polishing quality and facet flatness .
For my experience ( I have not data to proof it here but you can check it itself ) ,
High quality H&A diamonds usually have better polishing than average round diamonds because H&A cutters use more modern and precise polishing technologies ( for example planetary polishing wheels ) , better quality control , more skilled polishers and polish it's slowly.
It all together give more impact than high level symmetry .
Of course diamond with poor symmetry can not have same performance because it shifts raytracing from optimal way.
But I never saw importance of H&A level symmetry in compare with EX symmetry . For my point of view it is just highly connected factor but it' is not the reason.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I think it can be proven from a diamond stand point what is not proven is at what level it makes a difference in human viewing. The only way to do so is a double blind study with enough comparisons to be scientifically accurate. Big $$$$. I am a huge fan of optical and physical symmetry with tight angle ranges from a craftsmanship standpoint that I wish we could prove it.

What you think and what you can prove are two different things. There is an awful lot of of the former on this board and not much of the latter.

Anecdotally many prominent members of this community have admitted from their own experience that they have to "show" a consumer(it may not be initially visible to the consumers eyes) in order to justify the premium for purchasing the pinnacle of optical symmetry.

In round brilliants the comparison seems to be routinely something like an apple(CA34.5/PA40.8 ) with an orange (CA36/PA41.2), which it is easy to see why most consumers prefer the apple in a side by side test.

The real comparison should be an apple(CA34.5/PA40.8 ) with another apple(CA34.5/PA40.8 & near perfect optical symmetry) and I doubt that comparison is made often. The marketing value of such a comparison doesn't hold nearly as much appeal to the premium brands who have a financial incentive to highlight the differences.

For such survey is not enough just take diamonds with same average parameters . They have to have same polishing quality and facet flatness .
For my experience ( I have not data to proof it here but you can check it itself ) ,
High quality H&A diamonds usually have better polishing than average round diamonds because H&A cutters use more modern and precise polishing technologies ( for example planetary polishing wheels ) , better quality control , more skilled polishers and polish it's slowly.
It all together give more impact than high level symmetry .
Of course diamond with poor symmetry can not have same performance because it shifts raytracing from optimal way.
But I never saw importance of H&A level symmetry in compare with EX symmetry . For my point of view it is just highly connected factor but it' is not the reason.

Sergey many years ago you proposed a test (which was like that mentioned in your 2004 IDCC-I poster presentation) for this very subject.

My bet still stands too: I will select 10 diamonds, some will be H&A's and some will not. To win $1,000 (or loose $1,000) you must select the H&A's from the non H&A's. I promise there will be no 'B' grade H&A's, only really good ones and stones that most people on this forum would agree were not good enough to call H&A's. The winner of the bet will correctly label all the stones H&A's or not with their naked eye (or normal spectacles) and no other aid.
(I will add to the rules - if you wish to know how many H&A's are in the test then you put up $2,000 to win $1,000 hahahaha)

 

[Serg]

I think it can be proven from a diamond stand point what is not proven is at what level it makes a difference in human viewing. The only way to do so is a double blind study with enough comparisons to be scientifically accurate. Big $$$$. I am a huge fan of optical and physical symmetry with tight angle ranges from a craftsmanship standpoint that I wish we could prove it.

What you think and what you can prove are two different things. There is an awful lot of of the former on this board and not much of the latter.

Anecdotally many prominent members of this community have admitted from their own experience that they have to "show" a consumer(it may not be initially visible to the consumers eyes) in order to justify the premium for purchasing the pinnacle of optical symmetry.

In round brilliants the comparison seems to be routinely something like an apple(CA34.5/PA40.8 ) with an orange (CA36/PA41.2), which it is easy to see why most consumers prefer the apple in a side by side test.

The real comparison should be an apple(CA34.5/PA40.8 ) with another apple(CA34.5/PA40.8 & near perfect optical symmetry) and I doubt that comparison is made often. The marketing value of such a comparison doesn't hold nearly as much appeal to the premium brands who have a financial incentive to highlight the differences.

For such survey is not enough just take diamonds with same average parameters . They have to have same polishing quality and facet flatness .
For my experience ( I have not data to proof it here but you can check it itself ) ,
High quality H&A diamonds usually have better polishing than average round diamonds because H&A cutters use more modern and precise polishing technologies ( for example planetary polishing wheels ) , better quality control , more skilled polishers and polish it's slowly.
It all together give more impact than high level symmetry .
Of course diamond with poor symmetry can not have same performance because it shifts raytracing from optimal way.
But I never saw importance of H&A level symmetry in compare with EX symmetry . For my point of view it is just highly connected factor but it' is not the reason.

