Advice: My WF ACA diamond vs this Jewerler's GIA

[jp201845]

Everyone has their personal opinion and preference when it comes to diamonds. It serves no purpose to disrespect anyone's views and create a pissing contest who is right and who is wrong. This thread totally got off track and the OP should respond back with the results which is the purpose of this thread.

 

[doberman]

Mine does! it sings to me and dance in the dark!

I demand video! Fabulous stone!

 

[whitewave]

@Lh2il0 how is it going? Please come back and tell us where you are with this. We are truly interested in helping you figure it out... that is if you still want or need our help.

 

[Dancing Fire]

I demand video! Fabulous stone!

Thanks, but IDK how to take a video. plus I don't wanna blind you.

 

[Dmndsr4evr11]

lol, not agreeing to all your sentiments but I think I understand what you mean. I know that superideal cut stone isn't everyone's cup of tea and they certainly have a "look" to them that not all appreciate. When HOF started their marketing, I went into one of the stores and wasn't too impressed, especially for the tag price. During around that time, I much preferred the look of Tiffany's or Cartier's brighter diamonds with higher pavilions. I do love OEC, 60/60, and especially love 34/41 (still with H&A patterns but much brighter) in addition to my H&A e-ring. I appreciate them all for their beauty for their unique personalities. The challenge for most is finding their own preference.

@blueMA - does that mean with that combo, it looks like a higher color than it’s graded as it’s “brighter”? Thanks.

 

[beardog]

You were all sitting in a room together. OP walked in & farted. Then left the room locking the door behind her & is looking through the window watching all of you argue over who the guilty party is

 

[blueMA]

@blueMA - does that mean with that combo, it looks like a higher color than it’s graded as it’s “brighter”? Thanks.

@Dmndsr4evr11
Remember the chart of diagrams I shared with you with the higher pavilions with the arrows getting brighter? Similar concept. That's why I love 34/41 combo, and many experts with long years of experience do themselves. You only need to see this post to see it for yourself. You better believe it the diamond on the left isn't what's considered a "superideal."

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/adding-symmetry-to-hca-scores.246504/#post-4488743

As far as the ideal cut helping the brightness of a diamond, you must visit this thread.
A bit of tilt will almost always reveal the diamond's true body color when the full light reflection doesn't disguise the body color. However, a diamond with a larger table and higher pavilion will look relatively brighter.
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/igi-certification.246325/page-2#post-4484661

 

[whitewave]

You were all sitting in a room together. OP walked in & farted. Then left the room locking the door behind her & is looking through the window watching all of you argue over who the guilty party is

This happens to us occasionally.

 

[dumbo]

Tough crowd!
I agree though: the only way to "compare" is to go side-by-side. We went with a trusted vendor here (Rami at Solomon Brothers) and he said the same: a diamond can grade well, and look great in an ASET or Idealscope, but really the best test is with an experienced set of eyes. He sold us more of a 60-60 diamond (larger table) but it faces up very bright and is every bit as impressive as the super ideals we compared it against. The others may have more fire and this one is just super bright, but in the end, her stone was simply more diamond for the money. What we paid for her 4ct would have gotten us 3.3ct from a superideal vendor, at best. We had to be VERY patient to get this stone however. Well cut, large stones at reasonable prices aren't always readily available. We had to do our homework and work with the right vendor.

Her earrings are from a SuperIdeal vendor: the price difference isn't great, so why not skip the research and order what we want while not paying a big premium? A SuperIdeal e-ring would have been great, but even if her non-superideal stone is, say, 2% less bright than a superideal but 20% bigger, then the choice is obvious. The overall light reflection in the larger stone far outweighs the smaller differences between the two, and that is simply speculation. Neither idealscope showed leakage, and side by side, they were just as bright. But 4ct is a lot more impressive than 3.3ct.

 

[dumbo]

Most B&M store personnel are unfortunately horribly uneducated of diamonds. I'm sure you or most other PSers here would run circles around them. B&M stones also don't come at good price, and can be more expensive than online superideals.

No one denies online superideals are easy buys. I've recommended many novice to press the easy button.

However, for some motivated people willing to research and put some effort into the considerable once in a lifetime purchase that could easily save 20K or more, it's worth the bother to pursue additional options.

That was our experience. In no way could I have gotten her into a 4ct stone that was superideal without dropping down to N or lower color. But a very well cut 60-60 diamond I could. We had both in hand, both set, and she wore both for a week each before choosing. The 3.3ct Superideal got lots of compliments (she sees a lot of new people each day, mostly women, so it was a good test), but the 4ct 60-60 that also returns a ton of light got a lot more compliments! 3-4 per day average, vs 1-2 for the smaller superideal. Yes, there is something to be said for the point of diminishing returns vs value, and superideals get quite expensive above 3ct. I was happy to shop BG for her earrings however!

 

[blueMA]

The overall light reflection in the larger stone far outweighs the smaller differences between the two, and that is simply speculation.

That's not a speculation. It is what anyone who's had long years of expertise in jewelry market know by heart. I may not have sold any jewelry in my life, but I assure you that I'm a professional diamond starer!

