Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos, etc

[John P]

Hello.

The suggestion was made to separate this topic from another, and make a relevant title.

Prior discussion here.
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...g-h-a-1-29-or-larger-pre-loved-ok-too.211774/

Paul, if you are still checking in I would love for you to address the post that I made that quoted several statements from the CBI website regarding the information that is being shared in markets other than the US. If there is more research or information available, as the website seems to suggest, I and others would be interested in it if it is accessible.

Paul’s dance card has been full the past week, but I’ll effort to reply here, pfunk.

You raise many good questions in that thread above. In scanning the replies, I see answers are vacillating between what’s quantifiable at present, and what’s implied by ongoing research but not decisively measurable. Specific to your CBI questions:

-Does this mean there is no way to measure scintillation, or simply that AGSL doesn't measure it?

See below.

Does CBI have their own way to measure scintillation, and in doing so, have you found that your diamonds score higher?

See below.

This question is key:

In a nut shell, is there a way to quantify the detrimental effect of sacrificing perfect h&a patterns in diamonds which are cut to AGS 000 performance? Does such a metric exist, or are we not there yet?

Correct. We are not there yet.

Consider this context: Even Tolkowsky’s popular “ideal” proportions waited until 2005 to be verified in a repeatable scientific lab metric. That involves basic brightness, contrast and leakage in a single/static environment. Considering scintillation/motion through infinite illumination scenarios is a whole different beast.

At present no lab metric addresses it. GIA’s cut analysis isn't diamond-specific. AGS quantifies brightness, contrast and leakage but makes no assessment of scintillation. Internet sellers increasingly use structured light environs photos to instill confidence about cut pedigree, but that’s still cold analytics. We can project our own estimate of sparkle-potential based on these things, but the global macro of scintillation - at the level of your question - involves the diamond-in-motion through an infinite number of lighting conditions. The human eye more sophisticated than any study or data-set. Live viewing of a diamond in different environments can’t be replaced by cold analytics.

Another component to this is the human physiology of individual eyesight. Some people have a refined visual palate, others develop one, others don’t. One person may detect more in a diamond’s scintillation than others. That goes for color and clarity too. Some people are crazy color-sensitive while others are not. It’s the same with cut. Furthermore, palates like listening, tasting and seeing rely on live, hot cognition. I don't know if you have perfect pitch, a nose for wine or an eye for diamond nuances. Some people do. Some don’t. Some have one palate that’s more refined than their others… What’s certain is that one person cannot possibly determine the subtle nuances of what another will see (or hear or taste) based on his own palate.

Circling back to quantification.

Back in the late 1800s a small number of cutters with a beauty-first proposition recognized certain angles produced appealing results. Some recognized those angles before Tolkowksy’s book. Others, like his cousin Lazare Kaplan, used his math as a basis for consistent beauty. They did this with more time and expense involved in cutting, and they did it many decades before measurable scientific validation came along and proved “why” their vision was correct. Side note: Many large factories have moved toward better basic proportions-sets in the last decade, but only because GIA released a grading system in 2006 which forced them that way.

Here we are today. A small number of operations with a beauty-first proposition recognize top optical precision resulting in scintillation advantages. There is more time and expense involved in cutting, especially in the fine-tuning skill and tools needed, but we do this because we’re confident our vision is correct.

One day the advantages and limits of this stuff may be quantified. The diamond side will involve ETAS/DETAS and virtual facet theory. However, the physiological particulars may make this as person-specific as it will be diamond-specific. I tip my hat regularly to my friends and pro colleagues engaged in these studies.

Let’s everyone keep in mind that we’re talking about details and nuance, not broad strokes. Nevertheless, they are important to many. There is a rich history of testimonials and knowledge on this site, voicing both “yay” and “nay” about these things. In the real world the most obvious “yay” quantification is the success of Hearts On Fire. There is no way they could exist and flourish without enough people seeing the advantages and voting “yay” with their money. To that end, the in-store experiences of our showroom clients is in-keeping with this. Many decisively see and want our specific look. Others see it but have a different priority. Others may say “meh,” or don’t see it at all.

Nobody is wrong. These perceptions all coexist. Just as happy table-wine folks coexist with connoisseurs … and those wine-in-a-box folks.

 

[KobiD]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Great write up, and I love these technical discussions.

One thing regarding the HOF though. You could easily also attribute their success to being involved with savvy marketting and brand naming. Its seen all too often that people spend the most under the impression that due to it costing more, it must be better.

I truly find it fascinating how many people and how much development has been (and is being) employeed in this industry. One thing is for sure, public education will only see that this continues, which benefits all involved.

 

[pfunk]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

John,

First of all thanks so much for joining the fray here. I was very much hoping you might add your opinions. You addressed a couple of my quotes from the CBI website, but the others I will repost again in the case that you missed them on the other thread.

First statement: "Factually no laboratory has yet subdivided cut-quality components to anywhere near the level that color or clarity are subdivided. Doing this is already possible behind industry doors, but pressure from mass-manufacturers prevents public disclosure of greater cut detail for any given diamond."

Second statement: "One needs to look no farther than the youngest and largest-growing market (China) to find laboratories disclosing more cut value-factors and consumers who are more cut-educated than their USA counterparts. Diamond shoppers in this new market are not only more aware of cut-quality subdivisions; they also recognize the added value commanded by diamonds with non-accidental, extremely high levels of three-dimensional cut-precision. Sightholders and cutting houses serving this market have improved systems to satisfy growing eastern demand for fine-make. Eventually these modern value-factors will become recognized in the older USA market, but mass-manufacturers and retailers are in no rush to assist that recognition, due to the extra work, training time and expense it will require:"

Regarding statement number one: Is there information that you and other members of the trade are aware of that would further classify cut beyond what we are already seeing on lab reports? If so, are you and other superideal vendors trying to convince laboratories in the United States to include such information. I would think that a lab such as AGS, who specializes in cut, would be eager to bring such information forward as they already predominantly deal with vendors who focus on very well cut diamonds. Wouldn't this stand to improve their business even further as consumers would be more likely to purchase superideal stones and the demand for the laboratory service would increase?

Regarding statement two: what additional cut information are these Chinese markets getting from these laboratories? And how is that information convincing the consumers there that there is added value for the superideal, prescision cut diamond? Meaning, are they quantifying more aspects of cut than US labs which acts to objectively prove to consumers the added value?