Sergey many years ago you proposed a test (which was like that mentioned in your 2004 IDCC-I poster presentation) for this very subject.

My bet still stands too: I will select 10 diamonds, some will be H&A's and some will not. To win $1,000 (or loose $1,000) you must select the H&A's from the non H&A's. I promise there will be no 'B' grade H&A's, only really good ones and stones that most people on this forum would agree were not good enough to call H&A's. The winner of the bet will correctly label all the stones H&A's or not with their naked eye (or normal spectacles) and no other aid.
(I will add to the rules - if you wish to know how many H&A's are in the test then you put up $2,000 to win $1,000 hahahaha)

Garry,
if you want receive correct results you have select pair diamonds( H&A and non H&A) from same polishers( same wheel).
for example 5 polishers each has to cut one pair ( H&A and non H&A)
otherwise you may receive any result.

also all diamonds have to have same:
1) diameter
2) Color(H or beter)
3) without any milkiness
4) Good clarity( VS2 or better)
5) Proportions( including LGF, Stars, Table, painting)



I advice to start from just one pair of such diamonds.

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

Sergey many years ago you proposed a test (which was like that mentioned in your 2004 IDCC-I poster presentation) for this very subject.

My bet still stands too: I will select 10 diamonds, some will be H&A's and some will not. To win $1,000 (or loose $1,000) you must select the H&A's from the non H&A's. I promise there will be no 'B' grade H&A's, only really good ones and stones that most people on this forum would agree were not good enough to call H&A's. The winner of the bet will correctly label all the stones H&A's or not with their naked eye (or normal spectacles) and no other aid.
(I will add to the rules - if you wish to know how many H&A's are in the test then you put up $2,000 to win $1,000 hahahaha)

I am not surprised that noone has attempted to win that bet in 10 years.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I think it can be proven from a diamond stand point what is not proven is at what level it makes a difference in human viewing. The only way to do so is a double blind study with enough comparisons to be scientifically accurate. Big $$$$. I am a huge fan of optical and physical symmetry with tight angle ranges from a craftsmanship standpoint that I wish we could prove it.

What you think and what you can prove are two different things. There is an awful lot of of the former on this board and not much of the latter.

Anecdotally many prominent members of this community have admitted from their own experience that they have to "show" a consumer(it may not be initially visible to the consumers eyes) in order to justify the premium for purchasing the pinnacle of optical symmetry.

In round brilliants the comparison seems to be routinely something like an apple(CA34.5/PA40.8 ) with an orange (CA36/PA41.2), which it is easy to see why most consumers prefer the apple in a side by side test.

The real comparison should be an apple(CA34.5/PA40.8 ) with another apple(CA34.5/PA40.8 & near perfect optical symmetry) and I doubt that comparison is made often. The marketing value of such a comparison doesn't hold nearly as much appeal to the premium brands who have a financial incentive to highlight the differences.

I think it is important to recognize a couple of things before dismissing the importance of cut quality and craftsmanship aspects that may be difficult or even impossible to see without assistance. One is that the market is full of buyers to whom non-obvious quality aspects are extremely important. A great many people buy VS1 and higher clarity. Can they see these features without an assist from technology (magnification in this case)? Are they nonetheless very important? Clearly. Do these stones command a premium? Indeed they do. Secondly, it is widely recognized that cut quality has the highest impact on diamond beauty. Therefore, it is not surprising that many people would choose to make as little compromise in this area as is possible, and to be attracted to those stones which can be demonstrated to have been cut with superior care and precision.

I think it is entirely logical for knowledgeable consumers to be willing to pay a premium for top quality in this area of their decision matrix. And it is not simply a case of merchants justifying premiums they are charging, but rather spending more to bring to market premium diamonds that consumers are seeking.

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

Anecdotally many prominent members of this community have admitted from their own experience that they have to "show" a consumer(it may not be initially visible to the consumers eyes) in order to justify the premium for purchasing the pinnacle of optical symmetry.

In round brilliants the comparison seems to be routinely something like an apple(CA34.5/PA40.8 ) with an orange (CA36/PA41.2), which it is easy to see why most consumers prefer the apple in a side by side test.

The real comparison should be an apple(CA34.5/PA40.8 ) with another apple(CA34.5/PA40.8 & near perfect optical symmetry) and I doubt that comparison is made often. The marketing value of such a comparison doesn't hold nearly as much appeal to the premium brands who have a financial incentive to highlight the differences.

