Superideal cut MRB -- Qs for diamond enthusiasts/educators

[diaya]

Hi all,

I have a background in science and love the geeky diamond educational talks that happen amongst PSers. I just started researching MRB a few weeks ago (a.k.a reading intensely on pricescope forums) and came to the conclusion that I would like to purchase a superideal cut MRB. I know the few options that I am posting below are all superb selections from different online sellers recommended by PSers, but I would like to hear your options on what are the criteria that you use to narrow down to that special stone (the more technical the better)! I am posting all G color stones nearly the same carat weight with either VS2 or SI1 as clarity in an attempt to eliminate confounding factors in the analysis.

Diamond A: 1.828ct G-SI1 7.81-7.84x 4.86mm


Three other diamonds to follow, since the post does not allow me to post more pictures.
Thanks!!

 

[diaya]

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

Diamond B: 1.792ct G-VS2 7.77-7.82x4.81mm

 

[diaya]

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

Diamond C: 1.797ct G-VS2 7.79-7.83x4.79mm

 

[diaya]

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

Diamond D: 1.80 ct G-SI1 7.83-7.87x4.82mm

 

[diaya]

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

I just realized that I forgot to add the ASET images for the diamonds...oops!
Diamond A thru D in sequential order

 

[solgen]

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

Interested to hear feedback on these diamonds and how the inclusions effect performance.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

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

We can't tell you how the inclusions affect performance, but I would choose one of the two VS2 stones because I just prefer good clarity. I think if you are going for the best cut, then get an overall high quality stone!

 

[pfunk]

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

I think they are going to look the same visually. They are so similar I would pick the cheapest one that is eye clean. No reason to infer lesser quality because of inclusions that have no effect on performance or visual appeal. As top of the line branded cuts, the vendor should have determined that the inclusions pose no risk for damage nor should they effect light performance. If that were the case, they should have been excluded from their signature lines.

 

[WinkHPD]

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

I think they are going to look the same visually. They are so similar I would pick the cheapest one that is eye clean. No reason to infer lesser quality because of inclusions that have no effect on performance or visual appeal. As top of the line branded cuts, the vendor should have determined that the inclusions pose no risk for damage nor should they effect light performance. If that were the case, they should have been excluded from their signature lines.

I think that they are NOT going to look the same visually, although they will all be very nice looking diamonds.

The best possible thing you (our OP) could do would be to arrange to see them, side by side, without knowing which is which and then let YOUR eyes tell you which one YOU like best.

Baring that, you may wish to talk with the various vendors and compare their inspect and return policies and their buy back and trade up policies to see which one offers you the best value for YOU.

Pfunk, I agree with most of what you say here, especially about not allowing non eye visible inclusions to be a deterrent. Obviously I recognize one of the diamonds and by forum rules I will not talk about that diamond other than to say I disagree with the advice to just buy the cheapest one because they are all "good enough". Having seen so many "good enough" diamonds side by side, I know that there are significant visual differences between even the top graded diamonds, even when the numbers and angles look like they should all be little peas in a pod.

If someone is truly looking for the best, then the best should be seen, along with the "good enough" diamonds so that the person can make his/her own choice as to whether or not good enough is good enough for that person. Sometimes it is, others it is not.

Wink

 

[jsmith85]

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

I vote #3. It has a great Idealscope and ASET image, and it doesn't have a feather near the edge. For 1 and 2, from looking at the pictures, it looks like they have edge feathers, which can cause an increased risk of fracture.

 

[Dancing Fire]

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

I'll take Diamond D: 1.80 ct G-SI1 7.83-7.87x4.82mm. I'm pretty sure I recognize the make of this stone.. give him a call, if he say the stone is eye clean then go for it!

 

[luvdajules]

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

I think I recognize 1 and 4 and those are my faves. If the twinning wisps don't pose a transparency issue or impact light performance and within desired budget, I'd likely go with that.

 

[pfunk]

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

I think they are going to look the same visually. They are so similar I would pick the cheapest one that is eye clean. No reason to infer lesser quality because of inclusions that have no effect on performance or visual appeal. As top of the line branded cuts, the vendor should have determined that the inclusions pose no risk for damage nor should they effect light performance. If that were the case, they should have been excluded from their signature lines.

I think that they are NOT going to look the same visually, although they will all be very nice looking diamonds.