As far as Hearts on Fire, the point that Kobi makes is an important one in my opinion. Great marketing can do wonders in the area of convincing consumers of things that may not be as obvious as it is made out to be. Additionally, when folks go in to buy a HOF diamond, what kind of stones do you suppose they are comparing the HOF stone to? AGS 000? Zenith of GIA excellent? I highly, highly doubt it. It's the same thing you see with online marketing of superideals. A picture of the perfect h&a next to the GIA excellent that doesn't even really have arrows and the ASET that looks like a kaleidoscope. No one who seeks help on PS would ever be recommended that type of stone, but yet they hear the constant degrading of the GIA excellent cut grade and honestly assume that's what they will end up with if they stray from a superideal stone.

I would ask the same about your showroom customers. I assume you only carry your CBI superideal stones, and with no "inferior" stones to serve as comparison, certainly your customers will find your stones beautiful and are proud to purchase and own them. But if we took that stone and the customer who loves it, even after owning it for some time, and placed it in a lineup of generic AGS 000 stones of similar attributes other than cut, what percentage of customers would you think could pick their stone from the lineup?

Now let's take customers who are in the search for a diamond for their engagement. If you were to offer up a stone for each customer based upon what they are looking for and their budget, and then have them compare them to non h&a ideal stones, how often would the customer choose the CBI stone? If the other stones were allowed to be higher color/clarity/carat or a combination of them to match to the price of the CBI stone, would they still choose the CBI because the visual differences from the cut are profound enough to make them sacrifice on the other aspects?

Obviously you probably don't know the answers to these questions, but they are certainly fair to bring up for discussion and debate would you agree? We are here to help people find stones they find beautiful, and if a fair amount of people would indeed sacrifice some on cut to attain other attributes, there should be a balanced discussion that does not always place perfection in cut at the top of the list, high above all other factors.

I do not say this to in any way diminish the quality of your product. You obviously feel you create a gread product, and considering the number of pleased customers you have I absolutely believe it. You deserve praise for the consistently beautiful diamonds you no doubt produce. Also, the push to gain more knowledge regarding diamond cut from you and others is the only way to advance, and that is to be commended. What I wonder about, though, is why we should push so many here towards the superideal cuts when "we aren't there yet" with the research. Perhaps a more balanced, accurate portrayal of the subtelty of differences between ideal and superideal would be better (i.e less of the "Maserati vs Nice chevy" type analogies).

 

[smitcompton]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Hi,

I am sorry to see this topic moved from its original thread as I believe that envy really did learn something from the discussion, as I surely did. Now we will get the usual vendors who come to defend their opinions, which I call the "party line" or just stick to their "talking points". Consumers may well pass this thread up.

In fact my comment on Winks honesty had to do with this point. I believe he would answer these questions without the "party line", and I would believe him. As you can admit you(the industry doesn't know for sure what the differences in light performance actually are), that is a step forward, as folks like pfunk get attacked and ridiculed when they ask these questions. They are legitimate questions.
I also noticed that there were a few threads that specifically mentioned ideal cut vs super-ideal cut. Consumers are reading that thread.

I thought that an Agso label assured a customer of great light performance. Now I learned, this isn't so. First GIA data points are now open to question, we now have AGSo also open to question. People just want a beautiful diamond.

I'm still shaking my head over discouraging a consumer on an agso 1.71 ctw vs a 1.29, 1.40 super ideal cut.

Thanks John, but the thread would get more interest in the discussion because it moved naturally.. As you've said, there have been many discussions on this, but mostly trade members say the same things. Logical thinking can come from consumers and they can hold a discussion without all the "experts" Well see what this turns into.

Annette

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Side note to pfunk, when you asked me how I could assess light performance on the other thread based on ASET images, I said I would change my terminology to light return. However, if you read this article by Brian Pollard, he does say you can judge optical light performance by the images (in the specific case we were talking about, I was comparing two diamonds).

https://www.pricescope.com/journal/what-aset-reveals-ideal-scope-does-not

 

[pfunk]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Side note to pfunk, when you asked me how I could assess light performance on the other thread based on ASET images, I said I would change my terminology to light return. However, if you read this article by Brian Pollard, he does say you can judge optical light performance by the images (in the specific case we were talking about, I was comparing two diamonds).

https://www.pricescope.com/journal/what-aset-reveals-ideal-scope-does-not

The AGS light performance grade is based on brightness, dispersion, leakage, and contrast. If both score 0, how do you know that one is "better"? It might be better in one area, and worse in another. This comes down to defining "light performance" so everyone knows exactly what it means. As far as I know, the term is thrown around without everyone assigning the same meaning to it.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Hi,

I am sorry to see this topic moved from its original thread as I believe that envy really did learn something from the discussion, as I surely did. Now we will get the usual vendors who come to defend their opinions, which I call the "party line" or just stick to their "talking points". Consumers may well pass this thread up.

In fact my comment on Winks honesty had to do with this point. I believe he would answer these questions without the "party line", and I would believe him. As you can admit you(the industry doesn't know for sure what the differences in light performance actually are), that is a step forward, as folks like pfunk get attacked and ridiculed when they ask these questions. They are legitimate questions.
I also noticed that there were a few threads that specifically mentioned ideal cut vs super-ideal cut. Consumers are reading that thread.

I thought that an Agso label assured a customer of great light performance. Now I learned, this isn't so. First GIA data points are now open to question, we now have AGSo also open to question. People just want a beautiful diamond.

I'm still shaking my head over discouraging a consumer on an agso 1.71 ctw vs a 1.29, 1.40 super ideal cut.

Thanks John, but the thread would get more interest in the discussion because it moved naturally.. As you've said, there have been many discussions on this, but mostly trade members say the same things. Logical thinking can come from consumers and they can hold a discussion without all the "experts" Well see what this turns into.

Annette

Annette, hopefully that isn't directed at me, beause I told her on a second hand stone that has a grading report several years old that she needs the stone checked to be sure it is in the condition it was on the report and also to get an ASET image because all AGS ideal stones are not equal. That stone has a 40.4 pavilion angle which we do not often see on ideal cut stones, and I would not buy ANY diamond without an ASET or idealscope image, particularly a second hand one that will not have a conventional upgrade policy.

I am advising her to be cautious and have all the necessary information and once she does, it will be easy to make a decision. I might choose the used stone myself. But from the stone images I did see, I felt like there might be darkness under that table. The only way to know for sure is to get an ASET image. I would have to look back, but I do not recall ever recommending she buy the 1.4. In fact, I was surprised she ordered it because I personally would have waited for more info on the used stone first (ASET and pricing). Although, it is also a good idea to see both stones at the same time and that is probably why she decided to do so. I would not spend $10k on a stone with no images. I have seen AGS 0 stones I would not recommend due to leakage.