I think it is important to recognize a couple of things before dismissing the importance of cut quality and craftsmanship aspects that may be difficult or even impossible to see without assistance.

The example I gave above was general but both "apples" are stones with those Tolk proportions, and if a cutter is going to bother cutting to those proportions they will almost always go for GIA XXX or AGS 0000, they already have fine craftsmanship according to the labs at 10X magnification. The OP's original question was AGS 0000 versus Hearts and Arrows. Outliers aside both of these have a pretty tight range centred around Tolk proportions.

Excellent Polish a requirement for both labs top grades requires -

Some typical features that would establish an excellent category include a few pits or nicks, a small area with faint transparent polish lines or negligible scratches or abrasion.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...sh_and_symmetry.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

One is that the market is full of buyers to whom non-obvious quality aspects are extremely important.

I don't believe the market is full of buyers, although more popular on pricescope particulary with the vocal minority of regular posters, this board overall and its lurkers are not predominantly buying AGS0000 H&A stones, it is still a relatively high end niche market.

A great many people buy VS1 and higher clarity.

The diminishing value proposition in buying clarity greater than an eye clean SI1 (e.g. VS1, VVS1, IF) that cannot be visually differentiated has been discussed and debated here. The majority favor other diamonds characteristics like size, cut or color, while the minority still value "mind clean" aspects of high clarity.

There is also a diminishing value proposition on buying AGS0000 H&A stones versus a GIA XXX with Tolk Proportions. But this comparison is rarely mentioned or a consensus reached. I believe because the comparisons are more difficult for a consumer to make or because the premium of one over the other is not substantial enough or the selection not comprehensive enough once one limits their search to near Tolk proportions only.

Can they see these features without an assist from technology (magnification in this case)? Are they nonetheless very important? Clearly

I don't know under what magnification Whiteflash examines the polish of the diamonds and if they go beyond the labs routine 10X inspection in their selection of ACA and ES. But I would say most buyers even those into the pinnacle of "Cut Quality" are not looking for further information beyond the 10x general polish grading done by the labs.

Further as a seller selecting from the the same cutting houses and same polishing wheels, how could I claim the polish was significantly better on the ones that are closer to Tolk propotions? I haven't found this to be the case.

I don't see many consumers debating the difference between GIA Excellent and AGSL Ideal polish and beyond? I haven't spoken to one in the Montreal market in years.

Secondly, it is widely recognized that cut quality has the highest impact on diamond beauty.

Cut quality in general an Apple(Tolk CA=34.5/PA40.8 ) being better than an Orange(Steep Deep CA=36/PA 41.2) sure. Not the comparison in cut quality I mentioned above an Apple to a more optically symmetric Apple.

I think it is entirely logical for knowledgeable consumers to be willing to pay a premium for top quality in this area of their decision matrix.

It is logical for some consumers, with more flexible budgets, and accepted tradeoffs. For others the "mind clean" nature of the pinnacle of "cut quality" holds little value and appears irrational to pay for something their eyes may not be able to differentiate.
I have certainly had both types of clients but the latter far outnumbers the former. I believe the source of this thread came from a consumer probing this value proposition.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Anecdotally many prominent members of this community have admitted from their own experience that they have to "show" a consumer(it may not be initially visible to the consumers eyes) in order to justify the premium for purchasing the pinnacle of optical symmetry.

In round brilliants the comparison seems to be routinely something like an apple(CA34.5/PA40.8 ) with an orange (CA36/PA41.2), which it is easy to see why most consumers prefer the apple in a side by side test.

The real comparison should be an apple(CA34.5/PA40.8 ) with another apple(CA34.5/PA40.8 & near perfect optical symmetry) and I doubt that comparison is made often. The marketing value of such a comparison doesn't hold nearly as much appeal to the premium brands who have a financial incentive to highlight the differences.

I think it is important to recognize a couple of things before dismissing the importance of cut quality and craftsmanship aspects that may be difficult or even impossible to see without assistance.

The example I gave above was general but both "apples" are stones with those Tolk proportions, and if a cutter is going to bother cutting to those proportions they will almost always go for GIA XXX or AGS 0000, they already have fine craftsmanship according to the labs at 10X magnification. The OP's original question was AGS 0000 versus Hearts and Arrows. Outliers aside both of these have a pretty tight range centred around Tolk proportions.

Excellent Polish a requirement for both labs top grades requires -

Some typical features that would establish an excellent category include a few pits or nicks, a small area with faint transparent polish lines or negligible scratches or abrasion.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...sh_and_symmetry.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

One is that the market is full of buyers to whom non-obvious quality aspects are extremely important.