The best possible thing you (our OP) could do would be to arrange to see them, side by side, without knowing which is which and then let YOUR eyes tell you which one YOU like best.

Baring that, you may wish to talk with the various vendors and compare their inspect and return policies and their buy back and trade up policies to see which one offers you the best value for YOU.

Pfunk, I agree with most of what you say here, especially about not allowing non eye visible inclusions to be a deterrent. Obviously I recognize one of the diamonds and by forum rules I will not talk about that diamond other than to say I disagree with the advice to just buy the cheapest one because they are all "good enough". Having seen so many "good enough" diamonds side by side, I know that there are significant visual differences between even the top graded diamonds, even when the numbers and angles look like they should all be little peas in a pod.

If someone is truly looking for the best, then the best should be seen, along with the "good enough" diamonds so that the person can make his/her own choice as to whether or not good enough is good enough for that person. Sometimes it is, others it is not.

Wink

I guess I fail to see why there would be significant differences between round stones that are cut to very similar proportions and very similar precision, especially when one of the typical claims to their advantage is that they are produced to be sizzling clones of each other in order to give a repeatable, predictable look. The discussion of near hearts and arrows vs perfect hearts and arrows leads to talks of subtle but sometimes important visual differences, yet you are saying that one should expect to see significant differences in this lineup of high precision h&a stones?

I'm not suggesting the OP settle for good enough. This is a lineup of several vendors cream of the crop stones. Each vendor would likely claim their stone is the best you can buy. I don't think anyone would be cheaping out or leaving something to desire by picking the cheapest eye clean stone in this lineup. Sure seeing them all first hand and deciding blind would be the best way, but to get these 4 stones in one place would mean putting a lot of money down. If the OP has the means to afford that, I hope they do just that and report back with the findings. If they can't afford that, what other advice are we supposed to give them? Can you or anyone else describe what significant visual differences one should expect to see based on these images and measurements? If a new thread is needed to allow you to have such a discussion, perhaps it will be of help to many.

 

[luvdajules]

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

Pfunk, that would be tricky for wink because of board rules, to answer your question. I've seen the cbi brand but not wf aca or Brian Gavin signature, nor GOG signature. I hope to view the others eventually. I can say I was quite taken with cbi cut perfection. It seemed that facets clicked on and off as you moved the diamond around. It's quite something. They come at a premium, as we all know, similar to all of the superideals. I have seen hearts on fire diamonds and I did not get the same mesmerizing sharp on and off patterning experience I saw in cbi. So, not all superideals are equal, is what I concluded. Some reach a level of cut excellence that just makes a diamond sing.

 

[teobdl]

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

The great debate lives on!

My $0.02. I compared a branded H&A's with a non-branded extremely well cut diamond in those proportions and in many lighting conditions. After making sure they were clean, I could not tell a difference. My friends could not tell a difference. I also did the same w/ a very well cut but not very optically symmetrical diamond--I could barely tell the difference and even then the difference was so incredibly minimal that if I weren't staring and agonizing over which was which I wouldn't have ever known which was better.

My point is that comparing the top of the top cuts, especially those with nearly identical proportions by every facet, I am very confident you will not see a difference. I agree with pfunk: choose the cheapest one of these that is eye clean (and also look at the return/upgrade policies if you think that's important to you).

If you want to do a similar comparison with some opportunity to see differences in cut, go to Tiffany where they have very well cut but inconsistent proportions. Ask for two diamonds with same carat and color, and then compare the two. These diamonds will be very different according to PS standards, and you will barely be able to tell a difference. (make sure the diamonds are clean!!) Feel free to take along with you one of the diamonds you posted above. Tell the SA you're willing to spend more money to get the better cut diamond, and they will gladly oblige you. Please tell us if you see a difference among the diamonds.

 

[pfunk]

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

Pfunk, that would be tricky for wink because of board rules, to answer your question. I've seen the cbi brand but not wf aca or Brian Gavin signature, nor GOG signature. I hope to view the others eventually. I can say I was quite taken with cbi cut perfection. It seemed that facets clicked on and off as you moved the diamond around. It's quite something. They come at a premium, as we all know, similar to all of the superideals. I have seen hearts on fire diamonds and I did not get the same mesmerizing sharp on and off patterning experience I saw in cbi. So, not all superideals are equal, is what I concluded. Some reach a level of cut excellence that just makes a diamond sing.