As far as cluttering her thread with a debate on light performance, many more people can read it right here where the title clarifies what the discussion is about. It is nuts to have to go through this same discussion on every single stone selection thread. We can give our opinions on specific stones and they can read this thread and every thread on the forum related to cut precision and light performance if they want.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Side note to pfunk, when you asked me how I could assess light performance on the other thread based on ASET images, I said I would change my terminology to light return. However, if you read this article by Brian Pollard, he does say you can judge optical light performance by the images (in the specific case we were talking about, I was comparing two diamonds).

https://www.pricescope.com/journal/what-aset-reveals-ideal-scope-does-not

The AGS light performance grade is based on brightness, dispersion, leakage, and contrast. If both score 0, how do you know that one is "better"? It might be better in one area, and worse in another. This comes down to defining "light performance" so everyone knows exactly what it means. As far as I know, the term is thrown around without everyone assigning the same meaning to it.

Did you read the article written by Brian? I can definitely tell which AGS Ideal cut stones are better by looking at ASETs!

But please have the debate with John and Brian as they know a lot about it!

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

John,

First of all thanks so much for joining the fray here. I was very much hoping you might add your opinions. You addressed a couple of my quotes from the CBI website, but the others I will repost again in the case that you missed them on the other thread.

First statement: "Factually no laboratory has yet subdivided cut-quality components to anywhere near the level that color or clarity are subdivided. Doing this is already possible behind industry doors, but pressure from mass-manufacturers prevents public disclosure of greater cut detail for any given diamond."

Second statement: "One needs to look no farther than the youngest and largest-growing market (China) to find laboratories disclosing more cut value-factors and consumers who are more cut-educated than their USA counterparts. Diamond shoppers in this new market are not only more aware of cut-quality subdivisions; they also recognize the added value commanded by diamonds with non-accidental, extremely high levels of three-dimensional cut-precision. Sightholders and cutting houses serving this market have improved systems to satisfy growing eastern demand for fine-make. Eventually these modern value-factors will become recognized in the older USA market, but mass-manufacturers and retailers are in no rush to assist that recognition, due to the extra work, training time and expense it will require:"

Regarding statement number one: Is there information that you and other members of the trade are aware of that would further classify cut beyond what we are already seeing on lab reports? If so, are you and other superideal vendors trying to convince laboratories in the United States to include such information. I would think that a lab such as AGS, who specializes in cut, would be eager to bring such information forward as they already predominantly deal with vendors who focus on very well cut diamonds. Wouldn't this stand to improve their business even further as consumers would be more likely to purchase superideal stones and the demand for the laboratory service would increase?

Regarding statement two: what additional cut information are these Chinese markets getting from these laboratories? And how is that information convincing the consumers there that there is added value for the superideal, prescision cut diamond? Meaning, are they quantifying more aspects of cut than US labs which acts to objectively prove to consumers the added value?

As far as Hearts on Fire, the point that Kobi makes is an important one in my opinion. Great marketing can do wonders in the area of convincing consumers of things that may not be as obvious as it is made out to be. Additionally, when folks go in to buy a HOF diamond, what kind of stones do you suppose they are comparing the HOF stone to? AGS 000? Zenith of GIA excellent? I highly, highly doubt it. It's the same thing you see with online marketing of superideals. A picture of the perfect h&a next to the GIA excellent that doesn't even really have arrows and the ASET that looks like a kaleidoscope. No one who seeks help on PS would ever be recommended that type of stone, but yet they hear the constant degrading of the GIA excellent cut grade and honestly assume that's what they will end up with if they stray from a superideal stone.

I would ask the same about your showroom customers. I assume you only carry your CBI superideal stones, and with no "inferior" stones to serve as comparison, certainly your customers will find your stones beautiful and are proud to purchase and own them. But if we took that stone and the customer who loves it, even after owning it for some time, and placed it in a lineup of generic AGS 000 stones of similar attributes other than cut, what percentage of customers would you think could pick their stone from the lineup?

Now let's take customers who are in the search for a diamond for their engagement. If you were to offer up a stone for each customer based upon what they are looking for and their budget, and then have them compare them to non h&a ideal stones, how often would the customer choose the CBI stone? If the other stones were allowed to be higher color/clarity/carat or a combination of them to match to the price of the CBI stone, would they still choose the CBI because the visual differences from the cut are profound enough to make them sacrifice on the other aspects?

Obviously you probably don't know the answers to these questions, but they are certainly fair to bring up for discussion and debate would you agree? We are here to help people find stones they find beautiful, and if a fair amount of people would indeed sacrifice some on cut to attain other attributes, there should be a balanced discussion that does not always place perfection in cut at the top of the list, high above all other factors.

I do not say this to in any way diminish the quality of your product. You obviously feel you create a gread product, and considering the number of pleased customers you have I absolutely believe it. You deserve praise for the consistently beautiful diamonds you no doubt produce. Also, the push to gain more knowledge regarding diamond cut from you and others is the only way to advance, and that is to be commended. What I wonder about, though, is why we should push so many here towards the superideal cuts when "we aren't there yet" with the research. Perhaps a more balanced, accurate portrayal of the subtelty of differences between ideal and superideal would be better (i.e less of the "Maserati vs Nice chevy" type analogies).

Really great post Pfunk.

My main concern is the thought that we can quantify performance in a metric that is meaningful to a broad swath of diamond consumers.
If we use cars as an analogy- everyone understands the difference between miles per gallon, and acceleration stats.
That makes both stats useful.
By hoisting the term "performance" on a diamond's cut, consumers without context will be mislead.

First statement: "Factually no laboratory has yet subdivided cut-quality components to anywhere near the level that color or clarity are subdivided. Doing this is already possible behind industry doors, but pressure from mass-manufacturers prevents public disclosure of greater cut detail for any given diamond."

I don't know who made this statement, but there's no truth behind it.
Yes, there are cutters claiming they have the "best" performance- and tools to back up the claim. If you agree with their idea of performance
The bigger issue is that there's simply not broad agreement which is the "best" performance.
That's why the term "performance" is completely not applicable to a consumer who wants to buy an engagement ring.
If two diamonds have the same selling price, but one is a "super ideal" 1.00, and the other is a "normal EX" 1.20ct which is noticeably larger, which performs better?

 

[John P]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

John, First of all thanks so much for joining the fray here. I was very much hoping you might add your opinions. You addressed a couple of my quotes from the CBI website, but the others I will repost again in the case that you missed them on the other thread.

