Likelihood of finding a 'signature' super ideal diamond?

[LightBright]

A couple of things to keep in mind:
One, an AGS0 (Ideal) light performance grade is the result of sophisticated ray tracing analysis of a 3D model of the actual diamond mathematically calculating the contribution of every facet and assessing brightness, leakage,dispersion (fire), and contrast. Even though there is not an assessment for optical precision (H&A), you can be confident that the diamond has the right ingredients to be a high performer. You can think of the AGS0 as the light performance "engine' and the facet precision as being the "tuning" of that engine.

Two, it is important to recognize that light performance can be affected by other factors such as clarity features. So an AGS0 grade (or GIA Ex) can only deliver the performance that the material allows. For this reason it is important to pay attention to clarity aspects , particularly in the Si range.

I’d like to ask a question about what Bryan says in his post.

Is Bryan saying that the AGS 0 designation is based on the existing angles of the stone, but things that are characteristic of the rough, like inclusions or graining are not modeled into that AGS 0 designation? And for this reason you need to inspect (esp SI stones) to insure excellent light return rather than using the AGS 0 designation as the final arbiter of light return.

So my question is: does WF, in branding an ACA branded stone, examine other factors than AGS 0 like how the stone’s clarity impacts light return? Such that if you pick an ACA SI2 or SI1 you would be assured that the inclusions and any other factors have already been examined for how they affect light return? And so it’s safe to conclude the stone has been already vetted?

I’m curious about things like inclusions in superideal brands because I personally feel you can have a visible inclusion in a stone that doesn’t affect light return. But I wonder if that is left up to the customer to determine, or if superideal companies are vetting stones for things like clarity, and only accepting stones that have inclusions that don’t impact light return.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Yes, WF selects the stones for their inventory and would not include a stone. They carry very few SI2's. But when you are considering any stone, it is easy to discuss any questions you have about the particular stone with them.

 

[yssie]

Ditto, WF will not carry stones that contain inclusions that discernibly impact light return, and as @diamondseeker2006 noted, that results in an inventory that’s nearly devoid of SI2s - especially in larger sizes.

Crafted by Infinity used to have something of a niche specialisation in turning lower-clarity rough into stones that, despite being reputably-graded SIs or I1s, were guaranteed not to suffer diminished light return; they explicitly considered the possible effects of all inclusions in cut plan. Their inventory has not been rich in low-clarity options in recent years though.

 

[John P]

Nice revival of an epic thread from 2012. No surprise that it keeps getting bumped, there's great content on page 1.

Ditto, WF will not carry stones that contain inclusions that discernibly impact light return, and as @diamondseeker2006 noted, that results in an inventory that’s nearly devoid of SI2s - especially in larger sizes.

Crafted by Infinity used to have something of a niche specialisation in turning lower-clarity rough into stones that, despite being reputably-graded SIs or I1s, were guaranteed not to suffer diminished light return; they explicitly considered the possible effects of all inclusions in cut plan. Their inventory has not been rich in low-clarity options in recent years though.

Yssie is largely correct as it relates to "recent years." Is anyone interested in the reasons for that?

 

[rockysalamander]

Nice revival of an epic thread from 2012. No surprise that it keeps getting bumped, there's great content on page 1.


Yssie is largely correct as it relates to "recent years." Is anyone interested in the reasons for that?

Me me me

 

[arkieb1]

Me me me

+ 1

 

[cflutist]

Nice revival of an epic thread from 2012. No surprise that it keeps getting bumped, there's great content on page 1.


Yssie is largely correct as it relates to "recent years." Is anyone interested in the reasons for that?

I would love to know.
In addition, why don't you stock more 3+ ct, or K and below colors, I love my Q (and 4 Fs)

 

[december-fire]

Yssie is largely correct as it relates to "recent years." Is anyone interested in the reasons for that?

Sitting up straight in front row and ready to take notes!

 

[bmfang]

Nice revival of an epic thread from 2012. No surprise that it keeps getting bumped, there's great content on page 1.
...
Yssie is largely correct as it relates to "recent years." Is anyone interested in the reasons for that?

I certainly am interested in those reasons!

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I’d like to ask a question about what Bryan says in his post.

Is Bryan saying that the AGS 0 designation is based on the existing angles of the stone, but things that are characteristic of the rough, like inclusions or graining are not modeled into that AGS 0 designation? And for this reason you need to inspect (esp SI stones) to insure excellent light return rather than using the AGS 0 designation as the final arbiter of light return.

