Strongly disagree. High precision one carat can produce substantial fire. The lighting conditions have to be conducive, but that is true of any diamond.I agree shoppers are not cross shopping 3cts and 1/2 ct diamonds.
BUT- my perception is that the aspect of fire is commonly discussed here on PS without the consideration of size being introduced.
For example- a person buying a one carat may be influenced by comments regarding fire.
A one carat round is simply not going to produce a lot of fire events- no matter how well cut.
A 60/60's attribultes of spread and scintillation remain consistent regardless of size.
The ability of diamond (or any other material) to disperse light into it's colored spectral components is well understood and can be measured. There is no debate that a given diamond's ability to produce fire is controlled by the cut.
Few buyers, if any, are concerned only with fire to the exclusion of other attributes. Nor do many want to completely sacrifice fire to get a diamond that has slightly larger outer dimensions (spread). Astute buyers want to the best possible combination of optical properties.
I think you vastly underestimate the consumers researching their diamond purchase and finding their way here. It is not a "tiny minority that know what we are talking about when we refer to fire".We are in complete disagreement on a number of points you make Bryan.
In my experience dealing with consumers, there are indeed people who place fire at a high priority- people that choose a diamond based on that ability. Of course, that type of buyer gravitates to well cut stones by nature. Basically, buyers that are actually aware of what we are talking about when we refer to "Fire" is a tiny minority.
Most buyers have no idea what we mean by Fire in this discussion.
Spread is an undeniable attraction to exponentially MORE buyers than those seeking the dispersion we are talking about.
Give someone an extra mm of size in exchange for the prism action and most will choose size.
We will surely agree that the "most" I'm talking about are not aware of cut as we ( PriceScope members) know it.
But there's plenty of people interested in getting a well cut diamond ( including many PS members) that place a high priority on spread.
Your question about fire completely overlooks the other aspects which are crucial.If a well cut 60/60/80LGF is compared to a well cut 57/61.5/80LGF of the same carat weight is there really a significant difference in potential fire? Is the only significant different in the potential for fire in the thickness of the arrows?
Gretag,
An AGSL report is your best evidence that no critical aspect has been overly compromised, as the light performance system evaluates a 3D model of the actual diamond and measures brightness, fire, contrast, and leakage. It also factors in spread.
If that is not available, then looking at LP images will give indications if anything is problematic.
HI Gretag,
Thank you for attempting to continue and possibly illuminate the discussion.
From my perspective, AGS0 is too narrow if a buyer loves the look of a well cut 60/60.
Your question about fire completely overlooks the other aspects which are crucial.
Between the hypothetical, equal carat weight 60/60/80LGF, versus 57/61.5/80LGF- what is the comparative spread of the two stones?
Kbell - your post highlights some of what I'm pointing out here.My stone is considered a 60/60... it's GIA triple ex... 1.5 carat... I absolutely LOVE it and so has everyone else who's seen it in person including my appraiser. All my friends said it is SO sparkly. I think it looks amazing in all lighting conditions. I'm not saying it's better/equal to PS "ideal" proportions, I'm saying we all love it anyway and I wouldn't trade it for another. I can see why anyone who views the diamonds in person might choose one especially if it's priced well below a "super ideal" and is a well cut 60/60.
Can you explain and describe GIA Cut grade Excellent 60/60 stones or combinations that you would not choose?
Your thesis would be much stronger if you could prove or minimize the differences in potential fire between some 60/60s and 'Superideal' in the potential for fire. I believe a case can be made for that in theory although I have not had the opportunity to compare two candidates that fit the criteria.
Burying and misdirecting that particular point with overall beauty assessments where all aspects of beauty must be considered at the same time just waters down your argument.
SPREAD!!!
The elephant in the room.
Let's focus on FIRE ( even if you'll never really notice that aspect in most lighting environments, or at all if your stone is too small)
Forget about how large the diamond looks.
In my experience, far more people care about how large the stone looks than certain aspects of cut that are near impossible to see. And it's entirely possible to be a "Cut Nut" and care about spread.
I agree there are more important aspects than fire for my diamond buying dollar. I think a balance is better than weighting any aspect like spread or fire too much.Fire, per se, is not on all that high my list of attributes that make me love a diamond- nor is it high on the vast majority of diamond buyers based on my experience. You are conveniently ignoring my point about actual facet size, and how it affects fire.
Any discussion of "fire" that omits actual facet size is truly misleading.
There are so many other aspects of cut that people WILL see and be drawn to....such as spread.
Irrelevant to the discussion of whether the 5% extra spread gives you significantly more fire potential. That is a 300% difference which will dwarf any more subtle differences from cut.How about between a 1.00 and a 3.00ct?