You’re welcome. Although I don’t see it as a fray. These are logical questions which come up from time to time. It makes complete sense. Pricescope participants bring a wealth of different experiences, values and sensory perceptions to the table, but we are all “in the blind” with each other when it comes to fine details. Historically, the collective respects this. Abundant information is at-hand to answer queries, and even make reliable appearance predictions beyond a grading report. But at some level such detail requires that the diamond be seen in-person.

First statement: "Factually no laboratory has yet subdivided cut-quality components to anywhere near the level that color or clarity are subdivided. Doing this is already possible behind industry doors, but pressure from mass-manufacturers prevents public disclosure of greater cut detail for any given diamond."
...
Regarding statement number one: Is there information that you and other members of the trade are aware of that would further classify cut beyond what we are already seeing on lab reports? If so, are you and other superideal vendors trying to convince laboratories in the United States to include such information. I would think that a lab such as AGS, who specializes in cut, would be eager to bring such information forward as they already predominantly deal with vendors who focus on very well cut diamonds. Wouldn't this stand to improve their business even further as consumers would be more likely to purchase superideal stones and the demand for the laboratory service would increase?

Yes. Meaningful studies are ongoing, in several places. And yes CBI, specifically, has supported and worked to assist. Without violating any NDAs I can safely say at least one added metric is on the horizon, although it remains diamond-centric.

You have the “business improvement” concept backwards, though. Trade-resistance in this area cannot be overstated. When GIA declared they’d introduce a cut grade for rounds some of the world’s major producers nearly lost their minds. Imagine cutting 10-million carats of RBCs per year with no proportions-oversight. Suddenly you are told, beginning in 2006, that every carat sent to GIA will be cut-graded, forcing change, forcing XYZ % loss in yield. Even 1% means 100,000 cts turned to dust. It’s a basic reason the GIA EX grade remained so wide. It was already history changing, as-it-was, and it forced industry dynasties to shift their productions. I cannot say enough positive about GIA about taking that bold step. Which, by the way, was stimulated in part by increasing cut-awareness and consumer demand.

Pursuant to that, AGSL must tread lightly with further quantification. Sure, there are those of us who support taking it farther, but big producers of threshold-Ideals might say “no thanks” and shift that output to another lab. Did you know AGSL, already boutique, lost significant market-share once GIA EX came about? Can you imagine why?

Second statement: "One needs to look no farther than the youngest and largest-growing market (China) to find laboratories disclosing more cut value-factors and consumers who are more cut-educated than their USA counterparts. Diamond shoppers in this new market are not only more aware of cut-quality subdivisions; they also recognize the added value commanded by diamonds with non-accidental, extremely high levels of three-dimensional cut-precision. Sightholders and cutting houses serving this market have improved systems to satisfy growing eastern demand for fine-make. Eventually these modern value-factors will become recognized in the older USA market, but mass-manufacturers and retailers are in no rush to assist that recognition, due to the extra work, training time and expense it will require:"
...
Regarding statement two: what additional cut information are these Chinese markets getting from these laboratories? And how is that information convincing the consumers there that there is added value for the superideal, prescision cut diamond? Meaning, are they quantifying more aspects of cut than US labs which acts to objectively prove to consumers the added value?

Optical-precision is taught as a high-subset of round brilliant cut. Almost as another shape. To that end the NGTC, official grading lab of China, offers a H&A Report apart from the normal RB diamond report. So do other labs in the areas. Much of the diamond pedagogy in China came in from Taiwan, Singapore and Japan. Consumers learn of cut-quality subdivisions in stores the same way they learn color or clarity subdivisions. In the USA you can roll through a lot of stores without ever hearing of AGSL, the concept of light performance, proportions-differences or “H&A” ...

Sidebar: For the record I dislike the term H&A. It’s goofy-sounding and only applies to certain proportions-sets, though I get the origins. “Optical Precision” is a more applicable term, used increasingly by forward-thinking researchers. It can be applied to all proportions sets and shapes.

As far as Hearts on Fire, the point that Kobi makes is an important one in my opinion. Great marketing can do wonders in the area of convincing consumers of things that may not be as obvious as it is made out to be. Additionally, when folks go in to buy a HOF diamond, what kind of stones do you suppose they are comparing the HOF stone to? AGS 000? Zenith of GIA excellent? I highly, highly doubt it.

That is dependent on the dealer. Those who wish to empower fully informed consumer decisions bring all of these to the table. Additionally, many HOF dealers are AGS Member stores too. More on that in the next post.

It's the same thing you see with online marketing of superideals. A picture of the perfect h&a next to the GIA excellent that doesn't even really have arrows and the ASET that looks like a kaleidoscope. No one who seeks help on PS would ever be recommended that type of stone, but yet they hear the constant degrading of the GIA excellent cut grade and honestly assume that's what they will end up with if they stray from a superideal stone.

I get what you’re saying. Having made comparison shots myself, in my mind it was always about what one might encounter wandering into chain stores or commercial outlets, or trying to buy from a grading-report alone.

Also the genesis of this article.
https://www.pricescope.com/journal/laboratory_cut_grades_what_report_doesn’t_show

More later.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

John- we agree that the big picture is that there's huge industry pushback against more refined cut grades.
Would you agree that in the limited segment of cutters who are committed to cutting for beauty that there's not broad agreement on which exact set of parameters, or specific cutting style performs best?

In other words, if we eliminate the vast majority of cutters, and focus on the very best, do they all agree?

 

[pfunk]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Side note to pfunk, when you asked me how I could assess light performance on the other thread based on ASET images, I said I would change my terminology to light return. However, if you read this article by Brian Pollard, he does say you can judge optical light performance by the images (in the specific case we were talking about, I was comparing two diamonds).

https://www.pricescope.com/journal/what-aset-reveals-ideal-scope-does-not

The AGS light performance grade is based on brightness, dispersion, leakage, and contrast. If both score 0, how do you know that one is "better"? It might be better in one area, and worse in another. This comes down to defining "light performance" so everyone knows exactly what it means. As far as I know, the term is thrown around without everyone assigning the same meaning to it.

Did you read the article written by Brian? I can definitely tell which AGS Ideal cut stones are better by looking at ASETs!

But please have the debate with John and Brian as they know a lot about it!

What if I like fire? The stone you quickly assume to be better may not be better built for fire. How can you know what is "better" for everyone? You can make an educated guess on which you think was closer to AGS 1 and why, but it would be just that, an educated guess.