So my question is: does WF, in branding an ACA branded stone, examine other factors than AGS 0 like how the stone’s clarity impacts light return? Such that if you pick an ACA SI2 or SI1 you would be assured that the inclusions and any other factors have already been examined for how they affect light return? And so it’s safe to conclude the stone has been already vetted?

I’m curious about things like inclusions in superideal brands because I personally feel you can have a visible inclusion in a stone that doesn’t affect light return. But I wonder if that is left up to the customer to determine, or if superideal companies are vetting stones for things like clarity, and only accepting stones that have inclusions that don’t impact light return.

Yes, as others have already stated, clarity evaluation, as it pertains to light performance, is part of our process. Any appreciable transparency deficit due to clarity features is a disqualifier for our A CUT ABOVE brand.

This factor is called out along with all other tests and requirements on our "Specifications and Qualifications" page.

 

[LightBright]

Nice revival of an epic thread from 2012. No surprise that it keeps getting bumped, there's great content on page 1.


Yssie is largely correct as it relates to "recent years." Is anyone interested in the reasons for that?

Thank you John, yes please!! I’m ready with my coffee and reading glasses for info on CBI’s process vis a vis lower clarity stones. Or any other info you want to share on how CBI prepares and vets their branded cut diamonds for sale.

 

[LightBright]

Yes, as others have already stated, clarity evaluation, as it pertains to light performance, is part of our process. Any appreciable transparency deficit due to clarity features is a disqualifier for our A CUT ABOVE brand.

This factor is called out along with all other tests and requirements on our "Specifications and Qualifications" page.

Thank you Texas Leaguer for the reference to White Flash ACA’s “Specifications and Qualifications” page. I will read with great interest.

 

[yssie]

Is anyone interested in the reasons for that?

I do have my suspicions... but you know what they say about suspicions

 

[John P]

I do have my suspicions... but you know what they say about suspicions

I arrived early to reply to you fine folks today, but I'm intrigued by these suspicions.

 

[GearGirly]

Great thread, thank you for all the knowledge. I’m always frustrated that my desire for strong blue fluorescence rules out any Whiteflash stones that are ACA.

 

[WillyDiamond]

Gypsy, Gypsy, Gyspy...........woo hoo!!!!

 

[the_mother_thing]

Great thread, thank you for all the knowledge. I’m always frustrated that my desire for strong blue fluorescence rules out any Whiteflash stones that are ACA.

I got MBF in my ES. Check those out if you haven't already because some are excluded from ACA only because of that (mine was one). $ave$ a few bucks on the wallet as well!

 

[John P]

Crafted by Infinity used to have something of a niche specialisation in turning lower-clarity rough into stones that, despite being reputably-graded SIs or I1s, were guaranteed not to suffer diminished light return; they explicitly considered the possible effects of all inclusions in cut plan. Their inventory has not been rich in low-clarity options in recent years though.

@rockysalamander @arkieb1 @cflutist @december-fire @bmfang @LightBright

I'm finally springing free with time to answer. Thanks for such interest about this observation.

First, to understand our vantage point: We’re rather self-contained, with only one focus (the CBI brand). We have consistent output due to consistent selection and crafting. Our specific cut-performance results are just one aspect of that. When it comes to clarity we're only selecting transparent crystals that will finish eye-clean. We are mindful of expected lab results after crafting, but the clarity-grade is not our focus. Selecting transparent, eye-clean crystals is - and that process has not changed.

So what has changed? On the global stage gem-quality rough has become less clean. This is partly due to long-standing mines reaching their limits and partly due to dirtier sources passing rough through India and China. This has impacted the entire industry, especially downstream as clarity grading is limited to 10X magnification. Persistent issues that exist beyond 10X can impact optics without appearing on laboratory reports. The frequency of hazy / sleepy diamonds on the market has increased, to the point where major B2B trading sites have added the option for suppliers to declare ‘No BGM’ (brown/green/milky) on diamonds they offer.



Relative to Yssie’s observation: Ten years ago we found more acceptable crystals in lower clarities. We crafted abundant SI1-SI2. We even polished a few I1s, although that seems like forever-ago. The main challenge wasn't fundamental transparency then, it was planning the orientation of grade-setting inclusions to keep the diamond eye-clean. Today our rejection rate is higher across all categories and finding transparent, clean SI2 candidates has become painfully rare.

What else has changed? Many trade members believe clarity grading standards (in general) have softened over time. We submit diamonds to GIA and AGSL, and while we could argue that the smaller one-location lab remains more consistent, we agree about that softening on the whole. So, while our output has remained consistent, the average clarity grade of that output has edged up over time.