I don't believe the market is full of buyers, although more popular on pricescope particulary with the vocal minority of regular posters, this board overall and its lurkers are not predominantly buying AGS0000 H&A stones, it is still a relatively high end niche market.

A great many people buy VS1 and higher clarity.

The diminishing value proposition in buying clarity greater than an eye clean SI1 (e.g. VS1, VVS1, IF) that cannot be visually differentiated has been discussed and debated here. The majority favor other diamonds characteristics like size, cut or color, while the minority still value "mind clean" aspects of high clarity.

There is also a diminishing value proposition on buying AGS0000 H&A stones versus a GIA XXX with Tolk Proportions. But this comparison is rarely mentioned or a consensus reached. I believe because the comparisons are more difficult for a consumer to make or because the premium of one over the other is not substantial enough or the selection not comprehensive enough once one limits their search to near Tolk proportions only.

Can they see these features without an assist from technology (magnification in this case)? Are they nonetheless very important? Clearly

I don't know under what magnification Whiteflash examines the polish of the diamonds and if they go beyond the labs routine 10X inspection in their selection of ACA and ES. But I would say most buyers even those into the pinnacle of "Cut Quality" are not looking for further information beyond the 10x general polish grading done by the labs.

Further as a seller selecting from the the same cutting houses and same polishing wheels, how could I claim the polish was significantly better on the ones that are closer to Tolk propotions? I haven't found this to be the case.

I don't see many consumers debating the difference between GIA Excellent and AGSL Ideal polish and beyond? I haven't spoken to one in the Montreal market in years.

Secondly, it is widely recognized that cut quality has the highest impact on diamond beauty.

Cut quality in general an Apple(Tolk CA=34.5/PA40.8 ) being better than an Orange(Steep Deep CA=36/PA 41.2) sure. Not the comparison in cut quality I mentioned above an Apple to a more optically symmetric Apple.

I think it is entirely logical for knowledgeable consumers to be willing to pay a premium for top quality in this area of their decision matrix.

It is logical for some consumers, with more flexible budgets, and accepted tradeoffs. For others the "mind clean" nature of the pinnacle of "cut quality" holds little value and appears irrational to pay for something their eyes may not be able to differentiate.
I have certainly had both types of clients but the latter far outnumbers the former. I believe the source of this thread came from a consumer probing this value proposition.

I can't see much that we are truly in disagreement about. I certainly agree that the market is broad and not everyone makes the same tradeoffs in their buying choices. However,the fact that many people see diminishing returns in areas such as clarity above eye-clean Si1, does not lessen the significance that another strata of the market demand higher purity. Similarly, the fact that the differences between an Ideal make and an Ideal H&A may not be obvious to the naked eye, does not mean that it is of negligible value. The precision level can be demonstrated and theoretically the alignment of the facets will enable them to handle light in an optimal way. To an extent, proving the theoretical in practice is more challenging than making the case that what is good is good enough.

While the differences we are talking about here may be relatively small, I believe they are significant to a growing number of consumers.

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

However,the fact that many people see diminishing returns in areas such as clarity above eye-clean Si1, does not lessen the significance that another strata of the market demand higher purity.

Agreed. Give the customer what they want, educate them but don't make the choice for them is a good principal. Problem here is it isn't always practical to educate them about such fine minutia to this degree.

The precision level can be demonstrated and theoretically the alignment of the facets will enable them to handle light in an optimal way.

The kind of precision and polish level that Serg is talking about cannot be demonstrated by hearts and arrows images the resolution is not there. I have no way of demonstrating it or even convincing myself in a consistent manner of the visual differences with my eyes even if I was so impractically inclined to look under a 40X microscope at every "Superideal" I had in inventory. This is neither practical nor productive.

While the differences we are talking about here may be relatively small, I believe they are significant to a growing number of consumers.

Are you going to suggest adding Polish checks, and high powered microscope photos on top of all the other criteria used for the ACA? Or is the Hearts image "good enough" for these growing number of consumers? If Serg's assertion is true that the polish is more important than minor deviations in optical symmetry it would be a blow for any brand that differentiates itself based on hearts images.

 

[Gypsy]

Okay so...

Let me explain the point of the link I posted earlier. As I think it was missed.

YES you can tell the difference between a BGD Signature or an Infinity and a GIA EX/EX with a fanastic ASET/IS combo or a 'regular' AGS0 without the precision faceting when you see them side by side, and definitely once your eyes are trained. And even if they are untrained some times and not next to a less precisely cut stone.