 

[John P]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

First statement: "Factually no laboratory has yet subdivided cut-quality components to anywhere near the level that color or clarity are subdivided. Doing this is already possible behind industry doors, but pressure from mass-manufacturers prevents public disclosure of greater cut detail for any given diamond."

I don't know who made this statement, but there's no truth behind it.

I made the statement David. I find it to be 100% true.

9 diamonds graded "D" in color by GIA will have no visual difference in that category to the naked eye.
9 diamond graded "VVS1" in clarity by GIA will have no visual difference in that category to the naked eye.

Yet these 9 diamonds are all GIA "EX" in cut. Anyone with decent vision will see at least three different visual characters. Cut-perceptive people will see even more. I know. We did the survey in-house.




Full article published here.
https://www.pricescope.com/journal/laboratory_cut_grades_what_report_doesn’t_show

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

First statement: "Factually no laboratory has yet subdivided cut-quality components to anywhere near the level that color or clarity are subdivided. Doing this is already possible behind industry doors, but pressure from mass-manufacturers prevents public disclosure of greater cut detail for any given diamond."

I don't know who made this statement, but there's no truth behind it.

I made the statement David. I find it to be 100% true.

9 diamonds graded "D" in color by GIA will have no visual difference in that category to the naked eye.
9 diamond graded "VVS1" in clarity by GIA will have no visual difference in that category to the naked eye.

Yet these 9 diamonds are all GIA "EX" in cut. Anyone with decent vision will see at least three different visual characters. Cut-perceptive people will see even more. I know. We did the survey in-house.




Full article published here.
https://www.pricescope.com/journal/laboratory_cut_grades_what_report_doesn’t_show

The statement said "industry doors" as opposed to CBI doors.
I agree completely that specialists such as Paul have far more specific metrics, and can quantify them.
But that does not translate into an agreement in the industry itself.
Furthermore, CBI, or ACA or whichever super ideal promoters certainly feel no pressure from mass merchandisers not to share their metrics.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Very nice post John. As usual, informative and balanced.

Clearly, cut quality is a continuum from poor to super ideal. Many more of the former in the market of course. While there have historically been plenty of buyers for poor cuts, driven mostly by lack of access to information on the part of the consumer market and a manufacturing philosophy of cutting for carat weight over beauty, diamond cutting (at least for rounds) has significantly improved in the new millennium. And it’s long overdue – why does anyone value carat weight over beauty? Because the diamond has greater “heft”?

The science brought to bear around the subject of diamond light performance is fairly new. While other groups and organizations have been and are making significant contributions to our ongoing understanding, AGS gets much of the credit for pushing the envelope on sophisticated diamond cut grading. But as John pointed out, it was GIA with their huge worldwide reach, whose eventual entry into reporting on cut quality really propelled the broader manufacturing sector to start doing better cutting.

The GIA grading system that compares averaged and rounded measurements to pre-defined grades is much broader and forgiving than the AGSL light performance based system that analyzes the individual diamond and the contribution of every facet to the aspects of light performance that are being evaluated. But just as GIA had to make decisions about how specific to make their cut grading structure, so did AGS. Therefore, in both systems there is a range of qualities that qualify for the respective top grades. Both systems could further slice and dice quality levels. For instance, in the GIA system there is no reporting on levels of optical precision, nor does it necessarily impact the cut grade if the averaged measurements match a grade on their pre-defined tables. In the AGS system, optical precision is evidenced on ASET light maps on platinum reports, and it will have impacts on the ray tracing results, but is not separately graded. So there is room on both systems for more refinement. And there are many people today looking for that information, particularly about GIA graded stones as there is so much left unknown about cut quality in their system. The special attributes and designations seen in the superideal realm represent the extra slicing and dicing of the top lab grades. Because the labs do not take grading to this level, it is up to the manufacturers and vendors of elite cutting to provide that information. Naturally, some call it simply “marketing”.

Reasearch is ongoing and more is being learned all the time. As mentioned in the video interview Wink did with Peter Yantzer, AGSL was caught in budget cuts due the great recession and some of their research had to be put on the back burner. Fortunately today they are once again moving forward and there is reason to believe that more advances are on the horizon. It is likely that research will, as it has in the past; continue to provide ever more understanding of the benefits of precision cutting.

New understandings about scintillation and visual perception will continue to evolve cut grading systems and my belief is that it will also continue to put more pressure on manufactures (incentivize them) to craft diamonds to the highest level possible. It is a shame that since the late 1800's there were cutters and jewelers advocating for this philosophy, yet they were marginalized by other market forces for over a hundred years! We seem to have now entered a new and exciting phase, much to the benefit of the consumer. As the benefits are becoming more widely understood, top cutting in diamonds is becoming an expectation.

Given that precision diamonds are not in wide supply in the market today, many consumers are faced with making trade-offs in cut quality in order to achieve other goals. There is a premium to be paid for craftsmanship at the highest level. In the current market it is perfectly understandable that customers are looking for that spot where cut quality is likely "good enough" rather than holding out ultimate precision. But there are a growing number of consumers who value the prospect of owning a diamond with state-of-the-art craftsmanship, and who are willing to pay for it, if it is available.

I don’t think the diamond industry is alone in this respect. I think it is a general trend amongst the millennials to seek out products that offer quality attributes at the top of the scale.

As you slice and dice quality towards the upper end, differences do become less obvious. Even within the superideal category we can see small differences between individual diamonds in reflector images. Exactly how these differences are perceived by different individuals is impossible to say. It may be like the metrics that are used to evaluate audio equipment- you can demonstrate that one piece has better dynamic range than another. Will everyone hear that increase or experience it in the same way, probably not. Does it matter to some that the equipment they buy is capable of that range of performance. Definitely.

Another thing that is worth considering is that the same folks who think owning a superideal diamond is a value, also value other things that tend to come along with it. Companies offering these elite diamonds tend to offer greater expertise, reliability, service and benefits that are important to these same consumers.

 

[smitcompton]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Hi


DS One of your objections for leaving the thread is you don't want to have to go thru that type of discussion with each new thread asking for help. Gypsy, developed a set piece which I think us very instructional for cushion cut diamonds. Each time a cushion cut is requested, she pops this essay, with explanations and referrals to a more complete understanding of cushions. So. yes each person gets an individual explanation. I think the Envy thread answered her questions and would useful to others, just shorter obviously.

Yes, I was referring to you on the 1.71 diamond. Your opinion mattered most to her. She found that stone, and initially it seemed to me that you were discouraging it. You seem to have backtracked that a bit, and while caution is the smart thing, if she goes to see the 1.71 diamond with the 1.40(I think you did recommend or she also found it herself) she will go without having any idea of the price. I think this is a mistake.