Were the CBI and HOF diamonds of similar size and color? Is the CBI cut acheiving something that 2d images just can't capture? The optical symmetry appears similar to that of the other superideals, and the proportions are very close as well. If there were a tool to visually show the differences in cut between superideals, you would think they'd be utilizing it to set themselves apart. If it comes down to having to see the stones side by side to compare and see the difference, it becomes a big obstacle for the online shopper. The amount of money it would take to have 4 superideals sent to you for an in person comparison would be far more than most could afford. A comparison video would go a long way in helping the online shopper visualize the differences, but you just won't find one of those.

 

[luvdajules]

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

Pfunk, I will try to answer with my limited experience and non technical diamond background, newb to newb, if u will. I think u can see the seemingly small 2d differences that may seem not significant, but do contribute to visual performance. As these angles are optimized, arranged in complimentary way, all the multitude of minor and virtual facets are then similarly perfected to unleash the diamond beauty. I do believe cbi stones have some type of proprietary post process that is a safely guarded trademark secret that makes them visually stunning.

To answer your question, the cbi stones I saw were a 1.7 ct. K vvs1 and a 1.64 ct. G si2. And I saw several hof stones of varying color and clarities. I didn't find the color or clarity differences to impact my visual experience of cbi versus hof. All of this, of course, just my personal experience and opinion.

 

[RADIANTMAN]

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

The diamonds shown have pavilion angles that vary from 40.7 to 40.9. I totally agree with Wink that they will not all look exactly alike to the discerning eye when seen side by side, though they are all beautifully cut stones and which is nicer is, in my opinion, a matter of personal preference. It is not a matter of one set of proportions being objectively better.

I personally do not prefer round stones with the pavilion angle below 48 degrees so I would personally not choose the two with the 47 degree pavilions. In fact my favorite look comes from a pavilion just a tad below 41 so my favorite here if I had the opportunity to see them would likely be the 1.79 G VS2 with the 49 degree pavilion.

But again, I think that's just a matter of my subjective personal taste.

 

[pfunk]

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

The diamonds shown have pavilion angles that vary from 40.7 to 40.9. I totally agree with Wink that they will not all look exactly alike to the discerning eye when seen side by side, though they are all beautifully cut stones and which is nicer is, in my opinion, a matter of personal preference. It is not a matter of one set of proportions being objectively better.

I personally do not prefer round stones with the pavilion angle below 48 degrees so I would personally not choose the two with the 47 degree pavilions. In fact my favorite look comes from a pavilion just a tad below 41 so my favorite here if I had the opportunity to see them would likely be the 1.79 G VS2 with the 49 degree pavilion.

But again, I think that's just a matter of my subjective personal taste.

Radiantman... if you could elaborate as to what the visual effect is with pavilion angles under 40.8 that you do not prefer? What effects are there on scintillation, fire, brilliance, etc that make you gravitate towards pavilions closer to 41? I think this is the sort of stuff the OP is trying to figure out.

If we can't explain to the consumer in defined terms what the visual differences are expected to be, we can't help guide the decision. Even considering that subtle differences of flavor exist, it may indeed take a very discerning eye to even pick up the differences. Because it is likely cost prohibitive to have 4 superideals sent to you for in person viewing, I do not see the harm in recommending the cheapest eye clean stone (strictly from a visual standpoint) as they will all appear similar (I hope this is a fair term) and beautiful. To many, as teobdl points out, they likely may be indistinguishable.

 

[emmebee]

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

C or D is my vote!

 

[WinkHPD]

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

Pfunk and teobdl, your input is you own. I cannot possibly know whether your visual palate matches that of luvdajules, or other enthusiasts who do see differences you claim don’t exist. With respect for your input, just because you have not, or cannot, detect difference reported by others doesn’t make those people liars. Please respect the diversity of people beyond yourselves, and also the limitations of this internet-photo-medium.