It's like saying... will I be able to see the difference between a D and a G. Well, YES. Your eyes work, presumably. I am not color sensitive (I don't generally let color bother me and appreciate each color for what it is), but of course I can SEE color difference, quite well actually.

And even a novice can spot the difference between a D and a G when they are side by side, like in the tray example Wink gave. Just like most people can see the difference between a GIA Ex with a great idealscope image and a perfect Infinity when side by side. Why? Because there IS a difference.

That's not the issue for me.

The "Super Ideal" issue is just like color to me. YES, I can see the difference between a D and a G. But... does it have to bother me? No. I can appreciate the G for what it is. And I don't NEED to buy a D. Even though there IS a difference.

Not everyone can afford a D. In fact MOST of the time on PS we don't push colorless at all, let ALONE D. Why? Because buying a diamond is about BALANCING the 4 C's.

Not everyone can afford a D IF Super ideal in the PERFECT size. So the question then becomes: what CAN you compromise on without compromising TOO MUCH.

That's where that thread I posted comes in. YES, super ideals are fabulous. D's are fabulous too. Do you NEED a super ideal to get a fantastic looking stone? NO. You DO NOT. Same as you do not need a D to get a fantastic looking stone.

You wear diamonds on the hand ALONE or with stones of similar cut quality and color.

You don't wear them in a tray next to a Super Ideal. Just like you don't wear an H next to a D. Why? Because there is a difference, of course. Now, does that mean the H is not a gorgeous color? NO. Does that mean the GIA Ex with a great idealscope is not a beautiful stone? No.

The issue is... what is the acceptable level of compromise on CUT QUALITY when you are BALANCING the 4 C's.

My answer, and MY OPINION (which is what that thread was) is that you do not NEED a super ideal. Just like you don't need a D. Yes, if you CAN afford it... get one. But all too often on these boards people are faced with balancing size, color and BUDGET. And SOMETHING has to give.

Super ideals cost more. Often a LOT more per carat. And I'm not of the opinion that someone should buy a 1 carat J Super ideal over an H GIA 3Ex with a fantastic idealscope because the difference between a Super Ideal and a stone without precision faceting but with 'ideal' light return is GREAT ENOUGH to justify the color drop. Again it's about BALANCE.

For MOST consumers: a GIA Ex with an excellent idealscope/ASET performance is going to be a fantastic stone AND will allow them to balance color and budget BETTER, than someone telling them they have to have a Super Ideal. Because IMO, telling someone they HAVE to HAVE a super ideal is just as INCORRECT as telling them they HAVE to have a D because it's the best.

I always try to explain this to people AND encourage them to go see (WHEN POSSIBLE) super ideals (like Hearts on Fire) next to great GIA Ex stones to decide what THEY personally NEED for themselves. Just like I try to encourage people to go in and see what their personal color tolerances are. BUT, it is not always POSSIBLE that that they do so. So I try to provide them with as much information as possible.

Not everyone has to have or CAN have the best in all categories of the 4 C's. It's about BALANCE. That's what the thread I linked to you is about. It's abotu differentiating between LIKE TO HAVE and HAVE TO HAVE. Would I like to have a D Super ideal. Of course. Do I NEED to have one? No.

I hope that explains the issue betters. And I will update that thread with this post just to clarify.

Okay?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Okay so...

Let me explain the point of the link I posted earlier. As I think it was missed.

YES you can tell the difference between a BGD Signature or an Infinity and a GIA EX/EX with a fanastic ASET/IS combo or a 'regular' AGS0 without the precision faceting when you see them side by side, and definitely once your eyes are trained. And even if they are untrained some times and not next to a less precisely cut stone.

It's like saying... will I be able to see the difference between a D and a G. Well, YES. Your eyes work, presumably. I am not color sensitive (I don't generally let color bother me and appreciate each color for what it is), but of course I can SEE color difference, quite well actually.

And even a novice can spot the difference between a D and a G when they are side by side, like in the tray example Wink gave. Just like most people can see the difference between a GIA Ex with a great idealscope image and a perfect Infinity when side by side. Why? Because there IS a difference.

That's not the issue for me.

The "Super Ideal" issue is just like color to me. YES, I can see the difference between a D and a G. But... does it have to bother me? No. I can appreciate the G for what it is. And I don't NEED to buy a D. Even though there IS a difference.

Not everyone can afford a D. In fact MOST of the time on PS we don't push colorless at all, let ALONE D. Why? Because buying a diamond is about BALANCING the 4 C's.