Please do not take any offense when I voice my opinion, as I would trust you to find a round diamond for me at any time. You give so much of yourself on this site. Its amazing, and you have helped so many people. But, to have a difference of opinion or understanding does not take away from my admiration and respect for you. My understanding may not be as developed as yours, and I will have to learn the best way I can.


Annette

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

First statement: "Factually no laboratory has yet subdivided cut-quality components to anywhere near the level that color or clarity are subdivided. Doing this is already possible behind industry doors, but pressure from mass-manufacturers prevents public disclosure of greater cut detail for any given diamond."

I don't know who made this statement, but there's no truth behind it.

I made the statement David. I find it to be 100% true.

9 diamonds graded "D" in color by GIA will have no visual difference in that category to the naked eye.
9 diamond graded "VVS1" in clarity by GIA will have no visual difference in that category to the naked eye.

Yet these 9 diamonds are all GIA "EX" in cut. Anyone with decent vision will see at least three different visual characters. Cut-perceptive people will see even more. I know. We did the survey in-house.




Full article published here.
https://www.pricescope.com/journal/laboratory_cut_grades_what_report_doesn’t_show

John this picture is an interesting point for discussion.
I do wish all the stones were the same color, and none had imperfections visible.....but still interesting.
Take stones #3 and #5- clearly deficient based on pics and ASET.
Ignoring differences in color and clarity, do you feel that no observers would pick either of these?

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Hi
DS One of your objections for leaving the thread is you don't want to have to go thru that type of discussion with each new thread asking for help. Gypsy, developed a set piece which I think us very instructional for cushion cut diamonds. Each time a cushion cut is requested, she pops this essay, with explanations and referrals to a more complete understanding of cushions. So. yes each person gets an individual explanation. I think the Envy thread answered her questions and would useful to others, just shorter obviously.

Yes, I was referring to you on the 1.71 diamond. Your opinion mattered most to her. She found that stone, and initially it seemed to me that you were discouraging it. You seem to have backtracked that a bit, and while caution is the smart thing, if she goes to see the 1.71 diamond with the 1.40(I think you did recommend or she also found it herself) she will go without having any idea of the price. I think this is a mistake.

Please do not take any offense when I voice my opinion, as I would trust you to find a round diamond for me at any time. You give so much of yourself on this site. Its amazing, and you have helped so many people. But, to have a difference of opinion or understanding does not take away from my admiration and respect for you. My understanding may not be as developed as yours, and I will have to learn the best way I can.

Annette

Very classy Annette. Sincere mutual respect and appreciation among the contributors here is wonderful to see. I must say that I fall short of that level of conduct here myself at times (as some the posters in this thread can attest).

It is refreshing and I think also creates an atmosphere more conducive to participation. The more perspectives we have here, the more valuable time spent here is for everyone involved.

 

[John P]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

The statement said "industry doors" as opposed to CBI doors.
I agree completely that specialists such as Paul have far more specific metrics, and can quantify them.
But that does not translate into an agreement in the industry itself.

Sure it does David. Follow the money on Rapnet. Among the zillions of EX available those with cherry basic proportions command more. Generic H&A command more still, and the more dedicated productions don't even list there.

I pulled up (random) 1.00-1.09 D VS1 nf GIA 3EX. There are 57 in the USA. The highest priced is 43% more expensive per-carat than the lowest priced. The lowest priced option's basic proportions are 61-604-412-340 (HCA 4.0). The highest priced are 55-62.2-408-345 (HCA 1.3). Maybe the lowest has other problems. Maybe the highest dances on command but others in the list follow the same pattern, as I often find to be the case.

Outside of Rapnet it happens too. Consider how you value Yoram's work. Like anything, it's appropriate when extra care in planning, improved tools/skill, refinement and expense in production are incurred.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Interesting John!
Of course we'd need to dig deeper than the most costly and least costly to get a more reliable sense of what is driving the prices.
And we'd also need to consider variables like overall spread, as well as the demographic- in other words, will J/SI1 diamonds follow the same price/cut patterns as D/VS1
You may be correct, I have not performed these comparisons.

Bryan- I'd be very interested in your take as well regarding the picture John posted.
Have either of you ever had a client who specifically asked for no patterning ( they don;t like hearts and arrows)

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Interesting John!
Of course we'd need to dig deeper than the most costly and least costly to get a more reliable sense of what is driving the prices.
And we'd also need to consider variables like overall spread, as well as the demographic- in other words, will J/SI1 diamonds follow the same price/cut patterns as D/VS1
You may be correct, I have not performed these comparisons.

Bryan- I'd be very interested in your take as well regarding the picture John posted.
Have either of you ever had a client who specifically asked for no patterning ( they don;t like hearts and arrows)

David,
I think John explained and illustrated the point very well. There is nothing not to agree with there.

I have never had a client ask specifically for "no patterning" in a round. I believe if anyone says they "don't like hearts and arrows" they probably have a misunderstanding about what it looks like in real life. If fact, some people looking at a hearts and arrows diamond are surprised that they don't really see the arrows pop out. Hearts and arrows images are captured with special filters that bring out the patterns and allow you to understand the level of optical precision of the diamond. It's a little like an x-ray of your hand. Your hand doesn't really look that way in real life but the image can helps determine why it hurts!

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Of course we've all got perspectives based on our own experiences.
Not only have I had many consumers tell me they want a stone with no patterning- I've seen plenty of threads here on PS where people say they don't like hearts and arrows.
Bryan- I agree that some may not understand how H&A translates to real life viewing, but many do.
However in the case of "crushed ice" I find a vast misunderstanding of the real life look.

John- to your point about Yoram's work- you are totally correct, I do place a high value on it. I also place a high value on Paul's work. And Stan's.
And I have the very lucky perspective to be able to compare viewpoints of Yoram with Stan Grossbard.
The two have very differing points of view- and both produce amazing, yet very different types of diamonds.
Neither is wrong.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

The statement said "industry doors" as opposed to CBI doors.
I agree completely that specialists such as Paul have far more specific metrics, and can quantify them.
But that does not translate into an agreement in the industry itself.

Sure it does David. Follow the money on Rapnet. Among the zillions of EX available those with cherry basic proportions command more. Generic H&A command more still, and the more dedicated productions don't even list there.

I pulled up (random) 1.00-1.09 D VS1 nf GIA 3EX. There are 57 in the USA. The highest priced is 43% more expensive per-carat than the lowest priced. The lowest priced option's basic proportions are 61-604-412-340 (HCA 4.0). The highest priced are 55-62.2-408-345 (HCA 1.3). Maybe the lowest has other problems. Maybe the highest dances on command but others in the list follow the same pattern, as I often find to be the case.