A last note for Yssie: The fact that our SI goods tend to sell quickly (comparatively to our others) could possibly exaggerate the perception you receive. But your overall perception is indeed correct.

I hope this reverse vantage-point is interesting. Diamonds are usually discussed as finished products here. We start at the other side, selecting and buying starting material based on our specific goals and focus – only seeing how the labs judge them later.

 

[december-fire]

@John Pollard , very interesting!

Thank you for taking the time to provide this information. Much appreciated.

 

[Karl_K]

While I am going to bow to Johns closer connection to the rough market on the lower percentage of clean rough there is another factor when it comes to the general market.
Better planning tools and techniques make gem grade recovery practical from rougher rough.
What might have taken an hour on a diamond saw to cut out and there was a high risk of it going to dust, can be done within minutes with a laser.
I believe that this results in a higher percentage of multi-inclusion stones on the market even in the higher grades.

I am in the softening of grades camp, the awesome si1 diamonds we used to snap up are getting vs2 or better today.

 

[fige]

When I was looking for rounds I found the videos below really useful. The first video compares an assendency (gogs top of the line premium cut) and a platinum select (near ideal). I assume the similar visual difference (or lack of depending on who you are hint my husband) applied to different vendors proprietary cuts.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Yes, as others have already stated, clarity evaluation, as it pertains to light performance, is part of our process. Any appreciable transparency deficit due to clarity features is a disqualifier for our A CUT ABOVE brand.

This factor is called out along with all other tests and requirements on our "Specifications and Qualifications" page.

If I may ask a question specific to the bolded part of your post above: what is the reason that some SI1 ACAs will have “inquire” vs “yes” for the Eye Clean spec? I don’t mean to put you on the spot with that question, but figure there has to be a logical reason (e.g., wearer’s clarity sensitivity to detect them?) that I just haven’t figured out yet but I’d love to know.

 

[Maggiemeans]

If I may ask a question specific to the bolded part of your post above: what is the reason that some SI1 ACAs will have “inquire” vs “yes” for the Eye Clean spec? I don’t mean to put you on the spot with that question, but figure there has to be a logical reason (e.g., wearer’s clarity sensitivity to detect them?) that I just haven’t figured out yet but I’d love to know.

I second the question to request an answer. Have wondered the same.

Excellent thread.

 

[Miki Moto]

This is a great thread and answers a question I have had for years about diamonds. I am relatively new to PS. Thanks to all the experts here for posting. I have a question on super ideal cuts / HOF vs. Whiteflash ACA / Brian Gavin.

First, some background to help understand the basis of my question...

I have HOF 2cttw AGS 000 diamond stud earrings. I purchased each 1ct stone loose and had them set in earrings. Before I purchased HOF, I thought all super-ideal H&As were the same, because precision is precision. I compared many generic non-branded super ideals and even flew out to see GOG (Jonathan) after pre-selecting some stones. I compared them to HOF, and the HOF were definitely more sparkly than the generic ones I saw. HOF then in my mind became the best for sparkly diamonds. (I have never seen a ACA or Brian Gavin diamond in real life, did not know about them back then, so they were not factored in my comparisons).

Flash forward a few years, I wanted to upgrade my diamond ring. I knew for sure I wanted HOF again, but for completeness, I went to Tiffany to prove to myself they were overpriced and not worth the premium. I had a SA bring in an equivalent 1.0ct Tiffany diamond to compare to my HOF 1.0ct diamond earring stud. The Tiffany sparkled MORE than the HOF. I was very surprised. I then told the SA to bring in three diamonds rings which I pre-selected after looking at the GIA reports. The diamond ring I ended up purchasing is a 3.15ct, GIA ideal, but NOT super-ideal/000. Based on specs, my Tiffany diamond ring is 1% off from being a super-ideal. However, the Tiffany diamond again, sparkled MORE than my HOF, so while my original intent was to buy a HOF, I ended up with the Tiffany. My husband was with me, knew the price difference and even he said... "get the Tiffany, it pops way more than HOF".

That's my story, and I have often wondered why a non-super ideal would sparkle more than a super-ideal. I now see it's also about angles thanks to this great thread.

Based on my experience above, does ACA and/or Brian Gavin cut even better than a HOF super-ideal to optimize for sparkle? I am not interested in seeing perfect little H&As. I care more about sparkle and this post has opened my eyes, that H&As do not all equal great sparkle.

I plan to upgrade my HOF diamond earrings, and I was going down the HOF/Tiffany route again. My thinking is I will probably get HOF. However, since discovering PS and this thread... do you think ACA or Brian Gavin are cut even better to optimize for sparkle? I am planning on attending the GTG in May and was hoping to be able to see some ACA stones in real life. For the experts out there, I would love to know your thoughts about their cuts and if you have experience comparing them to HOF.