Not everyone can afford a D IF Super ideal in the PERFECT size. So the question then becomes: what CAN you compromise on without compromising TOO MUCH.

That's where that thread I posted comes in. YES, super ideals are fabulous. D's are fabulous too. Do you NEED a super ideal to get a fantastic looking stone? NO. You DO NOT. Same as you do not need a D to get a fantastic looking stone.

You wear diamonds on the hand ALONE or with stones of similar cut quality and color.

You don't wear them in a tray next to a Super Ideal. Just like you don't wear an H next to a D. Why? Because there is a difference, of course. Now, does that mean the H is not a gorgeous color? NO. Does that mean the GIA Ex with a great idealscope is not a beautiful stone? No.

The issue is... what is the acceptable level of compromise on CUT QUALITY when you are BALANCING the 4 C's.

My answer, and MY OPINION (which is what that thread was) is that you do not NEED a super ideal. Just like you don't need a D. Yes, if you CAN afford it... get one. But all too often on these boards people are faced with balancing size, color and BUDGET. And SOMETHING has to give.

Super ideals cost more. Often a LOT more per carat. And I'm not of the opinion that someone should buy a 1 carat J Super ideal over an H GIA 3Ex with a fantastic idealscope because the difference between a Super Ideal and a stone without precision faceting but with 'ideal' light return is GREAT ENOUGH to justify the color drop. Again it's about BALANCE.

For MOST consumers: a GIA Ex with an excellent idealscope/ASET performance is going to be a fantastic stone AND will allow them to balance color and budget BETTER, than someone telling them they have to have a Super Ideal. Because IMO, telling someone they HAVE to HAVE a super ideal is just as INCORRECT as telling them they HAVE to have a D because it's the best.

I always try to explain this to people AND encourage them to go see (WHEN POSSIBLE) super ideals (like Hearts on Fire) next to great GIA Ex stones to decide what THEY personally NEED for themselves. Just like I try to encourage people to go in and see what their personal color tolerances are. BUT, it is not always POSSIBLE that that they do so. So I try to provide them with as much information as possible.

Not everyone has to have or CAN have the best in all categories of the 4 C's. It's about BALANCE. That's what the thread I linked to you is about. It's abotu differentiating between LIKE TO HAVE and HAVE TO HAVE. Would I like to have a D Super ideal. Of course. Do I NEED to have one? No.

I hope that explains the issue betters. And I will update that thread with this post just to clarify.

Okay?

Brilliant Gypsy. Brilliant and the pun is intended.
My only point of differnce is I doubt you would have 100% success at picking between Supa doopa ideal and fab rounds.
And the price differential is actually comparitively small for Supa and for fab compared to the price differential for D >H or Flawless (or even VVS2) and nice SI. I did the numbers for a project recently.

 

[Gypsy]

Thanks Gary.

As for price difference. I can't disagree with your research. But I don't think I stated what I meant correctly by saying that they issue is price per carat in and of itself.

I think the issue is more of availability and price. Let me explain, and maybe you can tell ME what the term is for what I mean.

There is much more STOCK in GIA Ex/Ex with great numbers/ light performance. So on any given day if someone has a 10K budget and wants eyeclean and G] I can find them just about any color or clarity combo in a GIA Ex/Ex with numbers that are likely to have great idealscopes.

So I can sit there and pick and chose between 15-20 GIA Ex/ Ex stones. And if the SIZE is the more important factor for that poster I can add additional filters such as requiring Fluorescence to bring down the price. And even moving from a Tolk to a 60/60 (with great numbers and from an vendor with IS availability) to bring down the price further.

And I can squeak out more size by playing with those factors and can go from a G SI1 Tolk to a 60/60 and Strong Blue to eek out 15 more points and .2mm in size. For example. Or I MAY get lucky and find a nice eyeclean SI2 (without the strong blue) with twinning wisps that do not impact the performance and eek out more size that way. And if I get REALLY lucky, that Si2 might be a 60/60.

With super ideals stock is limited. So while empirically the price difference per carat difference is slight between an eyeclean GIA Ex/Ex/Ex G SI2 with non-overblue Fluorescence with great idealscope and a Super Ideal G SI2 with non-overblue Fluorescence , as your own research bears out... due to the limited availability, I can't FIND a Super Ideal eyeclean G SI2 non-overblue with Fluorescence. So in a Super Ideal I LIKELY have to settle for a G Si1 WITHOUT Fluorescence. OR settle for an H color. Or settle for a Vs2. Because that's all that's available that day. And I'm probably only going to be able to find THREE stones with those specs MAX.