Outside of Rapnet it happens too. Consider how you value Yoram's work. Like anything, it's appropriate when extra care in planning, improved tools/skill, refinement and expense in production are incurred.

I just ran the same search John- you also filtered for No fl.
I got 57 diamonds.
Diamond number 6 from the top- which is roughly 40% more costly than the cheapest stone on the list scores a 5.6 on HCA
60.5% depth, 62% table, 33° crown angle, 41.6° pavilion angle

Than this stone, only six stones had a lower PC price. It was only 12% more costly than the lowest price stone.
It scores 1.2
60.9% depth, 56% table, 34.5° crown angle, 40.8° pavilion angle

I don't think we can use rap asking price as a barometer of how the market actually values cut to the extent that PS values it.

 

[Karl_K]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Once you get to a certain point the tools are not accurate enough to show differences.
The current tools are like driving a nail with a sledge hammer. Your not going to feel(show) anything but major differences.
When you get down to the macro like scintillation the current tools are useless.
Even computerized tools are not that helpful on actual stones because the scanners do not have the resolution to model it.

Lets take ASET, ASET is a 5 light environment.
lens,blue,red,green,white(or back) where the real world is in some cases a million+ light sources and even in the simplest a few thousand.
ASET, IS and h&a viewer all have very low virtual facet resolution blending thousands of virtual facets together.
So to even define differences in virtual facets we need better tools.
Ah huh what about computer models surely they can show it? Right?
Well somewhat but how do you get the data into the program? You quickly run into garbage in/garbage out even with the best scanners at the highest settings once you get to the macro level.

So lets throw the baby out with the bathwater and bash the current tools as useless.
That is not helpful either because they do help find major differences to some degree.

A secret that many in the diamond trade counts on is people don't know what a given diamond is supposed to look like in any given lighting so they see nothing wrong with even the worst cut stones.
Well that is slowly changing as people are seeing more well cut stones.
The current tools can give you pointers in the right direction for finding one.

As always 2weeks plus in your own environment and life is the real exam for any diamond.

 

[KobiD]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

This might be off topic, or out of context.

The current tools we use to evaluate performance are dependant on certain lighting environments, and the diamond being viewed from face on. A 30 second google search turned up this thread ([URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/ideal-scope-image-light-leakage-on-super-ideal-on-tilt.204505/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/ideal-scope-image-light-leakage-on-super-ideal-on-tilt.204505/[/URL]), and another 30 seconds skimming leads me to believe even the most super duper ideal cut diamonds will show leaking during tilt. In context, how often does a viewer diamond and light source all align?

Are we defining performance through only a narrow scope of what a diamond will actually see? I know the claims are that a super ideal will out perform over a larger variety of lighting environments, but I'm yet to see actual evidence. Does the optical symmetry really make or break the deal, or do the current performance indicators simply highlight a shortfall of a particular diamond, in a particular setting (which works in the favour of precision).

Mathematically, scientifically, the ray tracing works based off light entering in a certain way. The tools measure in a specific environment. Life throws a multitude of variety into that mix.

 

[pfunk]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Very good discussion being had here. A few things I want to touch on that stood out that I have been asking for awhile.

1. John touched on how h&a is a bad term because it only applies to certain proportions. I had posted about this before the thread got moved I believe. If a stone has 82% LGF (maybe even 80-81%?), it won't be h&a but it can be cut just as precicesly. So folks who happen to find a diamond with big ugly clefts but great similarity throughout the hearts still have a diamond with great optical symmetry. In which case the question becomes which is more important? The symmetry or the proportions. If you have the stone with ugly clefts but still a great IS/ASET, what are you missing out from aside from meeting the requirements for "true h&a"?

2. I still wonder to what level does the optical symmetry have to extend to result in visual difference. Are minor defects in the h&a pattern grounds to rule out a stone as not good enough. I had posted a couple CBI stones in the thread before it was moved. Both had minor defects that would seem to disqualify from perfect h&a if going by the standards that whiteflash has on their website. Obviously they are still CBI diamonds and some of the best you can find, so what degree of perfection must be acheived if even these have minor defects?

3. Obviously no one probably knows the answers for this, but I will ask anyway. We know increasing stone size will increase the viewers ability to see fire (and scintillation?). This is because it increases average virtual facet size correct? When we see consumers debate between ideal and superideal, often size is one of the common tradeoffs. So I ask myself which has the bigger effect on virtual facet size? Increasing the size of the stone or the optical symmetry? If I can buy an ideal stone of 7.9mm diameter for the same price as a 7.5mm superideal, which do I buy? Is the effect of size more noticeable than symmetry?

This is a big reason why I hate to see consumers steered away from something that MOST will see quite easily, and told to buy something that is cut more precicesly even though they may not even see it. You are trading an almost certain known for an "unknown".

4. John, you mentioned some in house comparisons with those 9 diamonds. Did it include consumers? Have you done such comparisons with cbi superideals vs. generic GIA Ex h&a?

5. A final point. I personally see the limited selection of CBI as a big limitation for the consumer. Here are the CBI diamonds I mentioned before:

http://highperformancediamonds.com/shop/diamonds/HPD7134/#prettyPhoto
http://highperformancediamonds.com/shop/diamonds/HPD6728/#prettyPhoto
And if anyone cares a link to the stone I purchased:
https://enchanteddiamonds.com/diamonds/view/R201-CLBVHD

Obviously the first CBI is the closest thing to what I was looking for (2ct J, Vs2 or better, ideal cut). It faces up much more appropriately for its size with max diameter of 8.19 vs only 8.06. Obviously I get that mine is hiding girdle weight, but I would have decided that I could live with the 0.13mm difference. Likely not noticeable when set, but maybe? The CBI also happens to be vs1 instead of vs2 which adds further to the price. But, if I want to hit that 2carat/8 mm this is my only option, and it carried the 59% premium over my stone (Admittedly deserving a premium no doubt).

This is where stone 2 comes in, commanding a premium of only a few hundred dollars. Equal clarity and color, but sacrificing close to 0.4 mm. For more $, I wouldn't personally want to sacrifice that knowing size was a priority for her.