I'm quoting @Rockdiamond of what he said recently.
"My experience working with actual people and actual diamonds is that diamonds are loved for so many reasons. Based solely on "online research" one could easily get the idea that if you don't buy AGSL 0 you're automatically buying an inferior diamond.
A lot of folks will choose a 1.25, technically less well cut than a 1.00 perfectly cut when they are actually looking at the diamonds in person!... "Cut is king" is another one of those sayings for me....sure, cut is important- but truly....nothing is the "most important" to everyone....."

He's not alone and another expert has said very recently if he ever runs a B&M, He'd stock the store with less than perfect cut diamonds for best bargains for performance to consumers.

Many people on PS get very emotional when discussing branded superideals. What's important is that novice and other visitors don't feel pressured to purchase a superideal in fear of missing out of notable performance, nor ever feel like they own a Hyundai vs a Porche simply because they don't own a branded superideal. The analogy can paint a picture, but it's not true.

I have no doubt your wife's 4ct 60/60 is an absolute knockout. 60/60 fans love brilliant diamonds and to some that's more important than other aspects of diamond performance. You're right about point of diminishing return vs value, but it really doesn't even have to be that when you can purchase diamond that has absolutely no performance difference to the naked eye from a superideal unless under a scope.

 

[Dmndsr4evr11]

@Dmndsr4evr11
Remember the chart of diagrams I shared with you with the higher pavilions with the arrows getting brighter? Similar concept. That's why I love 34/41 combo, and many experts with long years of experience do themselves. You only need to see this post to see it for yourself. You better believe it the diamond on the left isn't what's considered a "superideal."

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/adding-symmetry-to-hca-scores.246504/#post-4488743

As far as the ideal cut helping the brightness of a diamond, you must visit this thread.
A bit of tilt will almost always reveal the diamond's true body color when the full light reflection doesn't disguise the body color. However, a diamond with a larger table and higher pavilion will look relatively brighter.
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/igi-certification.246325/page-2#post-4484661

Yes, @blueMA. I remember the chart and thought it was most interesting. I have never thought much about how different combos with seemingly small differences can affect how a diamond performs. Thank you for the links. Very interesting. I appreciate your expertise and patience with me so much .

 

[blueMA]

Yes, @blueMA. I remember the chart and thought it was most interesting. I have never thought much about how different combos with seemingly small differences can affect how a diamond performs. Thank you for the links. Very interesting. I appreciate your expertise and patience with me so much .

You're welcome! I know you love tiny table and steep crown for fire, and there's nothing wrong with that! People's preference can be subject to the type of general lighting in their living environment as well. When it comes to diamond cut, it's a compromise so that's why people tend to look for more "balanced" stones such as in Tolk Ideals (superideal proportions) as to FIC, BIC, or other outlier proportions that are all so lovely!

 

[whitewave]

@Dmndsr4evr11
Remember the chart of diagrams I shared with you with the higher pavilions with the arrows getting brighter? Similar concept. That's why I love 34/41 combo, and many experts with long years of experience do themselves. You only need to see this post to see it for yourself. You better believe it the diamond on the left isn't what's considered a "superideal."

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/adding-symmetry-to-hca-scores.246504/#post-4488743

As far as the ideal cut helping the brightness of a diamond, you must visit this thread.
A bit of tilt will almost always reveal the diamond's true body color when the full light reflection doesn't disguise the body color. However, a diamond with a larger table and higher pavilion will look relatively brighter.
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/igi-certification.246325/page-2#post-4484661

Those stones on the right were obstructed, but you left that part of the discussion out. They were not equal in the photography.

 

[whitewave]

@gm89uk said”

“In all fairness, the Bhajan stone looks brighter because the arrows are lighting up, and not obstructed. My wife's diamond is a 35/40.8, and at my normal viewing distance (just less than 12 inches), I see just the occasional black arrow, rather than 8 stark black arrows. The 40.7- 40.8 pavilion superideals do not look like 8 black arrows in real life either. So is the assessment of the diamonds too close? More so than would be when someone is viewing the stone? Maybe the parameters and apparent brightness would be different if they were recorded and assessed at a different focal length.

I like the point at which the black arrow turns white, and dispersion is at its best.”

And
“I can of course view it closer and see the obstruction, but it's not a common way to view the diamond

@Serg in several of your photos KP has the LGF and the pavilion mains are obstructed. This suggests the video was taken at the distance most likely to pronounce the performance of the 34.8/41.2. Those two diamonds would excel at different distances and so it's not entirely fair to judge a winner at just one distance / level of obstruction.”

And then Garry said: “I expect the stones were painted.

Yes, Sergey and me have had this debate for several years. His argument re stereo vision is good, but in my experience diamonds with those proportions look terrible when they get dirty (Sergey disagrees with me, we had that debate too).”


I suggest interested persons read that entire thread instead of one cherry picked part.

 

[blueMA]

Those stones on the right were obstructed, but you left that part of the discussion out. They were not equal in the photography.

How did I leave that out? I've obviously posted a link for people to check out the thread?
It is a known fact that 40.6 stones tend to be more affected by obstructions that the ones with higher pavilion.
Jeez aren't you getting tired of the pissing contest that you claim to detest?

 

[blueMA]

I suggest interested persons read that entire thread instead of one cherry picked part.

Exactly. I'm getting tired of correcting for others. They were obviously equal in photography.