In my 40+ years as a professional one thing is absolutely clear. People who try to make blanket judgments of diamond beauty by observing for a moment, or even a day, are misguiding themselves and others. Diamond performance is not a judgment of a moment, it’s the journey of a lifetime. It’s about infinite lighting conditions and the science of virtual facets and dispersive fans which goes far, far beyond any person’s ability to see in some momentary test. Some of the most meaningful testimony and feedback I’ve had comes from clients who express how their diamond regularly surprises them with its performance, even as time goes on. Many clients also report that their visual palate has become more sophisticated with time. This is no different than wine palates for foodies, or hearing palates for music lovers. It is why I have my SITBI program, where I send the diamond to the potential buyer, and I encourage a week’s journey at minimum to compare and observe. That program has been very meaningful in demonstrating what I’m talking about here.

As I said though, your input is your own. If you’ve done the comparisons and still feel the way you do, no problem. I would just ask that you not forget that there are differences in the short and long-term benefits a given seller offers, especially relating to trade-up and cash-buy-back. Does one seller limit these things, while another does not? Do they have parity in terms of value-redemption down the road? When you simply point to “cheapest,” with no discussion about those relevant value-factors with different cost-bases, you may be omitting information that matters to readers who want to know the full story.

Wink

 

[pyramid]

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

The diamonds shown have pavilion angles that vary from 40.7 to 40.9. I totally agree with Wink that they will not all look exactly alike to the discerning eye when seen side by side, though they are all beautifully cut stones and which is nicer is, in my opinion, a matter of personal preference. It is not a matter of one set of proportions being objectively better.

I personally do not prefer round stones with the pavilion angle below 48 degrees so I would personally not choose the two with the 47 degree pavilions. In fact my favorite look comes from a pavilion just a tad below 41 so my favorite here if I had the opportunity to see them would likely be the 1.79 G VS2 with the 49 degree pavilion.

But again, I think that's just a matter of my subjective personal taste.

Interesting about the pavilion angle you prefer at about 41, my own stone is 49 too. I read that Tolkowsky had his cut set at 40.75 (with a crown angle of 34.5) and those were the Super Ideal specs that were touted on the internet sites when I started reading about diamonds back about the year 2001/2002. This may be before hearts and arrows became known much and were only mentioned about being available in China though so don't know if that made a difference. Would be interested to hear from the pros? I remember searching though and couldn't find many at 40.75 back then although I wasn't ready to buy so maybe did not look long enough at the time.

 

[pfunk]

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

Pfunk and teobdl, your input is you own. I cannot possibly know whether your visual palate matches that of luvdajules, or other enthusiasts who do see differences you claim don’t exist. With respect for your input, just because you have not, or cannot, detect difference reported by others doesn’t make those people liars. Please respect the diversity of people beyond yourselves, and also the limitations of this internet-photo-medium.

In my 40+ years as a professional one thing is absolutely clear. People who try to make blanket judgments of diamond beauty by observing for a moment, or even a day, are misguiding themselves and others. Diamond performance is not a judgment of a moment, it’s the journey of a lifetime. It’s about infinite lighting conditions and the science of virtual facets and dispersive fans which goes far, far beyond any person’s ability to see in some momentary test. Some of the most meaningful testimony and feedback I’ve had comes from clients who express how their diamond regularly surprises them with its performance, even as time goes on. Many clients also report that their visual palate has become more sophisticated with time. This is no different than wine palates for foodies, or hearing palates for music lovers. It is why I have my SITBI program, where I send the diamond to the potential buyer, and I encourage a week’s journey at minimum to compare and observe. That program has been very meaningful in demonstrating what I’m talking about here.

As I said though, your input is your own. If you’ve done the comparisons and still feel the way you do, no problem. I would just ask that you not forget that there are differences in the short and long-term benefits a given seller offers, especially relating to trade-up and cash-buy-back. Does one seller limit these things, while another does not? Do they have parity in terms of value-redemption down the road? When you simply point to “cheapest,” with no discussion about those relevant value-factors with different cost-bases, you may be omitting information that matters to readers who want to know the full story.

Wink

A few things Wink...