And THAT is why price difference is going to be substantial compared to the G Si2 60/60 I found... listed at 3 different vendor sites so I can pick and chose what vendor I want (one with an idealscope) AND ask for a price match.

So really it's not an issue of price per carat where EVERYTHING else is the same EXCEPT the precision of the cut. The issue is due to the availability I'm going to have a LOT more selection and can play with a LOT more factors to IMPACT the price of the stone in order to get a better VALUE for the buyer.

Does that make sense?

So... while YES, the price difference head to head on the same specs is not that much. Due to availabilty

 

[Lenapie]

I think there might've been a slight misunderstanding with regards to my question. The heading is probably a bit misleading. So to fine-tune the question, I'm more interested in knowing about the optical differences between say, a WF ACA vs the ES. The ES isn't just your regular AGS 0 stone. It is pretty high up in the batch of AGS 0 stones, where as the the ACA is even slightly more high up in the ranking within AGS 0 stones. I'm only really interested in knowing the differences between vendors Top of the Line vs 2nd Top of Line stones, as those will be the categories I'll be purchasing from. After reading everyone's informative responses, the consensus seems to be there IS a difference, but it's a minute one. And to respond to Gypsy's post, I think what I'm comparing is more like D colour vs E colour. And your point still stands. There IS a difference, but again, it's a minute difference. And it'll be important for me to balance all the other aspects of the stone.

The experiment you guys suggested sounds awesome. Without knowing which is which, just by looking, how often can someone distinguish between an ACA vs an ES from WF?

**And I'm only using WF as an example. It could be any vendors' Top of the Line brand vs their 2nd Top of the Line brand, really.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Perfect Gypsy. Perfect analogy.

My guidance would be for 90% of picky people that they choose from the 10% of top GIA.
And for those who want mind clean, the other 10% perhaps, they can choose from the 1%.
Supply can meet demand, but they may need more time and a broader range of color and clarity, and maybe carat.

I think the only word I added is Mind Clean Cut, but it only works for us cut nuts

 

[Karl_K]

Lenapie,
In terms of ACA vs ES none of the trade members can help you here.
That is better directed to WF.
Forum rules prevent us from commenting on another vendors products and rules against self promotion prevent a WF rep from going into great detail.
However one of the prosumers can answer and WF can answer your questions when you contact them.

 

[Gypsy]

My only point of difference is I doubt you would have 100% success at picking between Supa doopa ideal and fab rounds.

You are probably right about that. But there is one thing you don't know about me (and you and Wink, etc. are going to probably find hilarious).

I find super-ideals kind of creepy and soulless (I know, you are laughing). That's part of the reason why I sold my Aurora band (see below):


They are too much like Stepford wives. While I can appreciate their perfection in an objective sense. And have sat with Brian Gavin surrounded by over 25 of the suckers (he just kept pulling them out of the safe, it was fun). When I actually had the chance to OWN several. I really didn't like them. Their perfection actually BOTHERS me subjectively because they have no personality and are largely interchangeable.

And the last time I had the chance to go to a good jeweler who carried BOTH great GIAs and Super Ideals, my personal favorite stone was a 60/60.

I'm a fancy girl. And even with fancies... I don't like the "super ideal" fancies like the AVR or the AVC all that much. I prefer the LESS perfectly performing generics of the same shape. Although I would kill for someone coming up with a super ideal oval.

I can't explain it.

Before our finances went in the toilet last year, I was going to buy a 1.4 carat 7 stone from Wink. And when I was going to give him parameters for stones... I specifically told him I didn't WANT hearts and arrows ideal stones. Though I don't recall if I told him why or not ( ). And I was TRYING to find a way to tell him that I actually PREFER less "perfect" stones, when the budget fell through and I had to cancel the project.

I wear a .75 five stone. The stones have decent idealscopes (some leakage but not too much) that I got second hand. I was in a hearts on fire dealer and compared it head to head to one of their bands. And... I actually preferred my own band over the Hearts on Fire. Same reason.

So I'm a bit of an odd duck when and I actually can sometimes pick out the more precisely cut stone WHEN THEY ARE SIDE BY SIDE. Why? It's usually the one I know I SHOULD like... but for some reason CAN'T LIKE. They leave me cold, even though I know AND CAN SEE that they perform better.