And please... no Tiffany brand bashing as I know my story above can go off topic to bash Tiffany. I understand Tiffany is not the vendor of choice for many. For me though, for an engagement ring, I love Tiffany and think the premium is worth it as their diamonds sparkle like crazy based on my comparison test (e.g. I've stated this in my other posts as Defender-Of-Tiffany).

The question here is cut standards for super ideals from vendors such as HOF, ACA, and Brian Gavin. For super-ideal cut stones, which of these vendors best optimize their cut for sparkle? I would love to hear from the experts on this topic.

I hope this question makes sense. Thanks for any insight. Great thread!

 

[the_mother_thing]

The diamond ring I ended up purchasing is a 3.15ct, GIA ideal, but NOT super-ideal/000.

I wasn’t aware GIA was grading diamond cut as “ideal”; I thought ‘excellent’ was their ‘top’ grade for cut.

As to whether an ACA, CBI, BGD, etc. is “better” than any other, I think that is going to depend on the wearer/buyer/viewer. I think it would all come down to the individual, what’s in front of them, the light source (as these will ALL vary depending on where the person is who is viewing it), and what attracts their eye more. I don’t know if any one person can definitively say XYZ brand is ‘the best’ because it all boils down to perception, IMO ... and everyone’s perception is going to be different to a degree.

 

[Miki Moto]

I wasn’t aware GIA was grading diamond cut as “ideal”; I thought ‘excellent’ was their ‘top’ grade for cut.

As to whether an ACA, CBI, BGD, etc. is “better” than any other, I think that is going to depend on the wearer/buyer/viewer. I think it would all come down to the individual, what’s in front of them, the light source (as these will ALL vary depending on where the person is who is viewing it), and what attracts their eye more. I don’t know if any one person can definitively say XYZ brand is ‘the best’ because it all boils down to perception, IMO ... and everyone’s perception is going to be different to a degree.

Hi! Sorry, it’s my layman description... the GIA Ex and specs make it “ideal” but not a “super-ideal” which is why I was shocked to see it sparkles more.

Thanks for the input. So I guess what you are saying is that diamonds are a hit and miss? Which probably means when I was looking at stones, I just happened to get lucky and find the Tiffany non-super ideal more sparkly, but next time, I may find a generic super-ideal diamond just as sparkly or even more as every diamond is that unique? Thanks for that insight.

 

[the_mother_thing]

@Miki Moto I’m not saying diamonds a “hit or miss” per se. Just that everyone’s perception may be different. For instance, you might call in a diamond where you live, view it in either your home or the jeweler’s location and find it not very ‘sparkly’, and return it. I might call in the exact same diamond a couple weeks later, view it in my home or jeweler, and find it to be a stellar-sparkler. Is it because I’m comparing it to a different set of alternative diamonds than you might have? Is it that what my mind things is ‘stellar sparkle’ is different from what you think is ‘stellar sparkle’? Or is it because perhaps the lighting is different in the two locations that we both viewed the exact same diamond? Or it could be something entirely different.

 

[Miki Moto]

@Miki Moto I’m not saying diamonds a “hit or miss” per se. Just that everyone’s perception may be different. For instance, you might call in a diamond where you live, view it in either your home or the jeweler’s location and find it not very ‘sparkly’, and return it. I might call in the exact same diamond a couple weeks later, view it in my home or jeweler, and find it to be a stellar-sparkler. Is it because I’m comparing it to a different set of alternative diamonds than you might have? Is it that what my mind things is ‘stellar sparkle’ is different from what you think is ‘stellar sparkle’? Or is it because perhaps the lighting is different in the two locations that we both viewed the exact same diamond? Or it could be something entirely different.

Yes, I do understand location and lighting makes a huge difference, however, I had the diamonds side by side to compare at the store. Hence my surprise on the sparkle and then my question if ACA or Brian Gavin have different standards for cuts. Thanks.

 

[Gussie]

@Miki Moto for my curiosity, will you post the angles of your tiffany diamond?

 

[the_mother_thing]

Yes, I do understand location and lighting makes a huge difference, however, I had the diamonds side by side to compare at the store. Hence my surprise on the sparkle and then my question if ACA or Brian Gavin have different standards for cuts. Thanks.

Is it possible that your Tiffany returns more ‘white’ light vs fire, by chance? I’m not suggesting one is better than the other - again, we all have preferences. But when using terms like ‘sparkle’, I think it might help to be specific with what you see/saw in terms of the difference.