I never made any claims that differences don't exist, and have made attempts on many occasions to learn more about the ways in which we can objectively measure such differences and convey that to consumers. I also did not call anyone who can detect those differences a liar. I'm simply stating that there are people who do not see the differences between top of the line cuts and well cut ideals or even random GIA excellent stones. There are CERTAINLY going to be a lot of people who can't see the difference in a lineup of branded superideal stones cut similar to one another. This is especially true when talking about the average consumer, many of whom won't ever take the time to closely examine their diamond over the years to appreciate nuances. Absolutely there are consumers who do, as you very well know, but many do not. Just as you don't like blanket judgements of a stone based upon a limited viewing time, I don't like blanket statements that a certain superideal stone is going to be much more beautiful and bring more longterm joy to its owner than any other stone would. The analogy that one is a Maserati and one is a Chevy doesn't sit well with me because many won't be able to appreciate that HUGE difference. You can put me in a porsche 918 spyder and I wont be able to do much more in it than I could in a toyota camry. Now if you put a professional driver in that car, certainly he will be able to unlock more of that car's potential as he is far more experienced. Same goes with diamonds. Some of us won't see a difference, some will. No way to predict who won't see it, will see it, will eventually see it, or will never see it. It's not wrong for us to say we can't see a difference, and it's not wrong for others to share the differences they do see. Only way to know is to see it for yourself, which is why your SITBI program is VERY cool and super useful for consumers. Getting several superideals sent for side by side comparisons is, however, not going to be financially realistic for most people.

It is hard to look at a lineup of superideal stones like those in this thread and explain to the OP what the differences will be. It is often asked what the differences are between a superideal stone and a well cut ideal but no one ever really articulates a good answer with defined terms that are universally understood. Describing those differences over an internet forum proves a difficult task. Because of this, and the fact that all these stones look to be very well cut, I don't have an issue with recommending the cheapest eye clean stone of the group. I am confident that any one would be beautiful. I said I think they will look the same because to my eyes, I truly think they will look the same. This recommendation is based solely on the stones appearance and performance, and has nothing to do with the additional value adding policies of each vendor. I guess I assumed the OP would have valued those already and was coming here to ask about the differences in the appearance of these stones.

 

[smitcompton]

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

Hi OP,

I am going to simply reiterate what DS said. I love the G color, and in keeping with "the best", I too would go for a VS2 stone.

The comments of other posters here should be considered, and I know it may seem confusing, but all the stones will be beautiful. Is it possible that one stone would stick out so much more it would knock your socks off? I doubt it. I would go as someone suggested, when you get a stone home, take it to Tiffany and compare.

Annette

 

[heididdl]

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

I would choose the first VS stone as although they are all ideal cut I wonder about clarity and this visually looked good to my eye

 

[teobdl]

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

I do not claim differences don't exist. I am saying that the threshold to perceive the differences among extremely well cut diamonds is a) often exaggerated and b) may not exist for some, may be semi-obvious to a few, and may be borderline for others.

As I stated above, I do think that ancillary services and policies should be considered when purchasing things. Heck I check the return policy every time I buy a shirt. I suggested that the poster consider these policies.

I realize that my stake in the discussion is literally zero, whereas sales for vendors literally hinges on some of these points. For this reason I'll refrain from saying more.

Diaya- my advice is this: test your acuity for perceiving differences. Definitely try out the SITBI program and make a comparison with other extremely well cut (CLEAN!!) diamonds. You will see what your threshold for perceiving differences is.

 

[LLJsmom]

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

Just saying by someone who probably would not be able to tell the difference just by looking at it. Even if the OP cannot tell the difference, maybe he may want to know in his mind that he bought a super ideal cut. Just like some people are not ok with eye clean. Yeah, I can't see the difference with my eyes from 12 inches, but it still bothers me to know that there are a certain number of inclusions there... (My own personal issue, another post). Live and let live...

 

[pyramid]

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

I don't know, but I wonder is it bad form, for a vendor who sells a certain superideal cut diamond, which is also being touted occasionally by ONE customer of his who has bought this brand as well, to highlight that a certain super ideal is better, way better is the point being made than others being sold by comparable vendors who advertise on this forum. After being here for 13 years and making an expensive purchase from one of these other competing vendors, I just feel it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to be informed in an indirect way that my superideal is maybe not all that.

I do know though as I have been here a while that even the best superideal today - if there was one . may be an AGS1 only in a few years, it happened to pricescope customers before.

So I sometimes wonder if cut is really all that, maybe relax a bit and up the other C's for the same budget you hold. It is your choice after all, as long as the ideal scope shows red and not white areas the return-light should be good, especially if you don't clean your diamond each day and most people don't in the long term.

 

[Medical]

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

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

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

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

 

[Texas Leaguer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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