Stepford Wives:

 

[Gypsy]

Lenapie,
In terms of ACA vs ES I can tell you what my EXPERIENCE has shown me since I am NOT a vendor. There used to be so minute a difference as not to matter. HOWEVER in the last year SPECIFICALLY I have noticed that it SEEMS as if WF has relaxed their ES line parameters. In the past they did not allow 60/60 stones for example. Or stones with certain other angle combos. NOW THEY DO.

So you have to be VERY picky with the ES line and pay a LOT of attention to the ACTUAL STONE of the ES line. And in particular to the idealscope.

See what I mean here:
Stone A:
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2998702.htm In the past I NEVER saw an idealscope with this much leakage (relative to the ACA line) in the ES line.

Stone B:
S: http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3236255.htm Which is much more in line with the stricter ES standards I used to see.

So my answer to you is: IT DEPENDS ON THE ACTUAL ES stone in question. I would say that the difference between stone A and B is significant and they are both ES stones.

As to BGD's second line... Their second line is the Blue Line. In terms of IDEALSCOPE performance, they are VERY STRICT. The primary difference is that the Blue Line has Fluorescence and is not guaranteed to have hearts and arrows. But I think the difference (other than the FL) between that of the Signature and Blue Line is VERY slight.

As for GOG. It's stone specific. They have Superior and Premium. The second tier is more 'stone by stone'. So again, it depends on the actual stone.

Infinity and Hearts on Fire do not have a "second string".

Does that help?

 

[Lenapie]

Lenapie,
In terms of ACA vs ES I can tell you what my EXPERIENCE has shown me since I am NOT a vendor. There used to be so minute a difference as not to matter. HOWEVER in the last year SPECIFICALLY I have noticed that it SEEMS as if WF has relaxed their ES line parameters. In the past they did not allow 60/60 stones for example. Or stones with certain other angle combos. NOW THEY DO.

So you have to be VERY picky with the ES line and pay a LOT of attention to the ACTUAL STONE of the ES line. And in particular to the idealscope.

See what I mean here:
Stone A:
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2998702.htm In the past I NEVER saw an idealscope with this much leakage (relative to the ACA line) in the ES line.

Stone B:
S: http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3236255.htm Which is much more in line with the stricter ES standards I used to see.

So my answer to you is: IT DEPENDS ON THE ACTUAL ES stone in question. I would say that the difference between stone A and B is significant and they are both ES stones.

As to BGD's second line... Their second line is the Blue Line. In terms of IDEALSCOPE performance, they are VERY STRICT. The primary difference is that the Blue Line has Fluorescence and is not guaranteed to have hearts and arrows. But I think the difference (other than the FL) between that of the Signature and Blue Line is VERY slight.

As for GOG. It's stone specific. They have Superior and Premium. The second tier is more 'stone by stone'. So again, it depends on the actual stone.

Infinity and Hearts on Fire do not have a "second string".

Does that help?

Thanks so much, Gypsy! That is very helpful. And, I really thank everyone who's participated in the thread, giving me so much info to work with. And I do understand that Trade experts cannot chime in with my specific question, as per forum rules. No worries there! Looks like my best bet when I make my purchase is to post them here and let prosumer experts chime in and help me decide, especially if I go for "2nd Line" stones!

Thank you everyone!!!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Interesting Gypsy,
I have a rule of thumb for table size and diamond size.
Its roughly up to 58ish to 61-62% for under 1/2ct.
57ish to 60 for 1/2's to 3/4ct
under 60 for 1ct plus and never over 58% for 1.5 and 2ct plus.

This is a learned thing, just as it is with you.
Smaller diamonds have less fire but brightness becomes a major requirement, and largish tables can help a bit.
With larger diamonds I believe people are buying fire just as much as brightness, so a bit smaller = more fire.

And FYI, some of the stuff we Cut Groupies are working on will make it much better for fancy cut lovers.

 

[Gypsy]

Ahh. Now see, that's not something I had considered. Diamond size relative to table size.

That's a really good point. I was looking at about 1 carat stones when I chose the 60/60.

But you raise an interesting point. If I was looking at a large diamond I can easily see how I might prefer a smaller table than 60.

I would have to see it in person to see though to see how it bore out.

I generally don't appreciate large (2.5 plus carats) round brilliants.

In general I prefer OECs in large round shaped stones. And transitionals in smaller round shaped stones.

I would be very excited to see improvements in fancy cuts. Particularly ovals. They are ABYSMAL to shop for and the large majority of them are underwhelming. BUT the few really lovely oval cuts I've seen knock my socks off.

I ADORE the new Mark T cushions that Yoram developed. That said, I haven't seem one in person. But... I'm plotting for ways to change that!