Paul seemed to get very upset and seemed to think I was maliciously trying to paint the idea you charged a 59% premium across the board, which wasn't at all the point. The point is that to hit all the checkmarks for what I was looking for, I would have had to spend the 59% premium. If you choose to cut such a limited number of stones to a high degree of precision, that is your decision. But you can't go around bad mouthing all the generic GIA Ex stones and point out all their imperfections and room for improvements while simultaneously getting irritated at consumers for pointing out what they'd have had to spend to get something comparable from you. You can't use the justification that IF a CBI stone existed that was J, VS2, 1.95c it would have been much more competitively priced.

This is obviously just my personal case, but I do see it as a limitation for consumers. Again, this is why I hate to see them give up one of the things they wanted in their stone (color, size, clarity) just to be able to get ultimate cutting precision.

 

[Karl_K]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

3. Obviously no one probably knows the answers for this, but I will ask anyway. We know increasing stone size will increase the viewers ability to see fire (and scintillation?). This is because it increases average virtual facet size correct?

There is a complication where generally when we consider virtual facets we take into account up to double reflections.
There are triple and quadruple and more reflections but in smaller sizes they are generally so small to not matter in all but the smallest and brightest spot lighting and most not even then.
However as size goes up they do come into play as they become big enough to be effective at returning light to the eyes in more common lighting conditions.
You take 6 diamonds with perfectly identical cuts in all angles and 3d placement .2ct, 1ct, 3ct, 5ct, 10ct and 20ct they are going to look remarkably different from one another other than just in size.
This will most be apparent in scintillation in real world lighting.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Hi


DS One of your objections for leaving the thread is you don't want to have to go thru that type of discussion with each new thread asking for help. Gypsy, developed a set piece which I think us very instructional for cushion cut diamonds. Each time a cushion cut is requested, she pops this essay, with explanations and referrals to a more complete understanding of cushions. So. yes each person gets an individual explanation. I think the Envy thread answered her questions and would useful to others, just shorter obviously.

Yes, I was referring to you on the 1.71 diamond. Your opinion mattered most to her. She found that stone, and initially it seemed to me that you were discouraging it. You seem to have backtracked that a bit, and while caution is the smart thing, if she goes to see the 1.71 diamond with the 1.40(I think you did recommend or she also found it herself) she will go without having any idea of the price. I think this is a mistake.

Please do not take any offense when I voice my opinion, as I would trust you to find a round diamond for me at any time. You give so much of yourself on this site. Its amazing, and you have helped so many people. But, to have a difference of opinion or understanding does not take away from my admiration and respect for you. My understanding may not be as developed as yours, and I will have to learn the best way I can.


Annette

Annette, I sincerely do appreciate your kind words. If I discouraged her, it was in response to others encouraging her to buy the 1.7 just because it was AGS Ideal cut and potentially cheaper, and I thought that was not good advice for the reasons I already explained (needing ASET and current evaluation of condition, seeing if stone could even be sold without the setting, and price). I absolutely agree that a price needed to be established before paying for an ASET, and I believe I told her that. I was not the one who recommended the 1.4 ct stone. She may have found that one herself. I really wasn't pushing a particular stone on that thread at all.

The debate needed to be moved, so that the next time this comes up in a "help me find a diamond" thread, the link to this thread can simply be pasted if the person wants to further read about whether going with superideal or H&A is worth it to them. I do this for fun, but it ceases to be fun when every time a thread asking for help is posted, people repeatedly challenge recommending the best cut quality stones because there are cheaper stones. After looking at Hearts on Fire when I first learned of superideal H&A cut stones on PS, I found that the superideal vendors here were significantly cheaper! So I find them to be a good value compared to the most widely known branded precison cut diamonds. But as I have also said before, I do not recommend superideal cuts to every person who asks for help finding a diamond. Envyme happened to ask for H&A and that's why I recommended them.

Thank you, again!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

pfunk said... If I can buy an ideal stone of 7.9mm diameter for the same price as a 7.5mm superideal, which do I buy? Is the effect of size more noticeable than symmetry?

The thing you are not taking into account is that size is not everyone's number one priority. I just bought superideal cut diamonds for earrings (upgrade policy) and I certainly could have gotten bigger stones had I gone with virtual inventory GIA EX. Same with my e-ring diamond which is a specialty cut. I could easily have gotten a GIA EX 3 ct mrb instead by dropping a little in clarity, too, but I didn't want a 3 ct diamond. Sometimes people choose quality over quantity. Bigger is not better to everyone. I remember a guy coming here one time with a $20k budget and he wanted a 1 ct D VVS-IF diamond. That is certainly not for everyone, but it is what his girlfriend wanted. Different people have different preferences.

 

[KobiD]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

pfunk said... If I can buy an ideal stone of 7.9mm diameter for the same price as a 7.5mm superideal, which do I buy? Is the effect of size more noticeable than symmetry?

The thing you are not taking into account is that size is not everyone's number one priority. I just bought superideal cut diamonds for earrings (upgrade policy) and I certainly could have gotten bigger stones had I gone with virtual inventory GIA EX. Same with my e-ring diamond which is a specialty cut. I could easily have gotten a GIA EX 3 ct mrb instead by dropping a little in clarity, too, but I didn't want a 3 ct diamond. Sometimes people choose quality over quantity. Bigger is not better to everyone. I remember a guy coming here one time with a $20k budget and he wanted a 1 ct D VVS-IF diamond. That is certainly not for everyone, but it is what his girlfriend wanted. Different people have different preferences.

Good points DS, which also compliment exactly what pfunk is trying to address.

Everyone who comes here seeking advice does so with their own set of priorities, or a general idea of what they seek to achieve. The forum provides the insight and shares the knowledge required to assist them in achieving their goals. Educating consumers about diamonds is something that the people here do, and do to a very high level.

However, all too often you see someone come with a limited understanding, not sure what they really want.. and from what I have seen they are almost always pushed towards super ideals. That by buying any less they are ultimately giving up something... something that can be qualified (selectively using ASET/IS), but not quantitivly at this stage in time. They are then faced with an option to either extend their budget, drop colours/clarity, or buy a smaller diamond.

I haven't been here long, but I have seen it unfold time and time again. On the other hand, if someone does come with a set of priorities or a particular goal I have also witnessed many of the regulars work towards that, even if it doesn't align with their own opinions/tastes.

I personally would be happy with some of WFs expert selection. I appreciate the symmetry, but don't need the perfect ASET/IS. Some leakage adds some character, as do inclusions to some people, as others like warmer coloured stones. Its all about what works for you... but for someone who doesn't particularly fuss over their stone, who isn't interested in gazing deeply at it at all hours, who doesn't desire to own a loupe, ah&a viewer, a mircroscope.. are they actually going to be aware of the small (unmeasurable) amount of performance they are giving up.